Home All Issues Issue articles Previous article Next article

Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge

Konstantinos T Kotsis 1 *
1 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
Educational Point, 3(2), 2026, e167, https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619
Publication date: Oct 15, 2026
Review Article
Open Access Open Access
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, changes assessment by altering the evidential relationship among student work, learning, and professional judgment. Teachers must design tasks when students can readily obtain machine-generated responses, interpret automated feedback and analytics whose validity is conditional, and justify consequential decisions under uncertainty. This critical integrative review synthesizes scholarship on AI in education, assessment, teacher learning, and emerging professional-development interventions. It proposes Assessment-AI Knowledge (A-AIK) as an assessment-specific configuration of professional knowledge rather than a replacement for assessment literacy, AI literacy, or technological pedagogical content knowledge. A-AIK comprises three interdependent capacities: design competence, which establishes conditions for eliciting meaningful evidence; interpretive competence, which calibrates the meaning, uncertainty, and evidential weight of AI-mediated information; and justificatory competence, which supports transparent, fair, and reviewable decisions. Disciplinary authenticity, human agency, equity, transparency and data governance, and epistemic humility operate as cross-cutting commitments. The reviewed literature suggests that promising interventions use scenarios, authentic assessment redesign, structured critique, peer deliberation, and iterative classroom trials. Recurrent limitations include small samples, reliance on self-report, short duration, and measures of confidence or acceptance rather than demonstrated assessment performance. A four-phase professional-learning model—calibrate, redesign, enact, and justify, is proposed as a synthesis-informed design hypothesis requiring empirical evaluation. The article concludes with provisional performance indicators, institutional conditions, and a research agenda for responsible AI-mediated assessment.

KEYWORDS

artificial intelligence assessment literacy generative AI teacher education professional development

CITATION (APA)

Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge. Educational Point, 3(2), e167. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619
Harvard
Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge. Educational Point, 3(2), e167. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619
Vancouver
Kotsis KT. Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge. Educational Point. 2026;3(2):e167. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619
AMA
Kotsis KT. Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge. Educational Point. 2026;3(2), e167. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619
Chicago
Kotsis, Konstantinos T. "Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge". Educational Point 2026 3 no. 2 (2026): e167. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619
MLA
Kotsis, Konstantinos T "Preparing Teachers to Assess in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Integrative Review and Framework for Assessment-AI Knowledge". Educational Point, vol. 3, no. 2, 2026, e167. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19619

REFERENCES

  1. Awadallah Alkouk, W., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2024). AI-resistant assessments in higher education: Practical insights from faculty training workshops. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1499495. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1499495
  2. Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13337
  3. Blonder, R., Feldman-Maggor, Y., & Rap, S. (2025). Are they ready to teach? Generative AI as a means to uncover pre-service science teachers’ PCK and enhance their preparation program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34, 1301–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10180-2
  4. Bower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J. W. M., Petocz, P., & Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative artificial intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 15403–15439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12405-0
  5. Brandão, A., Pedro, L., & Zagalo, N. (2024). Teacher professional development for a future with generative artificial intelligence: An integrative literature review. Digital Education Review, 45, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.151-157
  6. Corbin, T., Tai, J., & Flenady, G. (2025). Understanding the place and value of GenAI feedback: A recognition-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(5), 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2459641
  7. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
  9. Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429324178
  10. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
  11. European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/153756
  12. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  13. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
  14. Karakaya Özyer, K., & Aydın, B. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) meets assessment: Experimental insights into teacher candidates’ attitudes and acceptance. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 14(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.5190
  15. Kortemeyer, G. (2023). Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(1), Article 010132. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010132
  16. Kotsis, K. T. (2025). Misconceptions about artificial intelligence from preservice teachers: A literature review. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 3(2), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i2.565
  17. Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Artificial intelligence and the professional work of physics teachers in STEAM education. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technological Development, 2(2), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.59324/jaitd.2026.2(2).18
  18. Kotsis, K. T., & Stylos, G. (2026). The AI Act and the future of STEM education in Europe: Rethinking pedagogy, assessment, and teacher agency. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1845045. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1845045
  19. Meegan, J., & Young, K. (2025). It’s a tool not a crutch: A pilot generative AI intervention to enhance pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and AI literacy. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 1895–1916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09875-1
  20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  21. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
  22. Panagou, D., Stylos, G., & Kotsis, K. T. (2025). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perspectives on integrating artificial intelligence in education. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 5(2), Article ep2514. https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/17297
  23. Park, E. E., Bodek, M. J., & Valcin, J. (2026). Prompted to explore: A microlearning model for faculty development in generative AI. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 14(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v14i1.41614
  24. Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003
  25. Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), Article 07. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
  26. Shenoy, P., & Saarela, M. (2026). A critical review and actionable framework for integrating generative AI into teacher professional development. Discover Education, 5, Article 570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01579-7
  27. Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841
  28. Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, Article 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
  29. Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075
  30. UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391104
  31. Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z
  32. Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.