Integration of artificial intelligence in national science curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in national science curricula across 21 countries, including Australia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Iceland, Ireland, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Ontario (Canada), Poland, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. By analyzing these curricula, the research identifies the presence of AI-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how AI is embedded in educational frameworks. The findings reveal a strong emphasis on practical AI skills, interdisciplinary knowledge, ethical considerations, and societal impacts, preparing students to thrive in an AI-driven future. This comprehensive approach highlights AI’s transformative potential in education. The study emphasizes AI’s role in fostering problem-solving skills and active learning, underscoring the need for practical AI applications and comprehensive teacher training in AI concepts. The analysis also identifies gaps in the explicit mention of “artificial intelligence” itself, suggesting a broader focus on related concepts. Notably, AI is not frequently mentioned explicitly in the curricula but is often approached under the umbrella of information and communication technology in relation to science. Recommendations for enhancing AI integration include comprehensive teacher training, continuous curriculum evaluation, and the inclusion of the ethical and societal implications of AI. This research provides valuable insights for educators and policymakers, highlighting the need for a well-rounded curriculum that prepares students for the future challenges and opportunities presented by AI technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".