Review article | Open Access
Base for Electronic Educational Sciences 2026, Vol. 7(2) 47-65
Whose Intelligence, Whose Responsibility? Rethinking Ethical and Pedagogical Challenges of AI in Global Education
pp. 47 - 65
Publish Date: September 30, 2026 | Single/Total View: 0/0 | Single/Total Download: 0/0
Abstract
The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into global education raises two fundamental questions: “Whose Intelligence?” and “Whose Responsibility?” This article examines the epistemic, cultural, and pedagogical implications of AI-mediated education, focusing on whose knowledge and values are represented, authorized, and potentially privileged through AI systems. It argues that epistemic authority provides a necessary starting point for understanding accountability, since responsibility depends on decision-making authority and the capacity to intervene. To address this relationship, the research proposes the Distributed Educational AI Responsibility (DEAIR) Framework, a conceptual framework that maps five stakeholder levels—policymakers and regulators, developers and technology providers, educational institutions, educators and mediators, and students and learners—across six educational AI risk domains: algorithmic bias, data privacy, academic integrity, cultural exclusion, cognitive overreliance, and inequality of access. The framework distinguishes between primary operational and mediating or oversight roles, emphasizing that responsibility is distributed but differentiated rather than uniform or exclusive. DEAIR further positions human epistemic authority, pedagogical judgment, and institutional accountability as central to responsible educational AI governance. The study contributes a theoretically grounded framework for examining how responsibility can be allocated across multiple levels of intervention when AI becomes embedded in educational decision-making and practice.
Keywords: AI Governance, Artificial Intelligence, Distributed Responsibility, Education, Epistemic Authority
APA 7th edition
TAMMA, S. (2026). Whose Intelligence, Whose Responsibility? Rethinking Ethical and Pedagogical Challenges of AI in Global Education. Base for Electronic Educational Sciences, 7(2), 47-65.
Harvard
TAMMA, S. (2026). Whose Intelligence, Whose Responsibility? Rethinking Ethical and Pedagogical Challenges of AI in Global Education. Base for Electronic Educational Sciences, 7(2), pp. 47-65.
Chicago 16th edition
TAMMA, Soumia (2026). "Whose Intelligence, Whose Responsibility? Rethinking Ethical and Pedagogical Challenges of AI in Global Education". Base for Electronic Educational Sciences 7 (2):47-65.
Ackermann, H., Henke, A., Chevalère, J., Yun, H. S., Hafner, V. V., Pinkwart, N., & Lazarides, R. (2025). Physical embodiment and anthropomorphism of AI tutors and their role in student enjoyment and performance. npj Science of Learning, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00293-z
Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2024). Unveiling the shadows: Beyond the hype of AI in education. Heliyon, 10(9), e30696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30696
Al-Zahrani, A. M., & Alasmari, T. M. (2024). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: The dynamics of ethical, social, and educational implications. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(912), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03432-4
Arriazu, R. (2025). The daunting challenge of artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 21(1), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135992
Barca, A., & Tripaldi, M. (2026). Artificial intelligence: An anthropocentric, ethical and inclusive approach. Community Notebook. People, Education and Welfare in the Society 5.0, 1(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.61007/QdC.2026.1.408
Batsaikhan, B. Z., & Correia, A.-P. (2024). The effects of generative artificial intelligence on intelligent tutoring systems in higher education: A systematic review. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.33570bb1
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Biesta, G. (2024). Taking education seriously: The ongoing challenge. Educational Theory, 74(3), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12646
European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.
Floridi, L. (2023). AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language models, and other generative models. Philosophy & Technology, 36, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Higher Education Authority. (2025). National framework for the ethical and pedagogical use of artificial intelligence in higher education. Dublin, Ireland: HEA Ireland.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Milakis, E. D., Argyrakou, C. C., Melidis, A., & Vrettaros, J. (2025). ChatGPT and AI chatbots in education: An umbrella review of systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 19, 100–119. https://doi.org/10.46300/9109.2025.19.11
Ministry of Education, China. (2026). The ethics of digital education: A reference framework. Beijing, China: Author. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/
Mimoudi, A. (2025). Generative AI to bridge the educational divide: Personalized learning and challenges. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102140
Natale, S., Tripaldi, A., Befera, L., & Schmid, S. (2026). AI compass for cultural heritage: Reflections for the responsible adoption of generative AI. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20391890
Qin, H., & Zhou, Z. (2026). Feasibility of implementing a multicultural curriculum through artificial intelligence: Perspectives of educational science experts. Scientific Reports, 16, 18137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48953-x
Santos, B. de S. (2015). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. London, England: Routledge.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for students. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/unesco_ai_competency_framework_for_students_.pdf
