Cited by 82Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Education

The possibilities and limits of explicable artificial intelligence (XAI) in education: a socio-technical perspective

Open access
Farrow, Robert·2023·Learning, Media and Technology

Abstract

Explicable AI in education (XAIED) has been proposed as a way to improve trust and ethical practice in algorithmic education. Based on a critical review of the literature, this paper argues that XAI should be understood as part of a wider socio-technical turn in AI. The socio-technical perspective indicates that explicability is a relative term. Consequently, XAIED mediation strategies developed and implemented across education stakeholder communities using language that is not just ‘explicable’ from an expert or technical standpoint, but explainable and interpretable to a range of stakeholders including learners. The discussion considers the impact of XAIED on several educational stakeholder types in light of the transparency of algorithms and the approach taken to explaination. Problematising the propositions of XAIED shows that XAI is not a full solution to the issues raised by AI, but a beginning and necessary precondition for meaningful discourse about possible futures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17439884.2023.2185630

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Higher education institutions that calibrate their educational strategies according to the potential value of information tend to develop forms of organisational culture in which issues such as algorithmic transparency, user rights, or the prevention of bias become topics of continuous reflection.

    “Higher education institutions that calibrate their educational strategies according to the potential value of information tend to develop forms of organisational culture in which issues such as algorithmic transparency, user rights, or the prevention of bias become topics of continuous reflection [29,30].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farrow, R.
Affiliations
The Open University (GB)
Corresponding author
Farrow, Robert
Venue
Learning, Media and Technology
Published
2023-03-10
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
266-279
ISSN
  • 1743-9884 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9892
OpenAlex
W4323844901
Cited by
81
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 4
FWCI
7.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning Media and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
socio-technical perspective, algorithmic transparency, explainability, interpretability, trust in AI, ethical AI, educational stakeholders, mediation strategies, learner comprehension

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