Ethical considerations of integrating new educational technologies into the classroom – Technological ethics construction based on the protection of "thinking sovereignty"
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/cr645d59Keywords:
Educational Technology, Classroom Ethics, Reflective Sovereignty, Cognitive Substitution, Technological Intentionality.Abstract
With the large‑scale integration of new educational technologies such as generative artificial intelligence, adaptive learning systems, and affective computing into classrooms, the corresponding ethical discussions have primarily focused on privacy, fairness, and interpersonal relationships. This paper raises a deeper ethical issue that has not yet received sufficient attention – the implicit relinquishment of students’ “thinking sovereignty”. Drawing on the theory of technological intentionality, the article reveals how educational technology, under the legitimate goals of “precision”, “efficiency”, and “adaptability”, has shifted from being an auxiliary tool to a cognitive substitute, thereby eroding students’ metacognitive abilities, creative will, and independent thinking rights. To address this crisis, the article constructs three ethical principles – “cognitive friction retention”, “sovereignty transparency”, and “developmental autonomy” – in hopes of preserving an irrevocable thinking territory for education in the technological era.
Downloads
References
[1] Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
[2] Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
[3] Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.
[4] Molenaar, I. (2022). The concept of scaffolding in the age of artificial intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2153–2172.
[5] Park, S. (2023). When AI thinks for us: the erosion of human cognition. Skeptic, 28(2), 34–41.
[6] Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
[7] Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.
[8] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
[9] Wang, T., Zheng, J., Tan, C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023). Computer-based scaffoldings influence students' metacognitive monitoring and problem-solving efficiency in an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12824
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







