FATE issues in AIEd present themselves when users gain ownership and adapt systems to their local contexts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article argues that significant FATE-related issues surface during the process of users gaining ownership of an AIEd system and adapting it to specific contexts. → Bhimdiwala 2022

Evidence¶

Bhimdiwala 2022¶

Bhimdiwala, A., Neri, R. C., & Gomez, L. M. (2022). Advancing the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Education through Continuous Improvement. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00278-8

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

This is a theoretical argument advanced in the introduction, not an empirical test. The authors contend that user ownership is where "significant issues related to the fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE) of AIEd systems present themselves."

"It is in this process of gaining ownership of the idea and purpose of an AIEd system and adapting these to specific contexts that significant issues related to the fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE) of AIEd systems present themselves."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• User-centered and participatory AIEd approaches engage users mainly in early design, limiting recognition of FATE issues arising in use — related
• Waterfall-like design spaces are inadequate for AIEd because adaptable systems have untestable states — related
• Algorithmic empathy is culturally fragile: emotional inference errors in socio-emotional AI can invalidate teachers' experiences, so systems require local validation and participatory design — related
• Participatory design yields teacher ownership but carries tradeoffs and omits the learner — related