Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in education: A systematic review on framing responsible human-centered AI practices

Yao Fu , Zhenjie Weng
{"title":"Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in education: A systematic review on framing responsible human-centered AI practices","authors":"Yao Fu ,&nbsp;Zhenjie Weng","doi":"10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years, there has been an increasing number of studies on integrating AI in various educational contexts, ranging from early childhood to higher education. Although systematic reviews have widely reported the effects of AI on teaching and learning, limited reviews have examined and defined responsible AI in education (AIED). To fill this gap, we conducted a convergent systematic mixed studies review to analyze key themes emerging from primary research. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched Scopus and Web of Science and identified 40 empirical studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Specifically, we used four criteria for the screening process: (1) the study's full text was available in English; (2) the study was published before April 10th, 2024 in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings; (3) the study was primary research that collected original data and applied qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods as the study methodology; and (4) the study had a clear focus on ethical and/or responsible AI in one or multiple educational context(s). Our findings identified essential stakeholders and characteristics of responsible AI in K-20 educational contexts and expanded understanding of responsible human-centered AI (HCAI). We unveiled characteristics vital to HCAI, encompassing Fairness and Equity, Privacy and Security, Non-maleficence and Beneficence, Agency and Autonomy, and Transparency and Intelligibility. In addition, we provided suggestions on how to achieve responsible HCAI via collaborative efforts of stakeholders, including roles of users (e.g., students and educators), developers, researchers, and policy and decision-makers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34469,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X24001097/pdfft?md5=c9dd430227b9715d8d56e7a8bbfc0e2a&pid=1-s2.0-S2666920X24001097-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X24001097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years, there has been an increasing number of studies on integrating AI in various educational contexts, ranging from early childhood to higher education. Although systematic reviews have widely reported the effects of AI on teaching and learning, limited reviews have examined and defined responsible AI in education (AIED). To fill this gap, we conducted a convergent systematic mixed studies review to analyze key themes emerging from primary research. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched Scopus and Web of Science and identified 40 empirical studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Specifically, we used four criteria for the screening process: (1) the study's full text was available in English; (2) the study was published before April 10th, 2024 in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings; (3) the study was primary research that collected original data and applied qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods as the study methodology; and (4) the study had a clear focus on ethical and/or responsible AI in one or multiple educational context(s). Our findings identified essential stakeholders and characteristics of responsible AI in K-20 educational contexts and expanded understanding of responsible human-centered AI (HCAI). We unveiled characteristics vital to HCAI, encompassing Fairness and Equity, Privacy and Security, Non-maleficence and Beneficence, Agency and Autonomy, and Transparency and Intelligibility. In addition, we provided suggestions on how to achieve responsible HCAI via collaborative efforts of stakeholders, including roles of users (e.g., students and educators), developers, researchers, and policy and decision-makers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索教育领域人工智能的道德领域:关于制定负责任的、以人为本的人工智能实践的系统综述
近年来,随着人工智能(AI)的快速发展,有关将人工智能融入从幼儿教育到高等教育等各种教育环境的研究越来越多。尽管系统性综述广泛报道了人工智能对教学和学习的影响,但对负责任的人工智能教育(AIED)进行研究和定义的综述却很有限。为了填补这一空白,我们开展了一项趋同的系统性混合研究综述,以分析主要研究中出现的关键主题。根据《系统性综述和元分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)指南,我们搜索了 Scopus 和 Web of Science,确定了 40 项符合纳入标准的实证研究。具体来说,我们在筛选过程中使用了四项标准:(1)研究报告的全文为英文;(2)研究报告于 2024 年 4 月 10 日之前发表在同行评审期刊或会议论文集上;(3)研究报告为收集原始数据的初步研究,并将定性、定量或混合方法作为研究方法;以及(4)研究报告明确关注一种或多种教育环境中的道德和/或负责任的人工智能。我们的研究结果确定了 K-20 教育环境中负责任的人工智能的重要利益相关者和特征,并拓展了对负责任的以人为本的人工智能(HCAI)的理解。我们揭示了对 HCAI 至关重要的特征,包括公平与公正、隐私与安全、非恶意与有利、代理与自主以及透明与智能。此外,我们还就如何通过利益相关者的共同努力实现负责任的 HCAI 提出了建议,包括用户(如学生和教育工作者)、开发人员、研究人员以及政策和决策者的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
50 days
期刊最新文献
Enhancing data analysis and programming skills through structured prompt training: The impact of generative AI in engineering education Understanding the practices, perceptions, and (dis)trust of generative AI among instructors: A mixed-methods study in the U.S. higher education Technological self-efficacy and sense of coherence: Key drivers in teachers' AI acceptance and adoption The influence of AI literacy on complex problem-solving skills through systematic thinking skills and intuition thinking skills: An empirical study in Thai gen Z accounting students Psychometrics of an Elo-based large-scale online learning system
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1