Cited by 62Ethics and Social Impacts of AINatural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Education

Equity Beyond Bias in Language Technologies for Education

Open access
Mayfield, Elijah, Madaio, Michael, Prabhumoye, Shrimai, Gerritsen, David, McLaughlin, Brittany, Dixon-Román, Ezekiel, Black, Alan W·2019·Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications

Abstract

Elijah Mayfield, Michael Madaio, Shrimai Prabhumoye, David Gerritsen, Brittany McLaughlin, Ezekiel Dixon-Román, Alan W Black. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. 2019.

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 · 10.18653/v1/w19-4446

Cites

185 of 185 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?

  • There is no such thing as neutral, dispassionate non-human assessment.

    “There is no such thing as neutral, dispassionate non-human assessment (Mayfield et al., 2019;Scheuneman, 1979).”

    From Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence (2022) · cites this paper as Mayfield et al., 2019

    Section 5.2 says bias can enter automated writing assessment through rubrics and training-data scoring, supporting the point that non-human assessment is not automatically neutral. But it also allows that extensive countermeasures can address bias; it does not establish the categorical claim that neutral non-human assessment cannot exist. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AIEd systems' impacts result from a complex interplay between the AI systems themselves, the human teams who design and develop them, and the human decision makers who use them.

    “their impacts result from a complex interplay between the AI systems themselves, the human teams who design and develop them, and the human decision makers who use these systems”

    From Equity and Artificial Intelligence in Education: Will "AIEd" Amplify or Alleviate Inequities in Education? (2021) · cites this paper as Mayfield et al., 2019

    Section 8.1 links system impacts to the cultural competence and diversity of development teams, while Section 4.1 describes how design choices affect learners. The Introduction says these tools are used in educational decision-making, but the passages do not establish how the human decision makers who use them shape their impacts. Our copy supplies no page numbers for these sections. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Insofar as AIEd technologies are shaped or driven by historical data, they risk perpetuating or even amplifying any social inequities reflected in these data.

    “insofar as these technologies are shaped or driven by historical data, they risk perpetuating or even amplifying any social inequities reflected in these data (Mayfield et al., 2019; Selbst et al., 2019; V eale et al., 2018).”

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

7 of the 192 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Amy L Baylor and Yanghee Kim. 2005. Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. In- ternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Edu- cation, 15(2):95-115.
  2. Kate Crawford. 2017. The trouble with bias, 2017. URL http://blog. revolutionanalytics. com/2017/12/the-trouble-with-bias-by-kate- crawford. html. Invited Talk by Kate Crawford at NIPS.
  3. Rotem Dror, Gili Baumer, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Re- ichart. 2018. The hitchhikers guide to testing statis- tical significance in natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1383-1392.
  4. Paulo Freire. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury publishing USA.
  5. Kathleen Heugh. 1995. Disabling and enabling: Im- plications of language policy trends in south africa. Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics, pages 329-350.
  6. Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miro Dudík, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05239. · arXiv
  7. Andreas Krug and Sebastian Stober. 2018. Introspec- tion for convolutional automatic speech recogni- tion. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 187-199, Brussels, Bel- gium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Mike Levy and Glenn Stockwell. 2013. CALL dimen- sions: Options and issues in computer-assisted lan- guage learning. Routledge.
  9. Luis C Moll. 1992. Vygotsky and education: Instruc- tional implications and applications of sociohistori- cal psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Jack Mostow and Hyeju Jang. 2012. Generating di- agnostic multiple choice comprehension cloze ques- tions. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using NLP, pages 136-146. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  11. Burr Settles, Chris Brust, Erin Gustafson, Masato Hagiwara, and Nitin Madnani. 2018. Second lan- guage acquisition modeling. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 56-65.
  12. Mark D Shermis and Ben Hamner. 2012. Contrasting state-of-the-art automated scoring of essays: Analy- sis. In Annual national council on measurement in education meeting, pages 14-16.
  13. J Siegel. 2001. Pidgins, creoles, and minority dialect in education. Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguis- tics, Elsevier, Oxford, pages 747-749.
  14. Holly E Tatum, Beth M Schwartz, Peggy A Schim- moeller, and Nicole Perry. 2013. Classroom partic- ipation and student-faculty interactions: does gen- der matter? The Journal of Higher Education, 84(6):745-768.
  15. Candace West and Don H Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2):125-151.
  16. Eric Westervelt. 2015. Meet the mind-reading robo tutor in the sky. http://tinyurl.com/y3l4jk4a. NPR Morning Edition. Accessed 2019-04-13.
  17. Silke M Witt. 2012. Automatic error detection in pro- nunciation training: Where we are and where we need to go. Proc. IS ADEPT, 6.
  18. Diyi Yang, Tanmay Sinha, David Adamson, and Car- olyn Penstein Rosé. 2013. Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 2013 NIPS Data-driven education workshop, volume 11, page 14. RE Yopp. 1988. Questioning and active comprehen- sion. Questioning Exchange, 2(3):231-238.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayfield, E., Madaio, M., Prabhumoye, S., Gerritsen, D., McLaughlin, B., Dixon-Román, E., & Black, A. W.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Mayfield, Elijah
Venue
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications
Published
2019
Pages
444-460
OpenAlex
W2971062439
Cited by
62
References
192
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11
FWCI
9.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
equity, bias, language technology, educational technology, algorithmic fairness

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