The Privacy Paradox in Smart Classrooms: Balancing Data-Driven Personalization with Student Data Protection and Ethical Governance
Abstract
Background: The integration of smart technologies in classrooms has significantly enhanced personalized learning by utilizing data analytics to cater to individual student needs. However, the increasing reliance on student data has raised concerns about privacy, security, and ethical governance, creating what is known as the "privacy paradox." This paradox reflects the tension between the benefits of data-driven personalization and the need to protect student privacy.
Purpose: This study aims to explore the privacy paradox in smart classrooms, examining how educational institutions balance the benefits of personalized learning with the ethical responsibilities of student data protection. The research investigates the perceptions of students, teachers, and administrators regarding data privacy and governance practices in smart classrooms.
Method: A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews with 200 participants, including students, teachers, and administrators from higher education institutions that use smart classroom technologies. The survey assessed privacy concerns, while interviews provided deeper insights into the ethical dilemmas and data governance practices.
Results: The findings revealed a significant gap between students’ concerns about privacy and the confidence administrators had in data protection measures. Students expressed high concern over their data, whereas administrators were more confident in their institution’s data governance, highlighting a lack of transparency.
Conclusion: The study underscores the need for improved transparency and ethical governance in smart classrooms to address privacy concerns. Effective data protection policies and communication are essential to balancing data-driven personalization with student privacy.
Full text article
References
Anderson, T. (2025). SECRET RIVERBEDS: Secrecy and the Architecture of Subjectivity. Psychoanalytic Review, 112(3), 257–275. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1521/prev.2025.112.3.257
Ashrafi, D. M., Ahmed, S., & Shahid, T. S. (2025). Privacy or trust: Understanding the privacy paradox in users intentions towards e-pharmacy adoption through the lens of privacy-calculus model. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 16(7), 1224–1247. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-09-2023-0149
Baxter, K., & Czarnecka, B. (2025). Sharing images of children on social media: British motherhood influencers and the privacy paradox. PLOS ONE, 20(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314472
Bhusal, B., Ma, Y., & Chadha, R. (2025). Privacy Nutrition Labels: Promise, Practice, and Paradoxes in Communicating Privacy. Dalam C. Stephanidis, M. Antona, S. Ntoa, & G. Salvendy (Ed.), Commun. Comput. Info. Sci.: Vol. 2525 CCIS (hlm. 18–28). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94159-7_3
Bischoff, L. L., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Wollesen, B. (2025). Risk Profiles for Chronic Stress in Employees of Nursing Homes and the Role of Physical Activity A Regression Tree Analysis. European Journal of Health Psychology, 32(1), 12–22. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000163
Chan, X. I. C. (2026). Recognition Without Meaning: Relational Justice and the Affective Disqualification of Queer Intimacy in Hong Kong. Social and Legal Studies. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639251411489
Dalmia, M., & Diehl, K. (2025). Privacy Is Important, but When Is It Thought About? Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 10(3), 226–239. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1086/735023
De, S., & Chattopadhyay, M. (2025). Privacy in Personalized Advertising: A Comprehensive Review and Future Agenda. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 56. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.05613
Fukuta, Y., Murata, K., Orito, Y., Bracamonte, V., & Isohara, T. (2026). Symbolic Aspects of Online Privacy Protection Behaviour: From a Social Communication Perspective. Dalam I. Alvarez, N. Silva, M. Arias-Oliva, & A.-H. Dediu (Ed.), Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.: Vol. 15939 LNCS (hlm. 428–440). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-01429-0_37
Hao, J., Pulido, C. M., & Song, Y. (2025). Privacy paradox and privacy calculus: The dilemma and trade-offs of privacy protection among Chinese middle-aged and elderly under digital stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1646272
Jiaxuan, L., Zhenyan, L., Jiewang, C., & Yue, W. (2025). Privacy paradox stems from overconfidence: A study of users’ privacy disclosure in online knowledge communities. Behaviour and Information Technology, 44(13), 3194–3211. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2438789
Johri, A., & Hingle, A. (2025). Technological Paradox as Occasion for Restructuring Educational Practices and Igniting Moral Imagination. Dalam Critical Perspectives on EdTech in High. Education: Varieties of Platformisation (hlm. 21–42). Springer Science+Business Media; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-88173-2_2
Jonker, N., & Brits, H. (2025). Rational disclosure or privacy paradox? Consumer data-sharing in financial app ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 35(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-025-00836-1
