Sultan Mukhamedaly; Kymbat Kabekeyeva; Gulnar Mussabekova; Aliya Kuralbayeva; Bagdat Toibekova; Gulzhan Makashkulova; Batyrkhan Omarov

A Pedagogical Framework for Ethical Skill Development in Higher Education within Smart Learning Environments

PDF (865KB), PP.1-20

Views: 0 Downloads: 0

Author(s)

Sultan Mukhamedaly ¹ Kymbat Kabekeyeva ¹ Gulnar Mussabekova ² Aliya Kuralbayeva ^1,* Bagdat Toibekova ³ Gulzhan Makashkulova ⁴ Batyrkhan Omarov ⁵

1. Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, B.Sattarkhanov st. 29, Turkestan, 161200, Kazakhstan

2. O.Zhanibekov South Kazakhstan Pedagogical University, A.Baitursynov st., 13, Shymkent, 160000, Kazakhstan

3. Shymkent University Jibek Joly 4/5, Shymkent, 160000, Kazakhstan

4. M. Kh Dulati Taraz State University, Taraz, 080000, Kazakhstan

5. International Information Technology University, 050040, Almaty, Kazakhstan

* Corresponding author.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2026.02.01

Received: 2 Jan. 2026 / Revised: 10 Feb. 2026 / Accepted: 5 Mar. 2026 / Published: 8 Apr. 2026

Index Terms

Ethical Skill Development, Smart Learning Environments, Higher Education Pedagogy, Reflective Learning, Ethical Responsibility, Pedagogical Scaffolding, Adaptive Learning Tasks

Abstract

This study proposes and empirically evaluates a pedagogical framework for ethical skill development in higher education within smart learning environments. The framework conceptualizes ethical competence as a multidimensional, process-oriented construct cultivated through authentic ethical scenarios, structured reflective cycles, adaptive learning support, and competence-aligned assessment. A quasi-experimental design was implemented with 90 undergraduate participants assigned to three groups: Group A (n = 30) learned using the framework with teacher guidance, Group B (n = 30) learned using the framework without teacher involvement, and Group C (n = 30) learned under traditional instruction without the framework. Ethical competence was measured via pre-test and post-test questionnaires capturing overall ethical skills and specific dimensions including ethical awareness, moral reasoning, reflective capacity, and ethical responsibility. Statistical analyses combined gain-score comparisons and covariate-adjusted models. Results indicate that the framework-based condition (Groups A+B) achieved significantly higher overall ethical skill development than the traditional condition, supported by large practical effects. Multivariate analysis further revealed significant framework-related advantages on the combined outcomes of ethical awareness and moral reasoning, with stronger effects observed for ethical awareness. Ethical responsibility also increased substantially under the framework relative to traditional instruction. Teacher guidance demonstrated a differentiated contribution: no significant difference emerged between Groups A and B in overall ethical skill development, whereas teacher-mediated scaffolding produced a significant and large improvement in reflective capacity compared to autonomous framework-based learning. These findings suggest that smart learning environments can support scalable ethical competence formation when pedagogical design integrates adaptive ethical tasks and structured reflection, while targeted instructor scaffolding remains important for deep reflective development. The study contributes actionable guidance for embedding ethics into smart education curricula and motivates future longitudinal and multi-institutional research using behavioral measures and discipline-specific adaptations.

Cite This Paper

Sultan Mukhamedaly, Kymbat Kabekeyeva, Gulnar Mussabekova, Aliya Kuralbayeva, Bagdat Toibekova, Gulzhan Makashkulova, Batyrkhan Omarov, "A Pedagogical Framework for Ethical Skill Development in Higher Education within Smart Learning Environments", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science(IJMECS), Vol.18, No.2, pp. 1-20, 2026. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2026.02.01

