Recent advancements in artificial intelligence make its use in education more likely. In fact, existing learning systems already utilize it for supporting students’ learning or teachers’ judgments. In this perspective article, we want to elaborate on the role of humans in making decisions in the design and implementation process of artificial intelligence in education. Therefore, we propose that an artificial intelligence-supported system in education can be considered a closed-loop system, which includes the steps of data recording, pattern detection, and adaptivity. (...) Besides the design process, we also consider the crucial role of the users in terms of decisions in educational contexts: While some implementations of artificial intelligence might make decisions on their own, we specifically highlight the high potential of striving for hybrid solutions in which different users, namely learners or teachers, are provided with information from artificial intelligence transparently for their own decisions. In light of the non-perfect accuracy of decisions of both artificial intelligence-based systems and users, we argue for balancing the process of human- and AI-driven decisions and mutual monitoring of these decisions. Accordingly, the decision-making process can be improved by taking both sides into account. Further, we emphasize the importance of contextualizing decisions. Potential erroneous decisions by either machines or humans can have very different consequences. In conclusion, humans have a crucial role at many stages in the process of designing and using artificial intelligence for education. (shrink)

Our synthetic review of the relevant and related literatures on the ethics and effects of using AI in education reveals five qualitatively distinct and interrelated divides associated with access, representation, algorithms, interpretations, and citizenship. We open our analysis by probing the ethical effects of algorithms and how teams of humans can plan for and mitigate bias when using AI tools and techniques to model and inform instructional decisions and predict learning outcomes. We then analyze the upstream divides that feed into (...) and fuel the algorithmic divide, first investigating access and then representation. After that, we analyze the divides that are downstream of the algorithmic divide associated with interpretation and citizenship. At present, lacking ongoing reflection and action by learners, educators, educational leaders, designers, scholars, and policymakers, the five divides collectively create a vicious cycle and perpetuate structural biases in teaching and learning. However, increasing human responsibility and control over these divides can create a virtuous cycle that improves diversity, equity, and inclusion in education. We conclude the article by looking forward and discussing ways to increase educational opportunity and effectiveness for all by mitigating bias through a cycle of progressive improvement. (shrink)