Cited by 135Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) in education: Promises and challenges

Open access
Stéphan Vincent‐Lancrin, Reyer van der Vlies·2020·OECD Education Working Papers

Abstract

This paper was written to support the G20 artificial intelligence (AI) dialogue. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), education faces two challenges: reaping the benefits of AI to improve education processes, both in the classroom and at the system level; and preparing students for new skillsets for increasingly automated economies and societies. AI applications are often still nascent, but there are many examples of promising uses that foreshadow how AI might transform education. With regard to the classroom, this paper highlights how AI can accelerate personalised learning, the support of students with special needs. At the system level, promising uses include predictive analysis to reduce dropout, and assessing new skillsets. A new demand for complex skills that are less easy to automate (e.g. higher cognitive skills like creativity and critical thinking) is also the consequence of AI and digitalisation. Reaching the full potential of AI requires that stakeholders trust not only the technology, but also its use by humans. This raises new policy challenges around “trustworthy AI”, encompassing the privacy and security of data, but also possible wrongful uses of data leading to biases against individuals or groups.

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 · 10.1787/a6c90fa9-en

Cites

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?

  • International organizations such as UNICEF and OECD argue for the need of transparency and explainability in AI to offer meaningful information to understand AI systems, user interactions and societal impacts.

    “In our review, Schaper et al. (2020) reflected that international organizations such as UNICEF and OECD argue for the need of transparency and explainability in AI to offer meaningful information to understand AI systems, user interactions and societal impacts (Vincent-Lancrin & Van der Vlies, 2020; UNICEF, 2019).”

    From Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review (2021) · cites this paper as Vincent-Lancrin & Van der Vlies, 2020

    The “Transparency and explainability” section calls for meaningful information that helps people understand AI systems, recognize their interactions with them, and understand or challenge outcomes. It does not specifically frame that information as a way to understand broader societal impacts. UNICEF is separately cited in the sentence, so this verdict addresses only the OECD paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Drigas, A. and R. Ioannidou (2013), "A Review on Artificial Intelligence in Special Education", in Information Systems, E-learning, and Knowledge Management Research, Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35879-1_46. · DOI
  2. Elliott, S. (2017), Computers and the Future of Skill Demand, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264284395-en. · DOI
  3. G20 (n.d.), G20 Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy, https://www.meti.go.jp/press/2019/06/20190610010/20190610010-1.pdf.
  4. OECD (2019), Artificial Intelligence in Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eedfee77-en. · DOI · Paper page
  5. OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Future of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en. · DOI
  6. OECD (2019), OECD Skills Outlook 2019 : Thriving in a Digital World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en. · DOI
  7. Vincent-Lancrin, S., C. González-Sancho, M. Bouckaert, F. de Luca, M. Fernández-Barrerra, G. Jacotin, J. Urgel and Q. Vidal (2019), Fostering Students' Creativity and Critical Thinking: What it Means in School, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en. · DOI
  8. Vincent-Lancrin, S., J. Urgel, S. Kar, and G. Jacotin (2019), Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vincent‐Lancrin, S., & van der Vlies, R.
Affiliations
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques (FR)
Venue
OECD Education Working Papers
Published
2020-04-08
ISSN
1993-9019 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3016229568
Cited by
135
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
OECD education working papers (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
trustworthy AI, artificial intelligence in education, personalized learning, special needs students, student dropout prediction, skill assessment, critical and creative thinking, data privacy and security, algorithmic bias, AI policy, digitalization of education

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