Towards a Psychologically Grounded Framework for Ethical, Inclusive, and AI-Enhanced Education

Arpana Koul; Bharti Tandon; Bindu  Dua

doi:10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v7ii.1125

Autores

Arpana Koul MIER College of Education, Jammu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-915X
Bharti Tandon MIER College of Education, Jammu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0279-5084
Bindu Dua MIER College of Education, Jammu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3634-9645

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v7ii.1125

Palavras-chave:

Inteligência Artificial na Educação, Psicologia Educacional, Aprendizagem Adaptativa, Pedagogia Inclusiva, Analítica da Aprendizagem, Ética da Inteligência Artificial, Inteligência Artificial Generativa (IAG)

Resumo

Contexto: A rápida integração da inteligência artificial (IA) aos sistemas educacionais em todo o mundo apresenta oportunidades significativas para a aprendizagem personalizada, a pedagogia inclusiva e as práticas instrucionais orientadas por dados. No entanto, sistemas de IA desenvolvidos sem uma compreensão de como os estudantes adquirem conhecimento, mantêm a motivação, regulam as emoções e respondem a diferentes contextos sociais e culturais podem, inadvertidamente, reforçar desigualdades educacionais já existentes.

Objetivo: Este artigo propõe um referencial conceitual que posiciona a psicologia educacional como fundamento principal, e não como consideração secundária, para o desenvolvimento e a avaliação de sistemas educacionais apoiados por IA.

Métodos: O referencial foi desenvolvido por meio de uma síntese narrativa sistemática da literatura revisada por pares, de documentos internacionais de políticas públicas e de evidências empíricas recentes, com base em buscas realizadas nas bases PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus e Web of Science, abrangendo o período de 2011 a 2025. O processo foi complementado pelo rastreamento retrospectivo e prospectivo de citações e pela análise de relatórios internacionais de políticas públicas. A busca identificou aproximadamente 620 fontes potencialmente relevantes, das quais cerca de 65 foram incorporadas após a triagem de títulos e resumos e a leitura dos textos completos, conforme critérios explícitos de inclusão.

Resultados: O referencial resultante é composto por três componentes interconectados: uma compreensão da diversidade dos estudantes fundamentada psicologicamente; práticas pedagógicas inclusivas e inovadoras viabilizadas por IA; e ensino reflexivo em ambientes inteligentes de aprendizagem. Esses componentes são relacionados, por meio de uma tabela de referência, a aplicações específicas de IA, evidências empíricas ilustrativas e implicações para a inclusão. Uma análise comparativa entre o Leste Asiático, a Europa, a África Subsaariana e o Sul da Ásia também identifica desafios específicos de cada região, diferentes contextos de políticas públicas e lacunas persistentes de validação intercultural, particularmente no que se refere à IA generativa e às ferramentas de aprendizagem adaptativa.

Conclusão: O referencial oferece a desenvolvedores de IA, formadores de professores e formuladores de políticas públicas uma base fundamentada psicologicamente, empiricamente mapeada e contextualizada internacionalmente para o desenvolvimento de sistemas educacionais apoiados por IA que promovam equidade, engajamento dos estudantes e uma transformação educacional significativa, desde que sejam adequadamente considerados o acesso, a preparação dos professores, a validade cultural e as salvaguardas éticas.

Biografia do Autor

Arpana Koul, MIER College of Education, Jammu, India

Ms. Arpana Koul is an Assistant Professor and Deputy Head in the School of Social Sciences and Humanities, MIER College of Education (Autonomous), Jammu at MIER College of Education, Jammu, with 14 years of teaching experience. She holds dual Master’s degrees inEnglish and Psychology, a M.Ed., and has qualified for the National Eligibility Test (NET) in
Education. Her areas of specialisation include Psychology, English Language, basic research, and statistics. She actively contributes to the academic community through innovative teaching practices and research initiatives. Ms. Koul has extensively worked in web-based learning environments and MOOCs, fostering digital engagement and inclusive learning. She has numerous journal publications and has presented at several conferences, reflecting her commitment to advancing educational research and sharing best practices in her areas of expertise.

Bharti Tandon, MIER College of Education, Jammu, India

Assistant Professor, MIER College of Education

Bindu Dua, MIER College of Education, Jammu, India

Assistant Professor, MIER College of Education

Referências

Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. Journal of Learning Analytics, 9(2), 134–158. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2022.7798

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2024). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224

D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Ellucian. (2024). Higher education technology trends report: AI adoption, bias, and security. Ellucian. https://www.ellucian.com/insights/higher-education-technology-trends-report

Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and the importance of student engagement. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202304_26(2).0007

García-Martínez, I., Tadeu, P., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, G. (2023). Adaptive learning technologies and their effects on student performance: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 195, 104719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104719

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://curriculumredesign.org/our-work/artificial-intelligence-in-education/

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2016/Intelligence-Unleashed-Publication.pdf

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610

Molenaar, I. (2022). Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12527 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12527

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Britten, N. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC methods programme (Version 1). Lancaster University. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Shi, Y., Yu, K., Dong, Y., & Chen, F. (2025). Large language models in education: a systematic review of empirical applications, benefits, and challenges. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100529

Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Strielkowski, W., Vlasov, A., Selivanov, A., Kalyugina, S., & Shakhnov, V. (2024). AI-driven adaptive learning for sustainable educational transformation. Sustainable Development, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3221

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016