Navigating the Ethical Terrain of AI in Education: A Systematic Review on Framing Responsible Human-Centered AI Practices
Open accessAbstract
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years, there has been an increasing number of studies on integrating AI in various educational contexts, ranging from early childhood to higher education. Although systematic reviews have widely reported the effects of AI on teaching and learning, limited reviews have examined and defined responsible AI in education (AIED). To fill this gap, we conducted a convergent systematic mixed studies review to analyze key themes emerging from primary research. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched Scopus and Web of Science and identified 40 empirical studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Specifically, we used four criteria for the screening process: (1) the study's full text was available in English; (2) the study was published before April 10th, 2024 in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings; (3) the study was primary research that collected original data and applied qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods as the study methodology; and (4) the study had a clear focus on ethical and/or responsible AI in one or multiple educational context(s). Our findings identified essential stakeholders and characteristics of responsible AI in K-20 educational contexts and expanded understanding of responsible human-centered AI (HCAI). We unveiled characteristics vital to HCAI, encompassing Fairness and Equity, Privacy and Security, Non-maleficence and Beneficence, Agency and Autonomy, and Transparency and Intelligibility. In addition, we provided suggestions on how to achieve responsible HCAI via collaborative efforts of stakeholders, including roles of users (e.g., students and educators), developers, researchers, and policy and decision-makers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies emphasize that trust, transparency, and ethical governance are foundational for the successful use of AI in education.
“These findings are consistent with previous studies [64,65], which emphasize that trust, transparency, and ethical governance are foundational for the successful use of AI in education.”
From Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: trends, benefits, and challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [65]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 95 · Cited by 195
- Authors
- Fu, Y., & Weng, Z.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Whitewater (US)
- Duke Kunshan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Fu, Yao
- ORCID
- Venue
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-12
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 100306
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402635151
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 118 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 14.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- responsible AI, human-centered AI, AI ethics in education, artificial intelligence in education, equity and fairness, privacy and security, stakeholder collaboration, K-20 education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review