AI in School Governance: Efficiency or Dehumanization of Education?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70211/wesw.v3i1.477%20Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, School Governance, Phenomenology, Educational Dehumanization, Digital Efficiency, Interpersonal Relations, Human-Centered AIAbstract
This study aims to explore the lived experiences of educational stakeholders in interpreting the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in school governance. Employing a qualitative approach with Husserl's descriptive phenomenological design, this study involved 15 participants consisting of a principal, vice principal, school supervisor, senior and junior teachers, school operator, administrative staff, a student, and a parent. Data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analyzed using a modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method. The findings identified five major phenomenological themes: (1) administrative efficiency as a transformative experience, (2) relational dehumanization within the school ecosystem, (3) digital pressure and institutional surveillance, (4) intergenerational adaptation gaps, and (5) the dialectic of hope between technology and humanism. Results demonstrate that AI creates an efficiency-dehumanization paradox: it accelerates administrative processes while simultaneously eroding interpersonal relationships and transforming the essence of education into mechanistic practices. This study concludes that a human-centered AI governance framework is needed to maintain the balance between technological efficiency and humanistic educational values.
References
[1] W. Holmes, M. Bialik, and C. Fadel, Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning, 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2022.
[2] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators?,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 1, Art. no. 39, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
[3] Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia, Kebijakan Merdeka Belajar dan Transformasi Digital Pendidikan Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia, 2023.
[4] L. Chen, P. Chen, and Z. Lin, “Artificial intelligence in education: A review,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 75264–75278, 2020.
[5] R. Luckin, W. Holmes, M. Griffiths, and L. B. Forcier, Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI as a Tool for Learning. London, U.K.: Pearson, 2016
[6] F. Pedro, M. Subosa, A. Rivas, and P. Valverde, Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2019
[7] P. Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press, 1992
[8] G. J. J. Biesta, World-Centred Education: A View for the Present. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2022.
[9] B. Williamson, Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920
[10] G.-J. Hwang, H. Xie, B. W. Wah, and D. Gašević, “Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, Art. no. 100001, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
[11] F. Ouyang and P. Jiao, “Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, Art. no. 100020, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020
[12] M. van Manen, Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315421056
[13] C. Moustakas, Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 1994. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658
[14] A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press, 1984.
[15] M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY, USA: Vintage Books, 1977.
[16] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[17] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
[18] J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2018.
[19] A. Giorgi, The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Duquesne University Press, 2009.
[20] D. E. Polkinghorne, “Phenomenological research methods,” in Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology, R. S. Valle and S. Halling, Eds. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1989, pp. 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6989-3_3
[21] I. Seidman, Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press, 2019.
[22] Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 1985.
[23] D. Ihde, Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 1990. https://doi.org/10.2979/3108.0
[24] S. J. Ball, Foucault, Power, and Education. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078662
[25] J. A. G. M. van Dijk, The Digital Divide. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2020.
[26] A. Feenberg, Questioning Technology. London, U.K.: Routledge, 1999. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203022313
[27] UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021.
[28] European Commission, White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: A European Approach to Excellence and Trust. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2020.
[29] B. Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Beni Kurniawan, Mustiali, Jasmansyah, Rasyid Ridlo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.