Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42851533›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

AI and higher education: teachers' perceptions of students' ethical tensions in online pedagogical methods.

Wang Baoyi, Farman Ullah Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wang BaoyiPrimary Education Teaching and Research Section, College of Educational Science, Kashi University, Xinjiang, China.
Farman Ullah KhanSchool of Economics and Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University City College, Xi'an, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence and development of generative AI tools have benefited higher education but have also created several ethical tensions in the educational system. This tension is higher in online teaching environments, where students often rely on AI tools. Previous studies have addressed ethical issues, yet how these issues have emerged across various teaching methods in online AI-driven classes has been overlooked. To address this gap, this qualitative study investigates teachers' perceptions about their students' ethical issues across five pedagogical methodologies: direct method, content and language integrating learning, task-based language teaching, communicative language teaching, and community language learning. These five methods represent widely used approaches to second- or foreign-language teaching rather than instructional methods in general, and the findings are accordingly specific to language-acquisition classrooms. Using thematic analysis of interviews with 25 teachers, this research recognized 20 unique ethical tensions across five teaching methodologies. These findings are synthesized into a holistic framework comprising three overarching ethical domains: authenticity of learning, authority challenge, and collaborative dynamics. Based on this framework, this research highlights the need for moving beyond general frameworks to method-based ethical policies in education. This research emphasizes a process-oriented assessment framework to ensure transparency in education and mitigate the risk of unethical issues and tensions in the educational system. Further implications for students, teachers, and policy makers have been discussed.

Indexed as

AIhigher educationonline classpedagogical methodsqualitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID42851533
PMCPMC13646178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.