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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Research on AI literacy, teacher conceptions, and pedagogical decision-making consistently emphasises contextual reasoning, ethical sensitivity, and reflective practice. → Chamil Arkhasa Nikko Mazlan 2026
Evidence¶
Chamil Arkhasa Nikko Mazlan 2026¶
Chamil Arkhasa Nikko Mazlan, Muhammad Atiullah Othman, Ahmad Rithaudin Md Noor, Surasak Jamnongsarn, Riyan Hidayatullah. (2026). From abstract ethics to situated practice: a bibliometric analysis of AI ethics and professional judgement. Educational technology research and development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10630-1
q2 · i? · associational · r2
The article's synthesis of highly cited education studies (Sperling et al., 2024; Yau et al., 2023) in its Conclusion, reporting that "teacher professional judgement is represented in the literature not as a technical skill". Second-hand attribution; no effect size.
"teacher professional judgement is represented in the literature not as a technical skill to be replaced or standardised, but as an ethical and interpretive capacity central to responsible AI use in educational settings."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Reflective capacity is regarded by many as an essential characteristic of professional competence in the health professions — related
- Existing AI literacy frameworks treat teacher agency narrowly as tool adoption, leaving human–AI co-agency undertheorized — reports the opposite
- Existing institutional AI literacy frameworks converge on a consumer model with no substantive treatment of training data politics or governance participation — reports the opposite
- High-level feedback on reasoning and synthesis should remain a human responsibility for the foreseeable future — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Surveyed professionals show strong technical AI awareness but limited ethical and governance readiness — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teacher-judgement-ethical-interpretive-capacity |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — chamil-arkhasa-nikko-mazlan-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.