CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 258Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Practices, Challenges, and Debates

Open access
Holmes, Wayne, Porayska-Pomsta, Kaśka·2022·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9780429329067
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The transition of Artificial Intelligence (AI) from a lab-based science to live human contexts brings into sharp focus many historic, socio-cultural biases, inequalities, and moral dilemmas. Many questions that have been raised regarding the broader ethics of AI are also relevant for AI in Education (AIED). AIED raises further specific challenges related to the impact of its technologies on users, how such technologies might be used to reinforce or alter the way that we learn and teach, and what we, as a society and individuals, value as outcomes of education. This chapter discusses key ethical dimensions of AI and contextualises them within AIED design and engineering practices to draw connections between the AIED systems we build, the questions about human learning and development we ask, the ethics of the pedagogies we use, and the considerations of values that we promote in and through AIED within a wider socio-technical system.

Overview

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 · 10.4324/9780429329067

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Barocas, S., Crawford, K., Shapiro, A. and Wallach, H. (2017). The Problem With Bias: Allocative Versus Representational Harms in Machine Learning. In SIGCIS Conference. http://meetings.sigcis.org/uploads/6/3/6/8/6368912/program.pdf (accessed 1 September 2021).
  2. Blikstein, P. (2018). Time to Make Hard Choices for AI in Education. Keynote at the 19 th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, London 2018.
  3. Bogdan, K., Overdorf, R., Troncoso, C., and Gürses, S. (2018). POTs: Protective Optimization Technologies. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02711. · arXiv
  4. Bolukbasi, T, Chang, K.-W., Zou, J.Y., Saligrama, V. and Kalai, A. T. (2016). Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings. In D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. V. Luxburg, I. Guyon and R. Garnett (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, pages 4349-4357, Curran Associates, Inc.
  5. Cramer, H., Vaughan, W. J., & Holstein, K. (2019). Challenges of incorporating algorithmic 'fairness' into practice. Tutorial at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* 2019). (accessed 1 September 2021).
  6. du Boulay, B. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in Education: A brief discussion about ethics. In W. Holmes and K. Porayska-Pomsta (Eds.) The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Practices, Challenges, and Debates. Routledge.
  7. Floridi, L. (2013). The Ethics of Information, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  8. Grawemayer, B., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Wiedmann, M., Rummel, N. (2017). Affective Learning: Improving engagement and enhancing learning with affect- aware feedback, User modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 119-158.
  9. Heaven, W D. (2020). Predictive Policing Algorithms are Racist. They need to be dismantled. MIT Technology Review, July 17, 2020 (accessed 1 September 2021).
  10. Holstein, K. and Doroudi, S. (2022). In W. Holmes and K. Porayska-Pomsta (Eds.) The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Practices, Challenges, and Debates. Routledge.
  11. Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé III, H., Dudik, M., & Wallach, H. (2019). Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1- 16) (accessed 1 September 2021).
  12. IEEE General Principles (2017) https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee- standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead1e_general_principles.pdf
  13. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: The global landscape of ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2Kant, 1785. · DOI
  14. Kelly, K. (2010). What Technology Wants, Penguin Books.
  15. Kurzweil, R. (2014). The singularity is near. In Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 393-406). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  16. Madaio, M., Yarzebinski, E., Zinszer, B., Kamath, V., Akpe, H., Seri, A.B., Tanoh, F., Hannon-Cropp, J., Cassell, J., Jasinska, K., Ogam, A. (2020). Motivations and Barriers for Family Engagement with Home Literacy Technology in Rural Communities. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020, ACM.
  17. Narayanan, A. (2018). 21 Fairness Definitions and their Politics. Tutorial at the FACCT Conference, 2018. Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXIuYdnyyk (accessed 1 September 2021).
  18. Noble, S. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression. New York, NY: NYU Press.
  19. Porayska-Pomsta, K., Alcorn, A M., Avramides, K., Beale, S., Bernardini, S., Foster, M-E., Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Guldberg, K., Keay-Bright, W., Kossyvaki, L., Lemon, O., Mademtzi, M., Menzies, R., Pain, H., Rajendran, G., Waller, A., Sam Wass, Smith, T.J. (2018). Blending human and artificial intelligence to support autistic children of social communication skills, TOCHI, 25(6), 1-35, ACM
  20. Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as Fairness, The Philosophical Review, 67(2).
  21. Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press. The Royal Society.
  22. Saxena, M., Pillai, R. K., Mostow, J. (2018). Relating Children's Automatically Detected Facial Expressions to Their Behaviour in RoboTutor. In 32 nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  23. Sweeney, Latanya. May 1, 2013. Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery. ACM 56(5), 44-54.
  24. The Royal Society Workshop Report (2019): Digital technology and human transformation, November 2019 DES6259, https://royalsociety.org/- /media/policy/Publications/2020/human-transformation-summary.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Holmes, W., & Porayska-Pomsta, K.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Holmes, Wayne
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2022-08-11
DOI
10.4324/9780429329067
OpenAlex
W4301626130
Cited by
258
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 4
FWCI
67.15
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, AI ethics, educational technology design, educational inequality, pedagogy, educational values, socio-technical systems

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