As Artificial Intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into educational games, conforming with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—a legal framework governing data protection and privacy in the European Union—remains an important yet complex challenge, particularly when minors are involved. Users are required to provide consent multiple times, often unexpectedly, at different game levels. This process is further complicated by the varying durations for which consent remains valid. As a result, users—especially minors—may become confused about the consent they have given. Additional concerns arise when the educational game is AI-equipped. If AI is not involved, no new data is generated. However, if AI is present, new data is continuously produced, necessitating ongoing consent. For example, a user may consent to personalisation, which could lead the game to categorise them in unintended ways, such as labelling them a ‘poor student’. This paper explores GDPR challenges in AI-empowered educational games, focusing on user consent, AI-inferred data, and compliance gaps. Intelligent educational games rely on adaptive decision-making algorithms to personalise learning experiences, making them a subset of Intelligent Decision Technologies. Our research is based on a fuzzy-based educational game developed as a testbed for studying GDPR compliance in AI-driven decision-making. The findings provide insights into ethical AI governance, dynamic consent management, and the intersection of regulatory compliance with adaptive, data-driven decision systems in intelligent educational technologies. Based on our research, not all personal data exist from the beginning and upon original consent granting, as personal data are also generated throughout the process.
D’ApiceCGriecoCPiscopoR, et al. Dms2015short-2: Advanced learning technologies for elearning in the enterprise: Design of an educational adventure game to teach computer security. J Visual Lang Comput2015; 31: 260–266.
2.
PapadimitriouSVirvouM. Adaptivity in scenarios in an educational adventure game. In: 2017 8th international conference on information, intelligence, systems & applications (IISA). IEEE, pp.1–6.
3.
AllAPlovieBCastellarEPN, et al. Pre-test influences on the effectiveness of digital-game based learning: a case study of a fire safety game. Comput Educ2017; 114: 24–37.
4.
HouHTLiMC. Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Comput Human Behav2014; 30: 29–38.
5.
BuchingerDda Silva HounsellM. Guidelines for designing and using collaborative-competitive serious games. Comput Educ2018; 118: 133–149.
6.
PetriGvon WangenheimCG. How games for computing education are evaluated? a systematic literature review. Comput Educ2017; 107: 68–90.
7.
DongYBarnesT. Evaluation of a template-based puzzle generator for an educational programming game. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on Artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment, volume 13. pp.172–178.
VirvouMKabassiK. Reasoning about users’ actions in a graphical user interface. Human-Comput Interact2002; 17: 369–398.
10.
VirvouMKabassiK. Evaluating an intelligent graphical user interface by comparison with human experts. Knowl Based Syst2004; 17: 31–37.
11.
ChrysafiadiKVirvouMTsihrintzisGA, et al. Evaluating the user’s experience, adaptivity and learning outcomes of a fuzzy-based intelligent tutoring system for computer programming for academic students in greece. Educ Inform Technol2023; 28: 6453–6483.
12.
ChrysafiadiKVirvouMTsihrintzisGA, et al. An adaptive learning environment for programming based on fuzzy logic and machine learning. Int J Artif Intell Tools2023; 32: 2360011.
13.
LindbergRSLaineTH. Detecting play and learning styles for adaptive educational games. In: CSEDU (1). pp.181–189.
14.
VirvouMPapadimitriouS. Playing, learning, extending: educational “guess who” game that is renewable by a teacher. In: 2015 6th international conference on information, intelligence, systems and applications (IISA). IEEE, pp.1–5.
15.
HooshyarDYousefiMLimH. A systematic review of data-driven approaches in player modeling of educational games. Artif Intell Rev2019; 52: 1997–2017.
16.
VirvouMTsihrintzisGASotiropoulossDN, et al. Chatgpt in artificial intelligence-empowered e-learning for cultural heritage: the case of lyrics and poems. In; 2023 14th international conference on information, intelligence, systems & applications (IISA). IEEE, pp.1–9.
17.
VirvouMTsihrintzisGATsichrintziEA. Virtsi: a novel trust dynamics model enhancing artificial intelligence collaboration with human users–insights from a ChatGPT evaluation study. Inf Sci (Ny)2024; 675: 120759.
18.
HooshyarDPedasteMYangY, et al. From gaming to computational thinking: an adaptive educational computer game-based learning approach. J Educ Comput Res2021; 59: 383–409.
19.
JansenPFischbachF. The social engineer: an immersive virtual reality educational game to raise social engineering awareness. In: Extended abstracts of the 2020 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in alay. pp.59–63.
20.
IzountarYBenbelkacemSOtmaneS, et al. Towards an adaptive virtual reality serious game system for motor rehabilitation based on facial emotion recognition. In: 2021 international conference on Artificial intelligence for cyber security systems and privacy (AI-CSP). IEEE, pp.1–5.
21.
LeonardouARigouMGarofalakisJD. Opening user model data for motivation and learning: the case of an adaptive multiplication game. In: CSEDU (1). pp.383–390.