Koziuk, V., Ivashuk, Y., & Haida, Y. (2025). PRIVACY PREFERENCES AND TRUST IN CENTRAL BANKS: HETEROGENEITY IN CASE OF CBDC. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(62), 11–25. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.3.62.2025.4734
Leicht, J., Lukasewycz, J., & Heisel, M. (2025). PriPoCoG: Empowering End-Users’ Data Protection Decisions. Dalam J. Filipe, M. Smialek, A. Brodsky, & S. Hammoudi (Ed.), International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS - Proceedings (Vol. 2, hlm. 668–679). Science and Technology Publications, Lda; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.5220/0013478000003929
Lin, C. S. (2025). Privacy paradox among romantic couples: The use of location sharing apps. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 7. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1553619
Lin, L. C.-S. (2026). Privacy paradox and location sharing: Why do young people invite others to monitor their movement and activities? Universal Access in the Information Society, 25(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-025-01280-w
Ma, X., Huang, H., Song, T., Sun, Y., Gao, Y., & Jiang, Y.-G. (2025). T2UE: Generating Unlearnable Examples from Text Descriptions. MM - Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Multimedia, Co-Located with MM, 12257–12265. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1145/3746027.3758151
Moayery, M., & Urbonavi?ius, S. (2025). Privacy Paradox: The Roles of Online Shopping Habits and Regulatory Foci in Bridging the Intention–Behavior Gap. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 60(3), 293–310. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968251320609
Moharam, M. M. R. (2025). Privacy at Risk: Examining the Impact of Artificial Superintelligence-Powered Mind-Reading Technology on Smartphone User Privacy. Dalam Stud. Syst. Decis. Control (Vol. 546, hlm. 47–59). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65207-3_5
Nia, N. A., & Mirhoseini, M. (2025). Privacy Paradox Revisited: Unveiling the Role of Conflict Detection. Am. Conf. Inf. Syst., AMCIS, 2, 1067–1071. Scopus. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105025434974&partnerID=40&md5=89b855fa0e164cfa456765668856a83a
Ollier, J., Nißen, M., & von Wangenheim, F. (2025). Rest assured: The influence of chatbots’ assurance statements and service outcome personalization on user data management. Computers in Human Behavior, 172. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108768
Øverby, H. (2025). Privacy Paradox, The. Dalam Encyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy, Third Edition (hlm. 1922–1924). Springer Nature; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71522-9_1619
Retraction notice—Analysing the Causes and Implications of the Privacy Paradox: Consumer Surveillance and Online Data Collection. (2025). Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 45(1–2), 70. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/02704676251345923
Schlinkert, A. M., Kunczik, L., Hohmeier, O., & Kuehne-Schlinkert, M. (2025). Preserving Digital Sovereignty in Data-Driven Manufacturing Networks. Dalam New Digital Work II: Digital Sovereignty of Co. And Organizations (hlm. 265–276). Springer Science+Business Media; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69994-8_16
Shanmugarasa, Y., Ding, M., Arachchige, C. M., & Rakotoarivelo, T. (2025). SoK: The Privacy Paradox of Large Language Models: Advancements, Privacy Risks, and Mitigation. Proc ACM Conf Computer Commun Secur, 425–441. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1145/3708821.3733888
Sharma, S., Singh, J., Gupta, A., Ali, F., & Sehra, S. S. (2025). PRIVIUM: A differentiated privacy-privilege model for user security and safety in the metaverse. Computers and Security, 159. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2025.104658
Skandali, D. (2025). Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation. Encyclopedia, 5(3). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030086
Tan, Y., & Yoon, S. (2025). Testing the effects of personalized recommendation service, filter bubble and big data attitude on continued use of TikTok. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 37(5), 1280–1301. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2024-0738
Ushkin, S. G., Koval, E. A., & Martynova, M. D. (2025). Teenagers’ Digital Security: Sociological Analysis. Integration of Education, 29(1), 114–131. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.029.202501.114-131
Xiang, F., Wu, C., Cao, T., Chen, G., & Wu, H. (2025). Privacy paradox: Exploring factors influencing women’s disclosure of reproductive health information in the online health communities. Information Technology and People, 1–31. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2025-0010
Yogi, M. K., & Chaitanya, P. K. (2025). The AIoE Paradox: Balancing Security and Connectivity in Super Smart Cities. Dalam Artificial Intelligence of Everything and Sustainable Development (hlm. 149–174). Springer Science+Business Media; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-7202-8_9
Authors
Copyright (c) 2026 Rit Som, Pierre Ndayizeye, Alida Ntahonkiriye
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
