Cited by 116Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Education and Society

Machine Learning for Human Learners: Opportunities, Issues, Tensions and Threats

Open access
Webb, Mary E., Fluck, Andrew, Magenheim, Johannes, Malyn-Smith, Joyce, Waters, Juliet, Deschênes, Michelle, Zagami, Jason·2021·Educational Technology Research and Development

Abstract

Abstract Machine learning systems are infiltrating our lives and are beginning to become important in our education systems. This article, developed from a synthesis and analysis of previous research, examines the implications of recent developments in machine learning for human learners and learning. In this article we first compare deep learning in computers and humans to examine their similarities and differences. Deep learning is identified as a sub-set of machine learning, which is itself a component of artificial intelligence. Deep learning often depends on backwards propagation in weighted neural networks, so is non-deterministic—the system adapts and changes through practical experience or training. This adaptive behaviour predicates the need for explainability and accountability in such systems. Accountability is the reverse of explainability. Explainability flows through the system from inputs to output (decision) whereas accountability flows backwards, from a decision to the person taking responsibility for it. Both explainability and accountability should be incorporated in machine learning system design from the outset to meet social, ethical and legislative requirements. For students to be able to understand the nature of the systems that may be supporting their own learning as well as to act as responsible citizens in contemplating the ethical issues that machine learning raises, they need to understand key aspects of machine learning systems and have opportunities to adapt and create such systems. Therefore, some changes are needed to school curricula. The article concludes with recommendations about machine learning for teachers, students, policymakers, developers and researchers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11423-020-09858-2

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Webb et al. demonstrated the effectiveness of targeted training sessions in enhancing confidence and competence in integrating GenAI tools into curricula.

    “For instance, Webb, Fluck [71] demonstrated the effectiveness of targeted training sessions in enhancing confidence and competence in integrating GenAI tools into curricula.”

    From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as Webb, Fluck [71]

    The Discussion and conclusion (page unavailable) recommends teacher professional development in machine learning and says teachers will need to integrate examples into curricula. It does not report targeted training sessions, measure gains in confidence or competence, or address integrating generative AI tools specifically. A recommendation is not a demonstration of effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. GDPR. (2018). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council: General Data Protection Regulation. Official Journal of the European Union, L 119/1. https ://eur-lex.europ a.eu/legal -conte nt/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX :32016 R0679 .
  2. Fullan, M., Gardner, M., & Drummy, M. (2019). Going deeper. Education Leadership, 76(8), 64-68.
  3. Hao, K. (2020). Born in China, taught by AI. MIT Technology Review, 123(1), 24-29.
  4. In P. Fisser, & M. Phillips (Eds.), Learners and learning contexts: New alignments for the digital age Report of EDUsummIT 2019, Québec City, Canada, September 29th-October 2nd, 2019 (pp. 127-136)
  5. created professional development materials and led workshops across Canada as part of the CanCode pro- gram launched by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Webb, M. E., Fluck, A., Magenheim, J., Malyn-Smith, J., Waters, J., Deschênes, M., & Zagami, J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Webb, Mary E.
  • Fluck, Andrew
  • Magenheim, Johannes
  • Zagami, Jason
Venue
Educational Technology Research and Development
Published
2020-11-19
Volume
69
Issue
4
Pages
2109-2130
ISSN
  • 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6501
OpenAlex
W3103420222
Cited by
116
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 6
FWCI
11.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Technology Research and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
King's College London
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
machine learning in education, deep learning, explainability, accountability, artificial intelligence in education, machine learning ethics, school curriculum, teacher professional development, backward propagation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review