Interviewed teachers cite poor AI output quality and risks to students' cognitive engagement as main obstacles, and subject-specific use cases as their top professional-development need¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The most frequently cited obstacles were insufficient AI output quality and concerns about declining students' cognitive engagement (n = 9 each). → Nikolai Maurer 2026 q2 i? Teachers most emphasized subject-specific examples of AI application as professional-development content (n = 11), ahead of general use overviews (n = 7). → Nikolai Maurer 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Nikolai Maurer 2026¶

Nikolai Maurer, Mathea Brückner, Christoph Thyssen, Sebastian Becker-Genschow, Johannes Huwer. (2026). Science educators' AI literacy and AI usage in teaching: Implications for post-qualification programs. Computers and Education Open 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100376

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Semi-structured post-questionnaire interviews with n = 21 teachers, analyzed by inductive consensus coding; obstacle counts are descriptive frequencies with no effect size. Teachers also cited lack of teacher competencies and costs (n = 7 each).

"Regarding the obstacles teachers perceive in using AI, the most frequently cited issues fell into the categories of insufficient "output quality" of AI and concerns about a decline in students' cognitive engagement when AI is used as a tool in the classroom ("lack of cognitive ability") (n = 9 each)."

Nikolai Maurer 2026 (2)¶

Nikolai Maurer, Mathea Brückner, Christoph Thyssen, Sebastian Becker-Genschow, Johannes Huwer. (2026). Science educators' AI literacy and AI usage in teaching: Implications for post-qualification programs. Computers and Education Open 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100376

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Same interview study: coded responses on desired professional-development topics, with subject-specific examples (n = 11) ranked first and general use (n = 7) second; needs for time savings (n = 6) and legal frameworks (n = 5) were also expressed.

"Regarding professional development, most teachers explicitly emphasized the importance of subject-specific examples for the application of AI ("specific examples of use") (n = 11), followed by an overview of general application possibilities for AI ("general use") (n = 7) as the two most relevant topics."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teachers who perceive the challenges and barriers of using AI as high (cost) may be less motivated to use it (theoretical argument). — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Students' top two concerns about educational LLM use are output quality (fabricated or misleading content, 53 mentions) and the verification burden (34 mentions) — related
• Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership — related
• The most frequently cited ethical concerns about GenAI in research were hallucinated facts, fabricated references, and misleading content — related
• AI output errors are frequent: 44.5% fabricated references in drafted research proposals and 5–13% unsafe chatbot medical answers — related
• Resource mismatch, missing incentives, and discontinuous post-training support constrain the sustainability of training transfer — related
• Students' main AI challenges are content reliability and depth, and most expect AI to serve as tutor, creative partner, and critical thinking partner rather than mere content generator — related
• Students perceive LLM chatbots as useful for learning but requiring critical use, reporting hallucinations, overconfidence, and dependency risks — related
• Educators use AI tools mainly for personalized learning and language support and frequently use generative AI for lesson planning — related