Artificial Intelligence
April 13, 2026
The challenges of using AI in higher education
MEC proposes guidelines to align the use of technology with the pedagogical, ethical, and social principles that guide Brazilian education

The growing incorporation of artificial intelligence in educational processes has produced relevant tensions, especially regarding the superficiality of learning and the reduction of cognitive effort in complex activities. According to Kasneci et al. (2023), although systems based on language models expand access to information and support educational activities, their unrestricted use can compromise essential cognitive processes, such as critical elaboration and the active construction of knowledge. As discussed in my previous column (AI and professional training), even though technology expands access to information and increases efficiency in task execution, a progressive shift in the student’s role is observed, moving from the active construction of knowledge to the supervision of automated responses.
Bender et al. (2021) state that AI-based language systems tend to produce plausible responses without commitment to understanding or veracity, which can lead to uncritical use and reinforce dependence on automated outputs, with potential impacts on the development of critical thinking and intellectual autonomy. In this context, the recent publication of the “Framework for the Responsible Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education (Brazil, 2026)”, prepared by the Ministry of Education, is an institutional response to these transformations, recognizing both the opportunities and the risks associated with the accelerated adoption of technology and proposing guidelines that seek to align its use with the pedagogical, ethical, and social principles that guide Brazilian education. It is therefore essential to examine the document critically and in-depth, in order to understand not only its formal recommendations but also its effective implications on pedagogical practices, assessment processes, and student training in a scenario mediated by artificial intelligence.
Higher education
The text of this column focuses on higher education, where the presence of artificial intelligence imposes deeper revisions on teaching, learning, and research. The Framework explicitly states that institutions must promote curricular reorientations aimed at developing higher-order skills, such as critical thinking, creativity, and solving unprecedented problems, while also requiring a review of assessment practices, given the ease of automated response production. From a regulatory standpoint, the document establishes the need for institutional governance structures, with clear definition of policies for AI use, mechanisms for effective human oversight, and continuous evaluation of the impacts of adopted systems. It also emphasizes transparency and explainability, data protection and privacy, prevention of algorithmic biases, guarantee of academic integrity, and addressing access inequalities. In this context, the adoption of AI in higher education is treated not as a merely technological issue, but as a pedagogical, ethical, and institutional decision, which must remain subordinate to the educational project and the central role of teaching.
Pedagogical plan
In the pedagogical plan, the challenges become even more evident, as the presence of AI strains traditional foundations of the teaching and learning process. The availability of automated answers and the ease of content generation put the centrality of cognitive effort at risk, favoring the outsourcing of essential stages, such as analysis, synthesis, and argumentative construction. Firth et al. (2019) demonstrate that the growing dependence on digital systems for information access and processing can reduce engagement in deeper cognitive processes, reinforcing dynamics of thought externalization.
In this scenario, it becomes necessary to review assessment practices historically based on content reproduction. As discussed by Bearman et al. (2022), the growing presence of artificial intelligence-based tools challenges traditional assessment models in higher education, requiring the adoption of strategies that prioritize authorship, critical thinking, and knowledge application over simple reproduction of answers. At the same time, the need to develop higher-order skills, such as critical thinking, creativity, and complex problem-solving, becomes imperative, ensuring that artificial intelligence is used as a support tool and not as a substitute for the formative process.
Institutional and teaching plan
On the teaching and institutional level, the challenges focus on the need for reconfiguration of the role of the professor and academic structures in light of the incorporation of artificial intelligence. The Framework emphasizes the centrality of teaching as an irreplaceable element. In line with this, Unesco (2023) highlights that AI systems should act as support for pedagogical practices, without replacing the role of the professor, who remains responsible for critical mediation, ethical guidance, and conducting the learning process.
In this context, it becomes essential to invest in initial and continuing education for the pedagogical use of AI, as well as to promote curricular restructurings that intentionally integrate technology aligned with educational objectives. Furthermore, higher education institutions are called upon to establish clear guidelines for the use of AI in academic activities, ensuring coherence between pedagogical practices, evaluation criteria, and institutional principles, in order to avoid indiscriminate or misaligned use with the educational project.
Regulatory plan
In the regulatory and governance plan, the challenges focus on building institutional structures capable of guiding the use of artificial intelligence in a responsible, transparent manner and aligned with the public interest. The Framework highlights the need for clear policies involving data protection, privacy guarantees, mitigation of algorithmic biases, and the requirement for explainability of adopted systems. In line with these guidelines, Unesco (2023) emphasizes that the adoption of artificial intelligence in education must be guided by principles of transparency, human supervision, and institutional responsibility, ensuring that educational decisions remain under the control of qualified human agents.
In higher education, this translates into the creation of mechanisms for continuous supervision, impact assessment of the technologies used, and definition of criteria for their adoption. Added to this scenario is the concern with academic integrity, especially in the face of risks of plagiarism and automated authorship, as well as with inequalities in access to digital infrastructure, which can amplify existing asymmetries. Thus, AI governance ceases to be an accessory aspect and becomes a central element in the regulation of technology-mediated educational practices.
Faced with this set of challenges, it becomes evident that the incorporation of artificial intelligence in higher education cannot be treated as a simple technological update, but as a process of reconfiguration of the structural model of education itself. The guidelines presented by the Framework indicate that the centrality of the formative process must be preserved, requiring that the adoption of AI systems be subordinate to clearly defined pedagogical, ethical, and institutional criteria. In this context, technology ceases to be an end in itself and comes to be understood as an instrument whose legitimacy depends on its ability to support deep learning processes and consistent intellectual development.
Thus, the main challenge lies not in the presence of artificial intelligence, but in the way it is integrated into educational processes. The risk of superficiality, dependence, and cognitive weakening is not inherent to the technology, but to its use disarticulated from a consistent pedagogical intentionality. In this sense, the incorporation of AI in higher education requires not only the adoption of tools, but the deliberate construction of formative environments that preserve the complexity of thought, intellectual authorship, and the ability to face unprecedented problems. The consolidation of responsible practices therefore depends on the articulation between teacher training, curricular review, institutional policies, and governance mechanisms, so as to ensure that artificial intelligence acts as an amplifier, and not a substitute, for essential human competencies.
| To access the references of this text click here |
Who wrote this column
Maurício Acconcia Dias








