AI Sensing and Intervention in Higher Education: Student Perceptions of Learning Impacts, Affective Responses, and Ethical Priorities
Bingyi Han, Ying Ma, Simon Coghlan, Dana McKay, George Buchanan, Wally Smith
Abstract
AI technologies that sense student attention and emotions to enable more personalised teaching interventions are increasingly promoted, but raise pressing questions about student learning, wellbeing, and ethics. In particular, students' perspectives about AI sensing-intervention in learning are often overlooked. We conducted an online mixed-method experiment with Australian university students (N=132), presenting video scenarios varying by whether sensing was used (in-use vs. not-in-use), sensing modality (gaze-based attention detection vs. facial-based emotion detection), and intervention (by digital device vs. teacher). Participants also completed pairwise ranking tasks to prioritise six core ethical concerns. Findings revealed that students valued targeted intervention but responded negatively to AI monitoring, regardless of sensing methods. Students preferred system-generated hints over teacher-initiated assistance, citing learning agency and social embarrassment concerns. Students' ethical considerations prioritised autonomy and privacy, followed by transparency, accuracy, fairness, and learning beneficence. We advocate designing customisable, social-sensitive, non-intrusive systems that preserve student control, agency, and well-being.
• Human-centred computing → human computer interaction (HCI); User studies;; human computer interaction (HCI); HCI design and evaluation methos; Empirical studies in HCI.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 33966686-de25-4784-920b-cb49b4bc245eCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on11
- Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and ContestabilityMireia Yurrita, Tim Draws, Agathe Balayn, Dave Murray-Rust et al.CHI 2023 · 73 citations
- Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment AlgorithmsSamantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, Niloufar SalehiCHI 2021 · 57 citations
- Breaking out of the Lab: Mitigating Mind Wandering with Gaze-Based Attention-Aware Technology in ClassroomsStephen Hutt, Kristina Krasich, James R. Brockmole, Sidney K. D'MelloCHI 2021 · 56 citations
- Data Work in Education: Enacting and Negotiating Care and Control in Teachers' Use of Data-Driven Classroom Surveillance TechnologyAlex Jiahong Lu, Tawanna R. Dillahunt, Gabriela Marcu, Mark S. AckermanCSCW 2021 · 48 citations
- Classroom Digital Twins with Instrumentation-Free Gaze TrackingKaran Ahuja, Deval Shah, Sujeath Pareddy, Franceska Xhakaj et al.CHI 2021 · 44 citations
Related papers
- From Regulation to Support: Centering Humans in Technology-Mediated Emotion Intervention in Care ContextsJiaying Liu, Shuer Zhuo, Xingyu Li, Andrew Dillon et al.CSCW 2025 · 9 citations
- What's Privacy Good for? Measuring Privacy as a Shield from Harms due to AI Inference of Personal DataSri Harsha Gajavalli, Junichi Koizumi, Rakibul HasanCHI 2026 · 2 citations
- PeerEdu: Bootstrapping Online Learning Behaviors via Asynchronous Area of Interest Sharing from Peer GazeSonglin Xu, Dongyin Hu, Ru Wang, Xinyu ZhangCHI 2025 · 9 citations
- "I know what you did last semester": Understanding Privacy Expectations and Preferences in the Smart CampusInjung Kim, Adam J. LeeCHI 2024 · 3 citations
- MirrorUs: Mirroring Peers' Affective Cues to Promote Learner's Meta-Cognition in Video-based LearningSi Chen, Jason Situ, Haocong Cheng, Desirée Kirst et al.CSCW 2023 · 6 citations
