Capabilities and skills are explicitly addressed in only 3 of 36 reviewed GenAI studies, marking a gap in AI-literacy and educator-capability research¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the 36-article systematic review corpus, AI tools in education (n = 26) and contexts of use (n = 19) dominate, while capabilities and skills appear in only 3 articles. → Alvedi Sabani 2026

Evidence¶

Alvedi Sabani 2026¶

Alvedi Sabani, Mohamed H. Farah, Putra Endi Catyanadika, Dian Retno Sari Dewi, Vineet Tawani. (2026). Rewriting the curriculum: A systematic review of generative AI-driven pedagogical change and emerging systems of learning in higher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 11 (2026) 100667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100667

q2 · i? · review · r2

Thematic synthesis of the 36-study PRISMA corpus using axial and selective coding (Table 2). The review reports AI tools in education in 26 articles and contexts of use in 19, but finds "capabilities and skills were explicitly addressed in only 3 of the 36 articles", which the authors read as a gap in AI literacy and pedagogical competency research.

"Surprisingly, capabilities and skills were explicitly addressed in only 3 of the 36 articles."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Rigorous investigation of GenAI's actual educational and cognitive effects remains limited despite increasing integration into learning environments — related
• GenAI-mediated digital inequality in higher education extends beyond access to tool capability, skills, and pedagogical support — related
• Little attention has been paid to the undesirable consequences of indiscriminate AI application, including automation-driven socio-economic inequality — related