Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/cstp.2026.572506.1136
Abstract
This study aimed to explore student teachers’ lived experiences of an artificial intelligence–based curriculum, with particular emphasis on learner agency. Given the experiential, interpretive, and context-dependent nature of the phenomenon, the research was designed within a qualitative framework using a phenomenological approach to capture how student teachers perceive, interpret, and enact their roles when interacting with intelligent curricular systems. The research population consisted of undergraduate student teachers at Farhangian University who had prior experience using AI-based tools and learning environments. Participants were selected through purposive, criterion-based sampling. Data were collected through 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews and analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis with the support of MAXQDA software.The findings resulted in the identification of eight overarching themes, including learner agency and self-regulation, patterns and quality of interaction with AI tools, rethinking curriculum design and assessment, professional identity development, enhancement of cognitive and technological skills, issues of educational equity and access, and the role of institutional policies and support structures. Overall, the results indicate that while AI-based curricula offer significant opportunities for personalized learning and the strengthening of learner agency, they also introduce substantial pedagogical, ethical, and institutional challenges. These findings highlight the need for deliberate curriculum redesign and informed policy-making in teacher education programs to ensure the effective and responsible integration of artificial intelligence in learning environments.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2010). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9134-0
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.005
Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.737356
Brod, G., Kucirkova, N., Shepherd, J., Jolles, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). Agency in educational technology: Interdisciplinary perspectives and implications for learning design. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09749-x
Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024). Impact of AI assistance on student agency. Computers & Education, 210, 104967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967
Deng, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). A theoretical framework of student agency in AI-assisted learning: A grounded theory approach. In L. Khan (Ed.), Oxford intersections: Social media in society and culture. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198945253.003.0009
Gómez, M., & Smith, J. (2023). Enhancing learner agency in teacher education through AI-driven personalized feedback. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231156789
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U. M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Assessing agency of university students: Validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2061–2079. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130693
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kasztelnik, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence-assisted curriculum development: Innovations in designing educational content for the 21st century learner. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 24(11), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v24i11.7367
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9096-0
Li, Y., & Chen, X. (2022). The double-edged sword of AI in teacher training: Balancing automation and learner agency. Computers & Education, 189, 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104582
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for artificial intelligence in education. Pearson / UCL Knowledge Lab.
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037123
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002199
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O’Connor, M., & Silva, R. (2023). Lived experiences of pre-service teachers navigating AI-driven curricula: Identity, anxiety, and agency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 26(3), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202309_26(3).0004
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2643–2656. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12866
Smith, A., Johnson, R., & Williams, T. (2024). Phenomenological insights into pre-service teachers’ lived experiences with AI-integrated curricula. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104289
Stenalt, M. H., & Lassesen, B. (2022). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874
Torres Castro, U. E., & Pineda-Báez, C. (2023). How has the conceptualisation of student agency in higher education evolved? Mapping the literature from 2000–2022. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(9), 1182–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2231358
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhang, L., & Kumar, S. (2024). Reimagining teacher agency in the age of AI: Ethical considerations and pedagogical shifts. Educational Research Review, 41, 100389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100389
Hamedinasab,S. (2026). Student-Teachers’ Lived Experiences of an AI-Based Curriculum with an Emphasis on Learner Agency. Theory and Practice in the Curriculum, 13(26), 295-342. doi: 10.22034/cstp.2026.572506.1136
MLA
Hamedinasab,S. . "Student-Teachers’ Lived Experiences of an AI-Based Curriculum with an Emphasis on Learner Agency", Theory and Practice in the Curriculum, 13, 26, 2026, 295-342. doi: 10.22034/cstp.2026.572506.1136
HARVARD
Hamedinasab S. (2026). 'Student-Teachers’ Lived Experiences of an AI-Based Curriculum with an Emphasis on Learner Agency', Theory and Practice in the Curriculum, 13(26), pp. 295-342. doi: 10.22034/cstp.2026.572506.1136
CHICAGO
S. Hamedinasab, "Student-Teachers’ Lived Experiences of an AI-Based Curriculum with an Emphasis on Learner Agency," Theory and Practice in the Curriculum, 13 26 (2026): 295-342, doi: 10.22034/cstp.2026.572506.1136
VANCOUVER
Hamedinasab S. Student-Teachers’ Lived Experiences of an AI-Based Curriculum with an Emphasis on Learner Agency. TPC, 2026; 13(26): 295-342. doi: 10.22034/cstp.2026.572506.1136
