CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIOnline Learning and Analytics

Inclusion and Equity as a Paradigm Shift for Artificial Intelligence in Education

Roscoe, Rod D., Salehi, Shima, Nixon, Nia, Worsley, Marcelo, Piech, Chris, Luckin, Rose·2022·Artificial Intelligence in STEM Education
DOI 10.1201/9781003181187-28
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools and methods allow researchers and educators to assess complex patterns and relations among diverse variables (e.g., learner backgrounds, behaviors, learning contexts, and outcomes) to generate inferences and predictions for supporting learners, and to characterize learners at differing scales (e.g., from districts to individuals). As a paradigm shift, artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) experts are increasingly attending to questions of diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) within these efforts. For example, there is growing awareness of algorithmic bias, such that algorithms and automated systems can recreate or exacerbate discriminatory or prejudicial outcomes. Similarly, conclusions based on statistical means can be misleading or exclusionary for learners who do not conform to “average” or majority demographics. To address such concerns, AIEd scholars must consider alternative approaches for studying educational phenomena, analyzing data, and drawing meaningful educational conclusions. Models may need to be disaggregated to include more nuanced variables and effects related to demographic factors and social identities. Simultaneously, intersectional approaches are needed to represent learners’ multiple identities (and associated power, privilege, and history), and to interpret observed effects. This paradigm shift is poised to empower more personalized and effective outcomes for a greater diversity of learners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1201/9781003181187-28

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Neurodivergent learners may find the GenAI interface to be a nonthreatening learning environment, and the interactive dialogues are helpful for giving them confidence in their learning.

    “Furthermore, neurodivergent learners may find the GenAI interface to be a nonthreatening learning environment, and the interactive dialogues are helpful for giving them confidence in their learning (Roscoe et al., 2022).”

    From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Roscoe et al., 2022

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Roscoe, R. D., Salehi, S., Nixon, N., Worsley, M., Piech, C., & Luckin, R.
ORCID
Venue
Artificial Intelligence in STEM Education
Publisher
CRC Press
Published
2022-12-02
Pages
359-374
DOI
10.1201/9781003181187-28
OpenAlex
W4310610091
Cited by
36
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
18.82
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CRC Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
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 › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, diversity, equity, and inclusion, algorithmic bias, intersectionality, social identity, learner demographics, personalized learning

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