Ethical and Responsible AI in Education: Situated Ethics for Democratic Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As AI systems increasingly structure educational processes, they shape not only what is learned, but also how epistemic authority is distributed and whose knowledge is recognized. This article explores the normative and technopolitical implications of this development by examining two prominent paradigms in AI ethics: Ethical AI and Responsible AI. Although often treated as synonymous, these frameworks reflect distinct tensions between formal universalism and contextual responsiveness, between rule-based evaluation and governance-oriented design. Drawing on deontology, utilitarianism, responsibility ethics, contract theory, and the capability approach, the article analyzes the frictions that emerge when these frameworks are applied to algorithmically mediated education. The argument situates these tensions within broader philosophical debates on technological mediation, normative infrastructures, and the ethics of sociotechnical design. Through empirical examples such as algorithmic grading and AI-mediated admissions, the article shows how predictive systems embed values into optimization routines, thereby reshaping educational space and interpretive agency. In response, it develops the concept of situated ethics, emphasizing epistemic justice, learner autonomy, and democratic judgment as central criteria for evaluating educational AI. To clarify what is at stake, the article distinguishes adaptive learning optimization from education as a process of subject formation and democratic teaching objectives. Rather than viewing AI as an external tool, the article conceptualizes it as a co-constitutive actor within pedagogical practice. Ethical reflection must therefore be integrated into design, implementation, and institutional contexts from the outset. Accordingly, the article offers (1) a conceptual map of ethical paradigms, (2) a criteria-based evaluative lens, and (3) a practice-oriented diagnostic framework to guide situated ethics in educational AI. The paper ultimately argues for an approach that attends to the relational, political, and epistemic dimensions of AI systems in education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".