Reference

[1]Airaj, M. (2024). Ethical artificial intelligence for teaching-learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(13), 17145-17167.
[2]Shi, Y., Peng, F., & Sun, F. (2022). A blended learning model based on smart learning environment to improve college students’ information literacy. Ieee Access, 10, 89485-89498.
[3]Makinde, S. O., Ajani, Y. A., & Abdulrahman, M. R. (2024). Smart learning as transformative impact of technology: A paradigm for accomplishing sustainable development goals (SDGs) in education. Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(3), 213-224.
[4]Dai, Z., Xiong, J., Zhao, L., & Zhu, X. (2023). Smart classroom learning environment preferences of higher education teachers and students in China: An ecological perspective. Heliyon, 9(6).
[5]Aithal, P. S., & Maiya, A. K. (2023). Innovations in higher education industry–Shaping the future. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT, and Education (IJCSBE), 7(4), 283-311.
[6]Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Wu, L., & Li, J. (2025). Digital transition framework for higher education in AI-assisted engineering teaching: Challenge, strategy, and initiatives in China. Science & Education, 34(2), 933-954.
[7]Vistorte, A. O. R., Deroncele-Acosta, A., Ayala, J. L. M., Barrasa, A., López-Granero, C., & Martí-González, M. (2024). Integrating artificial intelligence to assess emotions in learning environments: a systematic literature review. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1387089.
[8]Kulambayev, B., Gleb, B., Katayev, N., Menglibay, I., & Momynkulov, Z. (2024). Real-Time Road Damage Detection System on Deep Learning Based Image Analysis. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 15(9).
[9]Omarov, N., Omarov, B., Azhibekova, Z., & Omarov, B. (2024). Applying an augmented reality game-based learning environment in physical education classes to enhance sports motivation. Retos, 60, 269-278.
[10]Opesemowo, O. A. G., & Adekomaya, V. (2024). Harnessing artificial intelligence for advancing sustainable development goals in South Africa's higher education system: A qualitative study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(3), 67-86.
[11]Mustafa, M. Y., Tlili, A., Lampropoulos, G., Huang, R., Jandrić, P., Zhao, J., ... & Saqr, M. (2024). A systematic review of literature reviews on artificial intelligence in education (AIED): a roadmap to a future research agenda. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 59.
[12]Luo, J., Zheng, C., Yin, J., & Teo, H. H. (2025). Design and assessment of AI-based learning tools in higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 42.
[13]Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2024). Digital Learning Demand and Applicability of Quality 4.0 for Future Education: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 14(4).
[14]Ghnemat, R., Shaout, A., & Abrar, M. (2022). Higher Education Transformation for Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Transformation Framework. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., 17(19), 224-241.
[15]Gupta, S. K., Alemran, A., Basha, U. S., Zakari, A. I., Kim, S., Boddu, R. S. K., & Vohra, S. K. (2025). Revolutionizing the way students learn photographic arts through experiential education using AI and AR systems. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 40705.
[16]Nagaraj, B. K., Kalaivani, A., Begum, S., Akila, S., & Sachdev, H. K. (2023). The emerging role of artificial intelligence in stem higher education: A critical review. International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Technovation, 5(5), 1-19.
[17]Mogas, J., Palau, R., Fuentes, M., & Cebrián, G. (2022). Smart schools on the way: How school principals from Catalonia approach the future of education within the fourth industrial revolution. Learning Environments Research, 25(3), 875-893.
[18]Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers?. Smart learning environments, 10(1), 60.
[19]Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 28.
[20]Agbo, F. J., Olaleye, S. A., Bower, M., & Oyelere, S. S. (2023). Examining the relationships between students’ perceptions of technology, pedagogy, and cognition: the case of immersive virtual reality mini games to foster computational thinking in higher education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 16.
[21]Khaldi, A., Bouzidi, R., & Nader, F. (2023). Gamification of e-learning in higher education: a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 10.
[22]Song, H., & Cai, L. (2024). Interactive learning environment as a source of critical thinking skills for college students. BMC medical education, 24(1), 270.
[23]Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Zahid, H. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness & ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 3691-3716.
[24]Hooda, M., Rana, C., Dahiya, O., Rizwan, A., & Hossain, M. S. (2022). Artificial intelligence for assessment and feedback to enhance student success in higher education. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022(1), 5215722.
[25]Meylani, R. (2024). Transforming Education with the Internet of Things: A Journey into Smarter Learning Environments. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 10(1), 161-178.
[26]Alqahtani, N., & Wafula, Z. (2025). Artificial intelligence integration: Pedagogical strategies and policies at leading universities. Innovative Higher Education, 50(2), 665-684.
[27]Chan, C. K. Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). An expectancy value theory (EVT) based instrument for measuring student perceptions of generative AI. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 64.
