Cited by 86Artificial Intelligence in EducationDigital literacy in educationDigital Education and Society

AI Literacy in Teacher Education: Empowering Educators Through Critical Co-Discovery

Dilek, Melis, Baran, Evrim, Aleman, Ezequiel·2025·Journal of Teacher Education

Abstract

Teacher education increasingly requires educators to engage with generative AI technologies, yet critical and reflective engagement opportunities remain scarce. While AI is often framed as a tool for automation, its broader pedagogical and ethical implications receive less attention. To address this gap, we implemented a critical co-discovery approach within an online AI in Education (AIEd) course to enhance educators’ AI literacy. This illustrative case study examines which AI literacy components can be developed through critical co-discovery and how this approach fosters educators’ reflective, critical, and participatory engagement with AI. Findings revealed that through co-discovery activities, educators co-constructed an understanding of AI concepts, ethical considerations, and context-specific applications. The study highlights the need for prolonged engagement with AI literacy by integrating it into teacher education program to ensure educators can critically navigate and assert their agency in AI’s complex role in education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00224871251325083

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Engaging key stakeholders in all phases of co-design fosters a deep understanding of the process, increases ownership, and enhances commitment to utilization of resultant findings.

    “Engaging these actors in all phases fosters a deep understanding of the process, increases ownership, and enhances commitment to utilization of resultant findings (Dilek et al., 2025; Patton and Campbell-Patton, 2022).”
  • Recent studies conceptualize the integration of AI into teaching in relation to AI-TPACK, highlighting the need for teachers to develop competencies that enable them to critically and pedagogically integrate AI technologies into instructional practices.

    “Recent studies have also begun to conceptualize this integration in relation to AI-TPACK, highlighting the need for teachers to develop competencies that enable them to critically and pedagogically integrate AI technologies into instructional practices (Dilek et al., 2025; Zhang & Zhang, 2024).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dilek, M., Baran, E., & Aleman, E.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Universidad Tecnológica de Uruguay (UY)
Corresponding author
Baran, Evrim
Venue
Journal of Teacher Education
Published
2025-03-18
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
294-311
ISSN
  • 0022-4871 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7816
OpenAlex
W4408544040
Cited by
86
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 18
FWCI
89.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Teacher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
AI literacy, teacher professional development, generative AI in education, AI ethics, reflective practice, teacher agency, co-construction of knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review