Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into basic general education creates new possibilities for differentiated teaching, while neuroeducation contributes evidence on attention, memory, motivation, self-regulation, and learning. This documentary review aimed to examine pedagogical strategies derived from both fields and assess their opportunities and limitations in school teaching and learning. A targeted search of academic literature published between January 2020 and August 31, 2026 was conducted using thematic relevance, editorial traceability, and educational applicability criteria. PRISMA 2020 guidance informed transparent reporting of the selection process, without claiming an undocumented exhaustive quantitative flow. The synthesis drew on 16 verified academic publications and four methodological or institutional sources. Findings were organized into four dimensions: neuroeducational principles, AI-supported personalization, teacher competencies, and ethical implementation conditions. Reviewed studies suggest opportunities for differentiated feedback, graduated tasks, active learning, and lesson planning. However, they also identify persistent neuromyths, variable accuracy of generative outputs, children’s data privacy risks, and unequal access to digital infrastructure. The review concludes that combining neuroeducation and AI can be pedagogically relevant when AI remains a supervised support tool, measurable learning outcomes are assessed, and technological personalization is not confused with neurocognitive diagnosis. Teacher judgment, inclusion, and evidence-based instructional design should guide implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: