Existing AI literacy frameworks treat teacher agency narrowly as tool adoption, leaving human–AI co-agency undertheorized¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitative r2 · q1–q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Reviewed frameworks define agency as adopting tools, writing effective prompts, and making individual use decisions, which the authors argue misses ethical and civic demands. → Shahin Hossain 2026 q1 i? Pre-service teachers showed over-reliance and reduced critical agency when practicing with GenAI tools, illustrating the consequence of this gap. → Shahin Hossain 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Shahin Hossain 2026¶

Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li, Idowu David Awoyemi, Wei Huang, Chenxi Zhou, Jujia Li, Samaa Haniya, Shapla Khanam, Tasbirun Mashreka Subaha. (2026). Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K–12 Teacher Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01705 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01705

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Qualitative framework analysis of the AI literacy corpus: agency was defined in the literature as educators' behavioral intention to adopt AI tools, write effective prompts, and make individual tool-use decisions. "The concepts of agency across the reviewed studies were consistently inter- preted in narrow, instrumental terms," which the authors argue does not capture ethical and civic demands.

"The concepts of agency across the reviewed studies were consistently inter- preted in narrow, instrumental terms (Zhou et al., in press)."

Shahin Hossain 2026 (2)¶

Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li, Idowu David Awoyemi, Wei Huang, Chenxi Zhou, Jujia Li, Samaa Haniya, Shapla Khanam, Tasbirun Mashreka Subaha. (2026). Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K–12 Teacher Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01705

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review reports, citing Zhang et al. (2025), that "pre-service teachers had an over-reliance and less critical agency when they were practicing with GenAI tools." The design of that underlying study is not described here; the finding is attributed, not independently verified.

"Zhang et al. (2025) reported that pre-service teachers had an over-reliance and less critical agency when they were practicing with GenAI tools."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI's role in shaping interaction, epistemic agency, and shared regulation in collaborative learning remains under-theorized — related
• The agent/consumer distinction is not primarily technical sophistication but capacity to interrogate the assumptions of AI outputs — related
• AI integration in academic settings has outpaced regulatory frameworks, leaving ethical practices, assessment, and institutional responses inconsistent — related
• AI adoption in higher education appears to progress faster than institutional policies, ethical frameworks, and governance structures, creating a policy–practice gap — related
• No existing AI literacy framework explicitly names prompt construction as a competency — related
• The review argues that the dominance of adaptive learning within AI integration undermines educational goals and limits student agency and creativity — related
• Despite a student's claims of purely human authorial agency, posthumanist analysis of his AI-mediated revision shows meaning co-produced through human-AI entanglement — related
• Teacher professional judgement is represented in AI ethics literature as an ethical and interpretive capacity central to responsible AI use, not a technical skill to be replaced — reports the opposite