Faculty members and students identify both user-related and algorithm-related ethical risks in AI use in education¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Faculty members framed ethical risks as user-related (academic integrity violations, lack of ethical oversight, professional competence erosion) and algorithm-related (manipulation, information reliability, privacy, bias). → Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026 q2 i? Students reported parallel user-related and algorithm-related risks, including false information, manipulation, privacy concerns, bias, and intellectual property violations. → Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026¶

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever (2026). Understanding ethical dimensions of AI in higher education: insights from faculty members and students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00601-0

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Qualitative theme from faculty interviews. Under user-related risks participants cited academic integrity violations and lack of ethical oversight; under "Algorithm-Related Ethical Risks", they highlighted algorithmic manipulation, information reliability, privacy and data security, and algorithmic bias.

"Faculty members assessed ethical risks in terms of user-related and algorithm-related forms"

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026 (2)¶

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever (2026). Understanding ethical dimensions of AI in higher education: insights from faculty members and students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00601-0

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Qualitative theme from student interviews mirroring the faculty structure. Students cited academic integrity violations and lack of oversight as user-related risks, and "the production of false information", algorithmic manipulation, privacy and data security, algorithmic bias, and intellectual property violations as algorithm-related risks.

"Students also expressed ethical risks in a similar manner, based on users and algorithms"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Faculty perceptions of student ethical inadequacy contradict students' own acceptance of ethical responsibility, with both groups showing pragmatic conscious acceptance of AI — related
• Faculty members and students anticipate AI will transform education and professions, sharing concerns that excessive dependence could weaken cognitive skills — related
• Nursing students and faculty report concerns that AI use may weaken critical thinking, enable plagiarism and misinformation, and create unequal access — related
• Ethical risk management of AI in education proceeds bottom-up through individual faculty guidance and student self-strategies because institutional support is lacking — related
• Algorithmic bias and data privacy are central ethical risks of AI in adult education — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The most reported risks of AI tools in science and chemistry education are ethical issues, including gender and racial bias, hallucinations, copyright infringement, and plagiarism — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The review identifies data privacy, algorithmic fairness, academic integrity, and unequal access as interconnected ethical concerns in AI-supported mathematics education — related
• Academic integrity, professional development, and equity concerns about AI span all surveyed units, though interpreted differently — related
• Generative AI systems carry strong potential for introduced and inherited bias — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Human-AI relationship concerns persist across all CAI generations while academic integrity and data privacy are emerging ethical concerns — related
• Community adults entering an AI education session held broad, generalized concerns about AI, including distrust of self-regulation and privacy worries — related
• Faculty concerns centered on academic integrity (80%) and student over-reliance on AI (70%), and their most requested development topic was AI ethics and academic integrity (70%) — related
• Ethical and governance dimensions of AI were less prominent in teachers' narratives than pedagogical opportunities — reports the opposite
• Educators' use of AI in PBL is accompanied by persistent ethical concerns about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and educator autonomy — related
• Students raised ethical concerns about GenAI-assisted data comic creation, most frequently misinformation, bias, ownership, and reduced trustworthiness — related
• University academic staff express substantial concerns about academic integrity, ethics, and erosion of skills such as critical thinking and creativity in relation to GenAI. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Critical AI literacy emerged as both a learning-design goal and a condition of teachers' professional mediation — related
• Students framed an effective GenAI course policy as an interconnected system in which knowledge, evaluation, collaboration, contextualization, autonomy, ethics, and institutional responsibility mutually shape one another — related
• Reviewed studies identify data privacy, algorithmic bias, unequal access, and epistemic trust as central ethical concerns in educational AI — related
• Educator- and institutional-level challenges include curricular misalignment, need for teacher mediation, unequal access, privacy concerns, academic integrity risks, and algorithmic bias — a broader claim this one bears on
• GenAI in education presents a dual profile of potential benefits and significant concerns — related
• Data-based recording of educational processes risks narrowing education to quantifiable output indicators and raises data sovereignty and algorithmic ethics issues — related
• Review reports ethical concerns of educational AI including algorithmic bias and exploitation of personal data — related
• Universities converge on privacy-oriented data guardrails, warning against entering sensitive data into consumer AI tools and encouraging institutionally approved services — related
• Students' stated beliefs about AI use diverge from their actual practice, including hidden or unrecognized policy-violating use — related
• When students raised ethics in essays, concerns concerned authorship and integrity rather than privacy or data — related
• Integrating AI in CS assessment raises concerns about academic integrity, algorithmic bias, transparency, and ethical evaluation — related
• GenAI raises privacy, transparency, bias and accuracy concerns in group work, though empirical evidence remains limited — related
• Common risks of AI integration in nursing education include technological inequities, faculty preparedness gaps, and ethical concerns around privacy and bias — related
• Ethical concerns (bias, transparency, privacy, authorship, accountability) emerge as cross-cutting dimensions of GenAI-specific TPK across studies of teacher educators — related
• Integrating AI in collaborative learning raises challenges including algorithmic bias, over-reliance on technology, and teacher training needs — related
• An AI-enabled world demands a data-literate citizenry able to read, use, interpret, and communicate about data and participate in AI-related policy debates — related
• Concerns about accuracy, reliability, academic integrity, and potential negative effects on cognitive and social development were consistently highlighted across many included studies. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Among 245 Indonesian undergraduates, majorities reported concern about reduced critical thinking when depending on AI (75%), excessive reliance (73%), misinformation (70%) and unintentional plagiarism (69%), and 40% about algorithmic bias — related
• Respondents identified algorithmic bias (31.9%), data privacy (27.5%), and technical reliability (27.5%) as the primary risks of AI in education — related
• PGR students strongly opposed uploading human-participant or sensitive qualitative data to GenAI platforms or using GenAI to interpret such data — related
• Faculty members reported greater ethical-boundary strictness about GenAI than students, the only group difference surviving Bonferroni adjustment — related