Cited by 364Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Power to the Teachers: An Exploratory Review on Artificial Intelligence in Education

Open access
Lameras, Petros, Arnab, Sylvester·2021·Information

Abstract

This exploratory review attempted to gather evidence from the literature by shedding light on the emerging phenomenon of conceptualising the impact of artificial intelligence in education. The review utilised the PRISMA framework to review the analysis and synthesis process encompassing the search, screening, coding, and data analysis strategy of 141 items included in the corpus. Key findings extracted from the review incorporate a taxonomy of artificial intelligence applications with associated teaching and learning practice and a framework for helping teachers to develop and self-reflect on the skills and capabilities envisioned for employing artificial intelligence in education. Implications for ethical use and a set of propositions for enacting teaching and learning using artificial intelligence are demarcated. The findings of this review contribute to developing a better understanding of how artificial intelligence may enhance teachers’ roles as catalysts in designing, visualising, and orchestrating AI-enabled teaching and learning, and this will, in turn, help to proliferate AI-systems that render computational representations based on meaningful data-driven inferences of the pedagogy, domain, and learner models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/info13010014

Cites

107 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 4 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The integration of AI into everyday teaching practice remains complex, uneven, and highly context-dependent.

    “Despite these anticipated benefits, the integration of AI into everyday teaching practice remains complex, uneven and highly context-dependent (Lameras & Arnab, 2021).”

    From Teachers' Experiences with AI in K–12 Education: Opportunities and Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as Lameras & Arnab, 2021

    The Introduction describes teachers’ decision to use AI as complex and ill-defined. Sections 3.3 and 3.6.2 also say that AI-supported teaching must account for the activity’s context and teachers’ skills. The paper does not establish that integration into everyday teaching practice is uneven. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Teachers' interpretations of AI align with constructivist perspectives that position teachers as facilitators.

    “Such interpretations align with constructivist perspectives in which teachers position themselves as facilitators who guide learning rather than merely transmit knowledge (Lameras & Arnab, 2021;Vygotsky, 1978).”

    From Teachers' Experiences with AI in K–12 Education: Opportunities and Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as Lameras & Arnab, 2021

  • The findings resonate strongly with constructivist and sociocultural approaches, which conceptualize learning as an interactive and mediated process shaped by tools, social interaction, and professional judgment.

    “From a theoretical perspective, the findings resonate strongly with constructivist and sociocultural approaches, which conceptualize learning as an interactive and mediated process shaped by tools, social interaction, and professional judgment (Lameras & Arnab, 2021;Vygotsky, 1978).”

    From Teachers' Experiences with AI in K–12 Education: Opportunities and Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as Lameras & Arnab, 2021

  • An instructional design model-either new or old-contributes to scientific knowledge.

    “Taking into account the abundance of new technological means and tools (e.g., Spatiotis et al. [17]), such as automated artificial intelligence systems, digital educational games, and virtual reality worlds, an instructional design model-either new or old-contributes to scientific knowledge (e.g., Lameras and Arnab [18]; and Soto [12]).”

    From A Comparative Study of the ADDIE Instructional Design Model in Distance Education (2022) · cites this paper as Lameras and Arnab [18]

    Section 3.4 discusses pedagogical and learner models as ways to represent knowledge for adaptive teaching, but does not say that an instructional design model—new or old—contributes to scientific knowledge. A search for that claim found no passage in our copy that addresses it. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Seldon, A.; Abidoye, O. The Fourth Education Revolution: Will Artificial Intelligence Liberate or Infantilise Humanity; The University of Buckingham Press: Buckingham, UK, 2018.
  2. Puentedura, R. SAMR: Moving from Enhancement to Transformation. In Proceedings of the 2013 AIS ICT Management and Leadership Conference, Canberra, Australia, 29 May 2013.
  3. Cameron, R.M. A.I.-101: A Primer on Using Artifical Intelligence in Education; Exceedly Press: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2019.
  4. Piaget, J. Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child; Orion Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
  5. Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
  6. Ellis, R.A.; Goodyear, P. Students' Experiences of e-Learning in Higher Education: The Ecology of Sustainable Innovation; Open and Flexible Learning Series; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  7. Walker, E.; Rummel, N.; Koedinger, K. Adaptive Support for CSCL: Is It Feedback Relevance or Increased Student Accountability That Matters? International Society of the Learning Sciences: Hong Kong, China, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 334-341.
  8. Chatterjee Singh, N.; Duraiappah, A.K. Rethinking Learning: A Review of Social and Emotional Learning Frameworks for Education Systems; UNESCO MGIEP: New Delhi, India, 2020.
  9. Bosch, N.; D'Mello, S.K.; Baker, R.S.; Ocumpaugh, J.; Shute, V.; Ventura, M.; Wang, L.; Zhao, W. Detecting Student Emotions in Computer-Enabled Classrooms. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'16, New York, NY, USA, 9-15 July 2016; pp. 4125-4129.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lameras, P., & Arnab, S.
Affiliations
Coventry University (GB)
Corresponding author
Lameras, Petros
Venue
Information
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-12-29
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
14
ISSN
2078-2489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200613005
Cited by
291
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 17
FWCI
31.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
British Academy (SRG1920 / 100529)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, teacher role, teacher reflection, ethical use of AI, student model

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