In the AI-focused subset, professional development and teacher accompaniment (35.0%) and instructional design and assessment (32.5%) are the predominant approaches, with pedagogical limitations the main barrier¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Among 40 AI-focused studies, AI-supported professional development and teacher accompaniment was the most frequent primary approach (n = 14; 35.0%), followed by instructional design and assessment for learning (n = 13; 32.5%). → Patiño Hernández JF 2026 q2 i? The most frequent primary barrier in the AI subset was pedagogical limitations or superficial AI integration (n = 14; 35.0%), followed by insufficient AI-related preparation or professional competence (27.5%). → Patiño Hernández JF 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Patiño Hernández JF 2026¶

Patiño Hernández JF, Chiappe A and Ortega González E (2026). From digital competence to AI-responsive pedagogy: a scoping review of technology-supported teacher education. Front. Educ. 11:1949296. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1949296

q2 · i? · review · r2

Descriptive primary-category frequency analysis of the dedicated AI-focused subset (N = 40) in the Results section. The quote prints "n = 14; 35.0%" for professional development/accompaniment and "n = 13; 32.5%" for instructional design and assessment.

"AI-supported professional development and teacher accompaniment was the most frequent (n = 14; 35.0%), followed closely by instructional design and assessment for learning (n = 13; 32.5%)."

Patiño Hernández JF 2026 (2)¶

Patiño Hernández JF, Chiappe A and Ortega González E (2026). From digital competence to AI-responsive pedagogy: a scoping review of technology-supported teacher education. Front. Educ. 11:1949296. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1949296

q2 · i? · review · r2

Descriptive frequency analysis of primary barriers in the AI subset (N = 40). The quote prints 35.0% for pedagogical limitations or superficial integration and 27.5% for insufficient AI-related preparation. The review states the principal challenge is not access to AI functionality itself but pedagogical, professional and institutional conditions.

"Pedagogical limitations or superficial forms of AI integration were the most frequent primary concern (n = 14; 35.0%), followed by insufficient AI-related preparation or professional competence (n = 11; 27.5%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Academic integrity, professional development, and equity concerns about AI span all surveyed units, though interpreted differently — related
• AI support in higher education is concentrated in instructional, assessment, and feedback decisions, with curriculum and learning-environment decisions least supported — related
• Institutional barriers to AI integration — ethics concerns, insufficient training, policy gaps, and infrastructure limits — are widespread and co-occurring — related
• In the retrieved corpus of digitally supported teacher education research, competence and ICT-integration frameworks are the most frequent primary strategy (46.5%) — related
• Digital competence development is the most frequently reported advantage (76.1%) of digitally supported teacher education strategies — related
• Educator-focused digital literacy frameworks prioritize pedagogy, empowering learners, and curriculum and assessment, with more evenly distributed categories — related
• Infrastructure, connectivity or limited access is the most frequent barrier (45.2%) to digitally supported teacher education — reports the opposite