AI-Driven Learning: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Prospects
Abstract
This chapter examines how student privacy can be protected as educational institutions adopt Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. The chapter analysis real-world cases including InBloom, AltSchool, and Pearson to explore the benefits and risks of collecting student data for educational purposes. The chapter investigates the types of student information being gathered and its uses in modern classrooms. Based on these findings, the chapter developed a framework that combis privacy protection technology, ethical guidelines, and legal consideration to help schools implement AI responsibly. The chapter also provides essential guidance for school administrators, teachers, and policymakers who must balance innovation with student privacy rights. The findings emphasize that successful AI integration requires careful attention to privacy concerns and sustained collaboration between educators and technology experts. This work offers a path forward for schools to use AI tools effectively while protecting student information.
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?
The InBloom initiative attempted to centralize student data across US school districts and was shut down following public outcry over data sharing practices.
“the InBloom initiative, which attempted to centralize student data across US school districts and was shut down following public outcry over data sharing practices”
From Harms and Ethical Risks of AI Detection Tools in Education: False Positives, Bias, Surveillance, and Student Rights (2026) · cites this paper as Ismail et al. (2025)
AltSchool involved algorithmic profiling of young children that raised fundamental questions about consent, appropriate use, and long-term consequences of early behavioral data collection.
“AltSchool, where algorithmic profiling of young children raised fundamental questions about consent, appropriate use, and the long-term consequences of early behavioral data collection.”
From Harms and Ethical Risks of AI Detection Tools in Education: False Positives, Bias, Surveillance, and Student Rights (2026) · cites this paper as Ismail et al. (2025)
Cites
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · see citing works
Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118 · Cited by 1,181 · see citing works
Walter, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3 · Cited by 1,113 · see citing works
In search of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in teacher education: A scoping review
Sperling, K., Stenberg, C.-J., McGrath, C., Åkerfeldt, A., Heintz, F., & Stenliden, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100169 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
Good proctor or “big brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Lee, S. J., & Kwon, K. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100211 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Student Vulnerability, Agency and Learning Analytics: An Exploration
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2016) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2016.31.10 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence Integration: Pedagogical Strategies and Policies at Leading Universities
Alqahtani, N., & Wafula, Z. (2025) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-024-09749-x · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
GİRAY, L., CANER, H. N., & AMOOZEGAR, A. (2026) · Journal of Narrative and Language Studies · doi:10.59045/nalans.2026.109
- Authors
- Ismail, I. A., Alkhateeb, M. O., & Alkaabi, M. H.
- Affiliations
- English and Foreign Languages University (IN)
- An-Najah National University (PS)
- Zayed University (AE)
- Venue
- Advances in Computational Intelligence and Robotics
- Publisher
- IGI Global Scientific Publishing
- Published
- 2025-05-21
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 2327-0411 (ISSN-L)
- 2327-042X
- OpenAlex
- W4410580309
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Data Privacy and Cybersecurity
- Keywords
- student privacy, artificial intelligence in education, student data collection, privacy preservation, moral norms, legal issues, responsible AI deployment, Pearson, privacy framework, educational technology
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
