Advancing Modern Education through Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Enhancing Learning Outcomes and Teaching with Transparent AI Systems
Keywords:
Adaptive learning systems, Educational data mining, Model interpretability, Original interpretable model-agnostic explanations, Resolvable artificial intelligence, Shapley additive explanationsAbstract
The incorporation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) into contemporary teaching presents a revolutionary paradigm designed to improve learning challenges and empower instructors while simultaneously responding to ethical concerns surrounding AI implementation. As educational technologies powered by AI, such as intelligent tutoring systems, adaptive learning systems, and automated grading software, increasingly dominate educational environments, doubts concerning transparency, trustworthiness, and accountability have become more pronounced. This research looks at current applications of XAI in the education environment and highlights approaches that enable interpretable explanations of AI-powered decisions to enhance comprehension and trust among students, teachers, and administrators. Using a sample of 200 students, the study designed AI models to forecast student pass-fail outcomes, with attendance, assignment grades, and test grades as predictor variables. The models showed excellent performance indices, with 80% accuracy, 85% precision, 77% recall, and an F1 value of 81, indicating the predictive trustworthiness of the method. The use of naturally interpretable models, such as decision trees, was supplemented with post-hoc, model-agnostic explanation techniques, including SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) and LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations), to enhance interpretability. The tools discussed yielded fine-grained insights into feature contributions, rendering it feasible to allow instructors to know AI projects in depth and align student interventions. Moral aspects, i.e., anonymisation of data, bias identification, and verification of fairness, were carried out with utmost care, resulting in a 20% reduction of the difference of prediction between demographically-defined groups. Comments received from instructors underlined appreciation of additional trust, engagement, and informed decision-making against insightful AI intelligence. The combination of innovations that are at once technical and human-centric demonstrates how XAI enables fair, transparent, and efficient educational practice. The findings add to the growing scholarship on the same.
References
R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, F. Turini, F. Giannotti, and D. Pedreschi, “A survey of methods for explaining black box models,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1–42, Aug. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3236009
A. Holzinger, C. Biemann, C. S. Pattichis, and D. B. Kell, “What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?,” arXiv.org, Dec. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1712.09923
G. Vani, R. Naveenkumar, R. Singha, R. Sharkar, and N. Kumar, “Advancing predictive data analytics in IoT and AI leveraging real time data for proactive operations and system resilience,” Nanotechnology Perceptions, vol. 20, no. S16, pp. 568–582, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.62441/nano-ntp.vi.3968
N. Kalavani, R. Naveenkumar, S. Bhattacharjee, R. Sharkar, and N. Kumar, “Evaluating the performance of machine learning models in cancer prediction through ROC and PRC metrics,” Nanotechnology Perceptions, vol. 20, no. S16, pp. 553–567, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.62441/nano-ntp.vi.3966
C. Basta, M. R. Costa-jussà, and N. Casas, “Evaluating the underlying gender bias in contextualized word embeddings,” in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2019, pp. 33–39, doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w19-3805
M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “‘Why should I trust you?’: Explaining the predictions of any classifier,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining - KDD ’16, New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery, Aug. 2016, pp. 1135–1144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Red Hook, NY, United States: Curran Associates Inc., Dec. 2017, pp. 4768–4777, Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3295222.3295230
F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim, “Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning,” arXiv.org, Mar. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1702.08608
Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 36–43, Sep. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3233231
I. Beltagy, K. Lo, and A. Cohan, “SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2019, pp. 3615–3620. doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d19-1371
E. M. Bender and B. Friedman, “Data statements for natural language processing: Toward mitigating system bias and enabling better science,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 6, pp. 587–604, Dec. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00041
E. M. Bender and A. Koller, “Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2020, pp. 5185–5198, doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463
R. Benjamin, Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code, 1st ed. Polity, 2019.
E. Bietti and R. Vatanparast, “Data waste,” Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 61, Apr. 2020, Available: https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/2020/04/data-waste/
A. Birhane and V. U. Prabhu, “Large image datasets: A pyrrhic win for computer vision?,” 2021 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2021, pp. 1536–1546, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV48630.2021.00158
S. L. Blodgett, S. Barocas, H. Daumé III, and H. Wallach, “Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of ‘bias’ in NLP,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2020, pp. 5454–5476. doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485
T. Brants, A. C. Popat, P. Xu, F. J. Och, and J. Dean, “Large language models in machine translation,” in Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jun. 2007, pp. 858–867. Available: https://aclanthology.org/D07-1090/