[28]Wannapiroon, N., & Pimdee, P. (2022). Thai undergraduate science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) creative thinking and innovation skill development: a conceptual model using a digital virtual classroom learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5689-5716.
[29]Kaddoura, S., & Al Husseiny, F. (2023). The rising trend of Metaverse in education: Challenges, opportunities, and ethical considerations. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1252.
[30]Wang, B., & Li, P. P. (2024). Digital creativity in STEM education: the impact of digital tools and pedagogical learning models on the students’ creative thinking skills development. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2633-2646.
[31]Omarov, N., Omarov, B., Azhibekova, Z., & Omarov, B. (2024). Applying an augmented reality game-based learning environment in physical education classes to enhance sports motivation. Retos, 60, 269-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v60.109170
[32]Lee, H. Y., Chen, P. H., Wang, W. S., Huang, Y. M., & Wu, T. T. (2024). Empowering ChatGPT with guidance mechanism in blended learning: Effect of self-regulated learning, higher-order thinking skills, and knowledge construction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 16.
[33]Mendoza, A., & Venables, A. (2023). Attributes of blended learning environments designed to foster a sense of belonging for higher education students. Journal of Information Technology Education. Research, 22, 129.
[34]Peláez-Sánchez, I. C., Velarde-Camaqui, D., & Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2024, June). The impact of large language models on higher education: exploring the connection between AI and Education 4.0. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 9, p. 1392091). Frontiers Media SA.
[35]Maqbool, M. A., Asif, M., Imran, M., Bibi, S., & Almusharraf, N. (2024). Emerging e-learning trends: a study of faculty perceptions and impact of collaborative techniques using fuzzy interface system. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101035.
[36]Beck, D., Morgado, L., & O'Shea, P. (2023). Educational practices and strategies with immersive learning environments: Mapping of reviews for using the metaverse. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 319-341.
[37]Madni, S. H. H., Ali, J., Husnain, H. A., Masum, M. H., Mustafa, S., Shuja, J., ... & Hosseini, S. (2022). Factors influencing the adoption of IoT for E-learning in higher educational institutes in developing countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 915596.
[38]Sharma, K., Nguyen, A., & Hong, Y. (2024). Self‐regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning in adaptive digital learning environments: A systematic review of empirical studies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1398-1436.
[39]Joseph, O. B., & Uzondu, N. C. (2024). Integrating AI and Machine Learning in STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Computer Science & IT Research Journal, 5(8), 1732-1750.
[40]Saifunov, B., Tolegenov, M., & Zhanykulov, N. (2025). The Madhhabian Tendency of Ahmad Yassawi. Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi, (114), 273-292.
[41]Saifunov, B. (2024). Ahmad Yassawi from the Perspective of Primary Sources (Bibliographic Analysis). Hikmet (pISSN: 3007-858X/eISSN: 3007-8598), 2(2), 50-60.
[42]Fakhry, M. (1965). Al-Farabi and the reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle. Journal of the History of Ideas, 26(4), 469-478.
[43]Hasan, G. P. (2020). Al-Farabi and the question on existence. Journal of Oriental Studies, 94(3), 27-32.
[44]Yuslih, M. (2022). Political Philosophy: A Comparative Analysis of Al-Farabi and Aristotely's Thought. Kawanua International Journal of Multicultural Studies, 3(2), 44-51.
[45]Fackenheim, E. L. (1946, January). The possibility of the universe in Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Maimonides. In Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (Vol. 16, pp. 39-70). American Academy for Jewish Research.
[46]Ng, S. L., Forsey, J., Boyd, V. A., Friesen, F., Langlois, S., Ladonna, K., ... & Steenhof, N. (2022). Combining adaptive expertise and (critically) reflective practice to support the development of knowledge, skill, and society. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 27(5), 1265-1281.
[47]Munshi, A., Biswas, G., Baker, R., Ocumpaugh, J., Hutt, S., & Paquette, L. (2023). Analysing adaptive scaffolds that help students develop self‐regulated learning behaviours. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 351-368.
[48]Gravett, K. (2025). Authentic assessment as relational pedagogy. Teaching in higher education, 30(3), 608-622.
[49]Löfström, E., & Tammeleht, A. (2023). A pedagogy for teaching research ethics and integrity in the social sciences: Case-based and collaborative learning. Academic integrity in the social sciences: Perspectives on pedagogy and practice, 127-145.
[50]Zhan, Z., He, L., & Zhong, X. (2024). How does problem-solving pedagogy affect creativity? A meta-analysis of empirical studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1287082.
[51]Coutts, R., Irwin, P., & Del Vecchio, L. (2024). A reflective practice learning experience with higher education exercise physiology students. Reflective practice, 25(2), 251-266.
[52]Tanujaya, B., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Mumu, J. (2022). Likert scale in social sciences research: Problems and difficulties. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 16(4), 89-101.
[53]Schwarz, W. (2025). The Ancova model for comparing two groups: a tutorial emphasizing statistical distribution theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1600764.

International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)