Self-reflection tool

“When the theoretical dimensions of the EU ethical guidelines trigger reflection on those very same ethical dimensions!”


These tools are self-reflection questionnaires designed to encourage both individuals and organizations to critically evaluate their engagement with, and awareness of, ethical practices in the use and development of AI.

Grounded in the theoretical dimensions outlined in the European Commission’s Ethical Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, the surveys invite participants to reflect on key issues, fostering personal awareness and supporting institutional empowerment, while promoting an ethical and responsible approach to AI.

Based on the EU Ethical Guidelines’ theoretical structure:

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/153756


Individual Self-Reflection Section

How to READ reports and Graphs

🔎 How to Read the Bar Chart

The bar chart summarizes the average self-assessed levels of awareness and competence reported by respondents for each dimension of the EU Guidelines on the Ethical Use of AI in Education.

  • Horizontal axis (X): represents the different guideline dimensions.
  • Vertical axis (Y): shows the mean perceived levels. Higher values indicate greater perceived understanding, control, or competence, while lower values suggest areas where respondents feel less confident.

Overall, the chart provides a clear, at-a-glance overview of how respondents evaluate their performance across dimensions, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. 

☁️ Word Clouds (Profiles and Perceptions)

Word clouds display the distribution of responses across different categories. The larger the word, the higher the frequency of that response.

Examples included in the report:

  • Countries of participants → show geographical diversity.
  • Personal reflections on AI ethics → shows key concepts where respondents perceive a greater need for support or intervention.

👉 Word clouds are not about precision but about emphasis. They provide a quick visual impression of what matters most across the group.

🍩 Donut Charts (Profiles of Respondents)

Donut charts summarize participants’ background characteristics. Each slice represents the percentage and number of respondents in a given category.

  • Research field → disciplinary distribution of participants.
  • Educational level → teaching levels represented (e.g., primary, secondary, higher education).
  • Professional experience in teaching → years or levels of teaching experience.

👉 These charts are useful to understand who the respondents are and to contextualize the other results.


💡 Suggestions for Interpreting Your Results

  • Compare your answers with the averages:  See whether your perception is aligned with, above, or below the group’s.
  • Look beyond the averages: Pay attention to the distribution of scores. If responses cluster at higher values (4–5), it signals strong confidence or awareness; if they cluster at lower values (0–1), it points to areas needing improvement.
  • Identify strengths and growth areas: Lower-than-average ratings may signal opportunities for reflection and development.
  • Appreciate diversity: Differences in responses are not “wrong”; they offer valuable perspectives that enrich the overall understanding.

Use the results as a mirror: NOT to judge your absolute position, but to recognize where you are already strong and where you could grow in relation to the ethical use of AI. Comparing your results with the averages helps you see whether your perceptions align with or differ from those of your colleagues.

Individual Self-Reflection Survey

In this section, you can log in to complete a questionnaire that helps you reflect on your personal beliefs, practices, and ethical attitudes concerning the use and development of AI in education.

The questions are structured around the key ethical dimensions identified in the European guidelines, offering an opportunity for introspection and personal awareness.

Comparative Report

Curious to see how you compare with your colleagues?
After completing the survey, you can view and compare your responses alongside aggregated results from other users.

The report highlights overall trends and levels of engagement, helping you understand your position and identify areas for reflection and potential improvement.


Institutional Self-Reflection Section

Institutional Self-Reflection Survey

You can also complete a version of the questionnaire focused on your organization’s engagement with ethical practices in the use and development of AI in education.

In this version, the questions follow the same key ethical dimensions, providing an opportunity to reflect on policies, strategies, and shared responsibilities and raise awareness about responsible approaches at both personal and institutional levels.

Comparative Report

Curious how your institution compares with others?
You can compare your responses with the aggregated perception from other participants.

This report highlights trends in how institutions’ ethical practices are perceived, helping you understand how your organization is viewed and identify areas for reflection and improvement.