ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Ethical use of artificial intelligence in education: proposed ethical competency framework for teachers.
Review 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education is transforming teaching, learning, and professional development through personalized instruction, adaptive learning, and data-driven educational practices. However, in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, many teachers still lack the ethical awareness and practical competencies required for the responsible use of AI technologies. Challenges related to data privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability, and equitable access continue to hinder effective AI adoption in teacher education and classroom practice. This study proposes a contextualized ethical competency framework to support the responsible and effective integration of AI among teachers in both countries. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, comprising a systematic literature review and a pilot implementation study involving 30 teachers from diverse educational levels and institutional contexts. The framework was developed through a qualitative synthesis of international AI ethics frameworks, responsible AI principles, and teacher competency literature. It was subsequently evaluated using quantitative measures and qualitative feedback collected from participating teachers. Results: The findings provide preliminary evidence that teachers perceived the proposed framework positively in terms of effectiveness (M = 3.73), usability (M = 3.63), and ethical compliance (M = 3.83). Qualitative findings further indicated that the framework enhanced ethical awareness, responsible AI use, personalized instructional practices, and AI-supported learning design. Participants also identified several implementation challenges, including limited prior AI knowledge, insufficient technical support, and the need for continuous professional development. Discussion and conclusion: This study contributes to the growing body of research on ethical AI integration in education by introducing a localized framework that combines ethical governance with practical AI integration competencies for teachers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The findings underscore the importance of sustained teacher training, institutional readiness, ethical governance, and supportive policies to facilitate responsible AI adoption in education. Future research should conduct large-scale longitudinal studies to further validate the framework and evaluate its scalability, effectiveness, and long-term educational impact across diverse educational settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.