The Paradox Paradox of Intelligent Monitoring Systems of Vocational Education, An Ethical Audit of Stedent Behavior Data Collection at Meishan Vocational College

Abstract

This study conducts an ethical audit of intelligent monitoring systems deployed at Meishan Vocational and Technical College, addressing the core tension between data - driven governance efficiency and student data sovereignty in China’s vocational education reform. The research objectives were: (1) to empirically map the current application status of these systems—specifically their deployment scope, multidimensional data types ( classroom attention scores, fine-grained technical operation parameters, dormitory routine trajectories), and critically, their highly opaque data circulation pathways; (2) to diagnose the pervasive privacy paradox among students—not as cognitive irrationality, but as a structurally induced “rational compromise” rooted in developmental dependencies (skill certification, internship placement, academic evaluation); and (3) to co-construct a context-sensitive educational data ethics audit framework centered on transparency as the foundational governance lever. Employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, the study collected quantitative data from 325 valid student questionnaires (stratified random sampling) and qualitative data from 15 in-depth interviews with extreme-case students, supplemented by system log analysis and expert Delphi validation. Major findings reveal: (1) the system enables comprehensive, multi-scenario data collection yet suffers from severe information asymmetry—only 32% of students knew their training data might be shared externally, and merely 15% understood its purpose; (2) 85% of students expressed high privacy concern, yet 78% accepted data collection, a paradox mediated by perceived usefulness (strongest predictor, β = 0.48), institutional trust, and crucially, perceived transparency (β = 0.19, acting as the bridging variable); and (3) the proposed ethical audit framework operationalizes transparency across four pillars—ethical compliance of collection, security of storage, justifiability of use, and transparency of transfer—and is translated into actionable institutional mechanisms: a statutory Pedagogical Necessity Review Board, a legally enforceable Data Provenance Dashboard for students, and a binding SchoolEnterprise Data Sharing Charter. This research advances both theory—extending privacy calculus to “development-oriented exchange”—and practice—providing a replicable, valueoriented governance model that reconciles technological capability with pedagogical appropriateness and student rights.