This paper reports on findings from two pre‑validation workshops conducted as part of the PAIDEIA Project, a European initiative aimed at preparing teachers for the responsible and pedagogically meaningful integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education. The workshops brought together educational experts, primary school teachers, and secondary school teachers to review and provide feedback on the AI&ED Competence Framework and the accompanying Teacher Professional Development Program prior to large‑scale piloting. As international frameworks increasingly emphasise the need for AI literacy and ethical awareness among educators  (European Commission. Joint Research Centre., 2017; UNESCO, 2021), the pre‑validation phase served as a critical step in ensuring that the PAIDEIA curriculum is usable, relevant, and aligned with teachers’ professional realities.

Participants explored the Five‑unit curriculum, which covers AI awareness, teaching with AI, guiding students in AI use, and ethical considerations. While the curriculum’s ambition and clarity were widely acknowledged, a consistent concern across both workshops was the overall course length. The proposed 36‑hour duration was viewed as unrealistic for typical teacher professional development contexts, echoing broader research on workload constraints in teacher learning (Creagh et al., 2025). Participants recommended reducing the duration or modularising the course into smaller, more manageable units to enhance engagement and feasibility.

Feedback also highlighted concerns regarding the overuse of AI‑generated content, particularly the recurring presence of “Teacher Tamara,” an AI‑generated persona embedded in several activities. Participants expressed a preference for authentic teacher testimonials and real‑world classroom case studies, arguing that these would enhance credibility, relatability, and pedagogical relevance. This aligns with existing literature emphasising the importance of authenticity and contextualisation in teacher professional development (Hamash et al., 2024; Holmes et al., 2023; Plust et al., 2021). Participants further stressed the need for differentiated content to address the distinct needs of novice teachers and experienced practitioners, who engage with AI tools in different ways.

Although the curriculum’s theoretical foundation was appreciated, participants called for a stronger balance between conceptual content and practical, classroom‑oriented examples. They emphasised the value of hands‑on activities, real teaching scenarios, and opportunities to experiment with AI tools, elements shown to support meaningful teacher learning (Boulhrir & Hamash, 2025; Holmes & Tuomi, 2022). The ethical focus in Unit 4 was particularly well received, with participants recognising the importance of equipping teachers to navigate issues such as bias, transparency, and data protection.

Feedback on platform usability was mixed. Some participants found the interface intuitive, especially when the left‑hand navigation menu remained visible. Others reported inconsistencies between click‑through modules and scrollable web pages, as well as technical issues in interactive exercises. Drag‑and‑drop activities did not function reliably across devices, text‑matching quizzes were overly restrictive, and self‑reflection questionnaires allowed users to bypass content by selecting “strongly agree.” Additional concerns included poor mobile responsiveness, readability issues caused by colour choices, and the need for clearer progress indicators, subtitles, and improved accessibility features.

Participants also emphasised the importance of transparency regarding the use of AI tools within the course itself, recommending clearer explanations of their purpose and limitations. Across both workshops, there was a strong preference for a more concise, streamlined format that balances theory with practice and supports teachers’ diverse levels of experience. Overall, the pre‑validation workshops provided essential insights into the usability, authenticity, and pedagogical alignment of the PAIDEIA curriculum. The feedback offers a clear roadmap for refinement prior to full‑scale piloting and contributes to broader discussions on how to design effective, ethically grounded AI professional development for educators.

The pre‑validation phase employed a qualitative, exploratory design to gather external feedback on the AI&ED Competence Framework and the Teacher Professional Development Program. This approach aligns with established practices in early‑stage educational design research, where iterative refinement is informed by stakeholder perspectives (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Holmes et al., 2023). Two workshops were conducted with a total of participants representing educational experts, primary school teachers, and secondary school teachers. This diverse sample ensured that feedback reflected a range of pedagogical contexts and professional experiences, consistent with recommendations for inclusive curriculum validation (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). Participants engaged with the Five‑unit curriculum and its associated digital platform, exploring content related to AI awareness, pedagogical integration, student guidance, and ethical considerations. Data collection involved multiple sources. First, participants interacted with the online course environment, allowing researchers to observe navigation patterns, usability challenges, and engagement with interactive elements. Second, structured feedback was gathered through facilitated discussions, written comments, and workshop debriefs. These feedback mechanisms captured participants’ perceptions of course length, content relevance, authenticity, differentiation, and pedagogical balance. Third, participants provided detailed observations on platform usability, including layout consistency, mobile responsiveness, and the functionality of interactive exercises such as drag‑and‑drop tasks, quizzes, and self‑reflection questionnaires. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six‑phase approach. Codes were generated inductively and grouped into themes related to course structure, content authenticity, pedagogical alignment, usability, accessibility, and differentiation. Triangulation across data sources strengthened the credibility of findings by enabling cross‑validation of themes emerging from observations, discussions, and written feedback (Zawacki‑Richter et al., 2019). Ethical considerations included informed consent, anonymisation of participant contributions, and adherence to GDPR requirements. The workshops were designed not only to collect evaluative data but also to support participants’ professional learning, reflecting the project’s commitment to responsible and participatory curriculum development (UNESCO, 2021).

The pre‑validation workshops provided critical insights into the strengths and limitations of the PAIDEIA Teacher Professional Development Program and the AI&ED Competence Framework. Participants recognised the curriculum’s comprehensive scope and its potential to support meaningful AI integration in education. However, they emphasised the need for substantial revisions to ensure the program is usable, authentic, and pedagogically balanced. A central finding was the need to reduce or modularise the 36‑hour course to better align with teachers’ workload realities. Participants also highlighted the importance of replacing AI‑generated personas with authentic teacher narratives and real classroom examples, reinforcing the value of contextualised learning experiences. The call for a stronger balance between theory and practice reflects broader evidence that teachers learn most effectively when professional development is grounded in practical, classroom‑relevant activities. Usability issues, including inconsistent layouts, technical problems with interactive exercises, and limited mobile responsiveness, were identified as barriers to engagement. Participants also stressed the need for improved accessibility features, clearer progress indicators, and refined survey instruments. Differentiation emerged as another key theme, with participants noting that novice and experienced teachers require distinct forms of support when engaging with AI tools. Overall, the workshops underscored that effective AI professional development must be concise, authentic, accessible, and responsive to teachers’ diverse needs. The feedback gathered provides a clear roadmap for refining the PAIDEIA curriculum before full‑scale piloting and contributes to ongoing discussions about how to prepare educators for ethical and pedagogically sound AI integration.

Boulhrir, T., & Hamash, M. (2025). Unpacking artificial intelligence in elementary education: A comprehensive thematic analysis systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100442 Creagh, S., Thompson, G., Mockler, N., Stacey, M., & Hogan, A. (2025). Workload, work intensification and time poverty for teachers and school leaders: A systematic research synthesis. Educational Review, 77(2), 661–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2196607 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa European Commission. Joint Research Centre. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/159770. Hamash, M. A., Mohamed, H., & Tiernan, P. (2024). Developing a New Model for Achieving Flow State in STEAM Education: A Mixed-Method Investigation. Sains Humanika, 16(3), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v16n3.2163 Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533 Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education. In C. Stückelberger & P. Duggal (Eds.), Data ethics: Building trust: How digital technologies can serve humanity (pp. 621–653). Globethics Publications. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642 Plust, U., Murphy, D., & Joseph, S. (2021). A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative research into teachers’ authenticity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1829546 UNESCO. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/PCSP7350 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(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0