22.
VirvouMPapadimitriouS. Simple arithmetic lessons through an adaptive snake game. In: 2013 international conference on computer, information and telecommunication systems (CITS). IEEE, pp. 1–4.
23.
KatsionisGVirvouM. A cognitive theory for affective user modelling in a virtual reality educational game. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37583), volume 2. IEEE, pp.1209–1213.
24.
MittalAGuptaMChaturvediM, et al. Cybersecurity enhancement through blockchain training (CEBT)–a serious game approach. Int J Inform Manage Data Insights2021; 1: 100001.
25.
RossanoVMangialardoFRoselliT. Math is magic: an adaptive serious game to reinforce math competences. In: Ninth international aonference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (TEEM’21). pp.162–166.
26.
SerraJGilabertR. Algorithmic versus teacher-led sequencing in a digital serious game and the development of second language reading fluency and accuracy. Br J Educ Technol2021; 52: 1898–1916.
27.
HareRTangYCuiW, et al. Optimize student learning via random forest-based adaptive narrative game. In: 2020 IEEE 16th international conference on automation science and engineering (CASE). IEEE, pp.792–797.
28.
SullivanCBurgerE. “in the public interest”: the privacy implications of international business-to-business sharing of cyber-threat intelligence. Computer Law Secur Rev2017; 33: 14–29.
29.
PoulletY. Is the general data protection regulation the solution?Comput Law Secur Rev2018; 34: 773–778.
30.
CustersBDechesneFSearsAM, et al. A comparison of data protection legislation and policies across the EU. Comput Law Secur Rev2018; 34: 234–243.
31.
SobolewskiMMazurJPalińskiM. Gdpr: A step towards a user-centric internet?Intereconomics2017; 52: 207–213.
32.
WhitleyEA. Informational privacy, consent and the “control” of personal data. Informa Security Techn Report2009; 14: 154–159.
33.
DanielJS. Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv Law Rev2013; 126: 1880.
34.
PolitouEE. Revising privacy, forgetting & profiling under the GDPR in emerging computing platforms and decentralized environments. PhD Thesis, University of Piraeus, 2020.
35.
MoerelLPrinsC. Privacy for the homo digitalis: proposal for a new regulatory framework for data protection in the light of big data and the internet of things. Available at SSRN 2784123 2016.
36.
MurmannPFischer-HübnerS. Usable transparency enhancing tools: a literature review. Technical report, Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology, 2017.
37.
CradockEStalla-BourdillonSMillardD. Nobody puts data in a corner? why a new approach to categorising personal data is required for the obligation to inform. Comput Law Secur Rev2017; 33: 142–158.
38.
MacenaiteMKostaE. Consent for processing children’s personal data in the EU: following in us footsteps?Inform Commun Technol Law2017; 26: 146–197.
39.
KimY. Virtual reality data and its privacy regulatory challenges: a call to move beyond text-based informed consent. Cal L Rev2022; 110: 225.
40.
TruongNSunKWangS, et al. Privacy preservation in federated learning: an insightful survey from the GDPR perspective. Comput Secur2021; 110: 102402.
41.
BurgessJPFloridiLPolsA, et al. Towards a digital ethics: EDPS ethics advisory group, 2018.
42.
MougiakouEPapadimitriouSVirvouM. Automated decision making and personal data protection in intelligent tutoring systems: design guidelines. In: Joint conference on knowledge-Based software engineering. Springer, pp.231–241.
43.
MougiakouEPapadimitriouSVirvouM. Intelligent tutoring systems and transparency: the case of children and adolescents. In: 2018 9th international conference on information, intelligence, systems and applications (IISA). IEEE, pp.1–8.
44.
ChrysafiadiKPapadimitriouSVirvouM. Which is better for learning: a web-based educational application or an educational game? In: 2019 international symposium on performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems (SPECTS). IEEE, pp.1–6.
45.
PapadimitriouSKamitsiosMChrysafiadiK, et al. Learn-and-play personalised reasoning from point-and-click to virtual reality mobile educational games. Intell Decis Technol2021; 15: 321–332.
46.
PartyAW. Guidelines on transparency under regulation 2016/679 2018.
47.
MougiakouEVirvouM. Based on GDPR privacy in UML: case of e-learning program. In: 2017 8th international conference on information, intelligence, systems & applications (IISA). IEEE, pp.1–8.
48.
MalgieriGCustersB. Pricing privacy–the right to know the value of your personal data. Comput Law Secur Rev2018; 34: 289–303.
49.
VillarongaEFKiesebergPLiT. Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Comput Law Secur Rev2018; 34: 304–313.
50.
HermstrüwerYDickertS. Sharing is daring: an experiment on consent, chilling effects and a salient privacy nudge. Int Rev Law Econ2017; 51: 38–49.
51.
PasqualeLZippoPCurleyC, et al. Digital age of consent and age verification: can they protect children? IEEE Software 2020.
