Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42577311›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Artificial intelligence and teacher competence: a scoping review of assessment, analytics, and professional development.

Nurseit Baizhanov, Batyr Sharimbayev, Zhairan Churbanova, Akzhan Khaidarova, Lyazzat Shinetova

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nurseit BaizhanovNational Testing Center, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Batyr SharimbayevDepartment of Information Systems, SDU University, Kaskelen, Kazakhstan.
Zhairan ChurbanovaNational Testing Center, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Akzhan KhaidarovaNational Testing Center, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Lyazzat ShinetovaNational Testing Center, Astana, Kazakhstan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review maps how artificial intelligence (AI) is being connected to teacher competence in recent research. The review was based on 33 peer-reviewed articles published in 2022-2026 and identified through a bounded Web of Science search. Its purpose was not to evaluate intervention effectiveness, but to describe the extent, range, and nature of the available evidence on AI, machine learning (ML), and learning analytics (LA) in teacher assessment, modeling, and professional development within this indexed corpus. The mapped literature suggests two broad lines of work. One uses AI, ML, LA, and computational psychometrics to assess teaching practice, model teacher development, or measure AI-TPACK-related competence. The other treats AI as part of what teachers themselves need to know and do. Instruments represented in the corpus, such as TAICS, T-GAIC, AI-SRLS, AI-TPACK, and RAIS, broaden the concept of competence to include AI literacy, self-efficacy, ethical reasoning, readiness, and teacher-AI co-teaching. The review found frequent use of supervised machine learning, regularized regression, EFA, CFA, SEM, and learning analytics, but limited reported use of explainable AI, subgroup fairness analysis, multimodal validation, and longitudinal designs. Quality appraisal indicated stronger support for measurement-structure claims than for causal claims about professional-development effectiveness or high-stakes AI deployment.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencelearning analyticsmachine learningteacher competencyteacher professional development

Identifiers

PMID42577311
PMCPMC13454033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.