AI in education: learner choice and fundamental rights
Open accessAbstract
This article examines benefits and risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education in relation to fundamental human rights. The article is based on an EU scoping study [Berendt, B., A. Littlejohn, P. Kern, P. Mitros, X. Shacklock, and M. Blakemore. 2017. Big Data for Monitoring Educational Systems. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/94cb5fc8-473e-11e7-aea8-01aa75ed71a1/]. The study takes into account the potential for AI and ‘Big Data’ to provide more effective monitoring of the education system in real-time, but also considers the implications for fundamental human rights and freedoms of both teachers and learners. The analysis highlights a need to balance the benefits and risks as AI tools are developed, marketed and deployed. We conclude with a call to embed consideration of the benefits and risks of AI in education as technology tools into the development, marketing and deployment of these tools. There are questions around who – which body or organisation – should take responsibility for regulating AI in education, particularly since AI impacts not only data protection and privacy, but on fundamental rights in general. Given AI’s global impact, it should be regulated at a trans-national level, with a global organisation such as the UN taking on this role.
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
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?
Rights-aware educational research establishes the relevance of learner choice, academic values, legal literacy, and context-specific governance.
“Rights-aware educational research establishes the relevance of learner choice, academic values, legal literacy, and context-specific governance(Berendt et al., 2020;Lukianova et al., 2025;Memarian & Doleck, 2023;Oncioiu & Bularca, 2025;Panagopoulou et al., 2025;Temper et al., 2025).”
From Responsible AI in Polish Higher-Education Administration under the EU AI Act: High-Risk Use Cases, Fundamental-Rights Impact Assessment, and Institutional Accountability (2026) · cites this paper as Berendt et al., 2020
The Introduction and §4 emphasize learner choice and agency, while §4 says approaches to AI regulation differ with national views of education and culture. §2.3 discusses the school as a protected space, which bears on academic values. The paper discusses legal rights and privacy rules, but the passages do not establish legal literacy as a distinct research or governance priority. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe rapid proliferation of AI in education raises concerns about data privacy, security, and ownership.
“Moreover, the rapid proliferation of AI in education raises concerns about data privacy, security, and ownership (Berendt et al., 2020).”
From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Berendt et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 281
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Anonymous (2017). Anonymised for double-blind review.
- D'Ignazio, C. & Klein, L.F. (2018/in press). Data Feminism. Boston, MA: MIT Press. https://bookbook.pubpub.org/data-feminism Economist (2014). Eyes on the classroom. The Economist. Jul 26, 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21608640-close-education-gap-latin- america-must-produce-better-teachers-eyes-classroom
- Gutwirth, S. & De Hert, P. 2006. Privacy, data protection and law enforcement. Opacity of the individual and transparency and power. In: E. Claes, A. Duff, & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Privacy and the Criminal Law (pp. 61-104). Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia.
- Kuzilek, J., Hlosta, M., Herrmannova, D., Zdrahal, Z., & Wolff, A. (2015). OU Analyse: analysing at-risk students at The Open University. Learning Analytics Review, LAK15- 1, 1-16.
- Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2014). Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 49-64.
- Pringle, R., Michael, K., & Michael, M.G. (2016). Unintended Consequences of Living with AI. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Dec. 2016, 17-21.
- Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2016). Student vulnerability and agency in networked, digital learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 19(2).
- Purtova, N. (2017). Do Property Rights in Personal Data Make Sense after the Big Data Turn? Individual Control and Transparency. Journal of Law and Economic Regulation, 10(2). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3070228
- Authors
- Berendt, B., Littlejohn, A., & Blakemore, M.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- University College London (GB)
- Ecorys (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Berendt, Bettina
- Venue
- Learning, Media and Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-07-02
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 312-324
- ISSN
- 1743-9884 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-9892
- OpenAlex
- W3039143701
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 26.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- lirias.kuleuven.be
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Learning Media and Technology (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Online (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, big data, fundamental human rights, student choice, data protection, privacy, AI regulation, transnational regulation, United Nations, teachers' rights, benefits and risks of AI
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
