The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unveiling the shadows: Beyond the hype of AI in education
Open accessAbstract
Despite the wave of enthusiasm for the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in reshaping education, critical voices urge a more tempered approach. This study investigates the less-discussed 'shadows' of AI implementation in educational settings, focusing on potential negatives that may accompany its integration. Through a multi-phased exploration consisting of content analysis and survey research, the study develops and validates a theoretical model that pinpoints several areas of concern. The initial phase, a systematic literature review, yielded 56 relevant studies from which the model was crafted. The subsequent survey with 260 participants from a Saudi Arabian university aimed to validate the model. Findings confirm concerns about human connection, data privacy and security, algorithmic bias, transparency, critical thinking, access equity, ethical issues, teacher development, reliability, and the consequences of AI-generated content. They also highlight correlations between various AI-associated concerns, suggesting intertwined consequences rather than isolated issues. For instance, enhancements in AI transparency could simultaneously support teacher professional development and foster better student outcomes. Furthermore, the study acknowledges the transformative potential of AI but cautions against its unexamined adoption in education. It advocates for comprehensive strategies to maintain human connections, ensure data privacy and security, mitigate biases, enhance system transparency, foster creativity, reduce access disparities, emphasize ethics, prepare teachers, ensure system reliability, and regulate AI-generated content. Such strategies underscore the need for holistic policymaking to leverage AI's benefits while safeguarding against its disadvantages.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“since as Al-Zahrani (2024) points out, enhancements in AI transparency could simultaneously support teacher professional development and foster better student outcomes.”
From Exploring the effects of artificial intelligence on student and academic well-being in higher education: a mini-review (2025) · cites this paper as Al-Zahrani, 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, these initiatives are rarely anchored in pedagogical principles and commonly overlook critical dimensions such as ethical responsibility, mitigation of algorithmic bias, responsible use of generative models and the risk of over-reliance on automated outputs [11].”
From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215
Shin, D. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551 · Cited by 1,548
AI and education: guidance for policy-makers
UNESCO (2021) · doi:10.54675/pcsp7350 · Cited by 929
Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: a review
Anantrasirichai, N., & Bull, D. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7 · Cited by 793
Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions
Kordzadeh, N., & Ghasemaghaei, M. (2022) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1927212 · Cited by 770
Artificial intelligence innovation in education: A twenty-year data-driven historical analysis
Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020) · International Journal of Innovation Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijis.2020.09.001 · Cited by 665
Chounta, I., Bardone, E., Raudsep, A., & Pedaste, M. (2021) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00243-5 · Cited by 622
In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability
Ryan, M. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00228-y · Cited by 600
Survey Methods in Social Investigation.
Moss, L., Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344698 · Cited by 552
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Chaudhry, 2022, vol. 2, 157
- Copeland, 2023, Artificial intelligence (AI) | definition, examples, types, applications, companies, & facts, Encyclopedia Britannica
- Shneiderman, 2020, vol. 1, 73
- Heinrichs, 2021, vol. 37, 143
- Owe, 2021, vol. 1, 517
- Sit, 2020, vol. 11
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Al-Zahrani, A. M., & Alasmari, T. M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03432-4 · Cited by 292
Klimova, B., & Pikhart, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1498132 · Cited by 203
Khan, S., Mazhar, T., Shahzad, T., Khan, M. A., Rehman, A. U., Saeed, M. M. A., & Hamam, H. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-00809-6 · Cited by 133
Derakhshan, A., & Park, Y. (2026) · Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) · doi:10.1080/10824669.2026.2625660 · Cited by 85
Ethical Challenges Associated with the Use of Artificial Intelligence in University Education
Marín, Y. R., Caro, O. C., Rituay, A. M. C., Llanos, K. A. G., Perez, D. T., Bardales, E. S., Tuesta, J. N. A., & Santos, R. C. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09660-w · Cited by 157
Metadata
- Authors
- Al-Zahrani, A. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Jeddah (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Al-Zahrani, Abdulrahman M.
- Venue
- Heliyon
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-05
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e30696
- ISSN
- 2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11087970
- OpenAlex
- W4396622564
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 116 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 84.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, AI implementation challenges, data privacy and security, algorithmic bias, AI transparency, critical thinking, equitable access, AI ethics, teacher professional development, AI-generated content, AI reliability
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
