Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in higher education: Strategies for mitigating bias and promoting fairness

Emily  Barnes; James Hutson

doi:10.59400/fes.v2i2.1229

Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in higher education: Strategies for mitigating bias and promoting fairness

Emily Barnes Lindenwood University, St Charles, MO 63301, USA
James Hutson Lindenwood University, St Charles, MO 63301, USA

Article ID: 1229

550 Views, 405 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i2.1229

Keywords: artificial intelligence; ethical challenges; bias mitigation; higher education; algorithmic fairness

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are transforming higher education by enhancing personalized learning and academic support, yet they pose significant ethical challenges, particularly in terms of inherent biases. This review critically examines the integration of AI in higher education, underscoring the dual aspects of its potential to innovate educational paradigms and the essential need to address ethical implications to avoid perpetuating existing inequalities. The researchers employed a methodological approach that analyzed case studies and literature as primary data collection methods, focusing on strategies to mitigate biases through technical solutions, diverse datasets, and strict adherence to ethical guidelines. Their findings indicate that establishing an ethical AI environment in higher education is imperative and involves comprehensive efforts across policy regulation, governance, and education. The study emphasizes the significance of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing the complexities of AI bias, highlighting how policy, regulation, governance, and education play pivotal roles in creating an ethical AI framework. Ultimately, the paper advocates for continuous vigilance and proactive strategies to ensure that AI contributes positively to educational settings, stressing the need for robust frameworks that integrate ethical considerations throughout the lifecycle of AI systems to ensure their responsible and equitable use.

References

[1]Bisen IE, Arslan EA, Yildirim K, et al. Artificial Intelligence and machine learning in higher education. In: Machine Learning Approaches for Improvising Modern Learning Systems. IGI Global; 2021. pp. 1-17.

[2]Rahiman HU, Kodikal R. Revolutionizing education: Artificial intelligence empowered learning in higher education. Cogent Education. 2023; 11(1). doi: 10.1080/2331186x.2023.2293431

[3]Yildirim Y, Arslan EA, Yildirim K, et al. Reimagining Education with Artificial Intelligence. Eurasian Journal of Higher Education. 2021; 2(4): 32-46. doi: 10.31039/ejohe.2021.4.52

[4]Alqahtani T, Badreldin HA, Alrashed M, et al. The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2023; 19(8): 1236-1242. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.016

[5]Kuleto V, Ilić M, Dumangiu M, et al. Exploring Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability. 2021; 13(18): 10424. doi: 10.3390/su131810424

[6]Alam A. Harnessing the Power of AI to Create Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Enhanced Classroom Experience and Improved Learning Outcomes. In: Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks. Springer Nature Singapore; 2023. pp. 571-591.

[7]Pedró F. Applications of Artificial Intelligence to higher education: possibilities, evidence, and challenges. IUL Research. 2020; 1(1): 61-76. doi: 10.57568/iulres.v1i1.43

[8]Sajja R, Sermet Y, Cikmaz M, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education. arXiv. 2023; arXiv:2309.10892.

[9]Xu W, Meng J, Raja SKS, et al. Artificial intelligence in constructing personalized and accurate feedback systems for students. International Journal of Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing. 2023; 14(01): 2341001.

[10]Miao F, Holmes W, Huang R, et al. AI and Education: A Guidance for Policymakers. UNESCO Publishing; 2021.

[11]Yang C, Huan S, Yang Y. A Practical Teaching Mode for Colleges Supported by Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2020; 15(17): 195. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i17.16737

[12]Ali M, Abdel-Haq MK. Bibliographical analysis of artificial intelligence learning in Higher Education: is the role of the human educator and educated a thing of the past? In: Fostering Communication and Learning with Underutilized Technologies in Higher Education. IGI Global; 2021. pp. 36-52.

[13]Tiwari CK, Bhat MohdA, Khan ST, et al. What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. 2023; 21(3): 333-355. doi: 10.1108/itse-04-2023-0061

[14]Popenici SAD, Kerr S. Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 2017; 12(1). doi: 10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8

[15]Zawacki-Richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, et al. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2019; 16(1): 1-27.

[16]Maphosa V, Maphosa M. Artificial intelligence in higher education: a bibliometric analysis and topic modeling approach. Applied Artificial Intelligence. 2023; 37(1). doi: 10.1080/08839514.2023.2261730

[17]Ntoutsi E, Fafalios P, Gadiraju U, et al. Bias in data‐driven artificial intelligence systems—An introductory survey. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2020; 10(3). doi: 10.1002/widm.1356

[18]Hall P, Ellis D. A systematic review of socio-technical gender bias in AI algorithms. Online Information Review. 2023; 47(7): 1264-1279. doi: 10.1108/oir-08-2021-0452

[19]Kordzadeh N, Ghasemaghaei M. Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions. European Journal of Information Systems. 2021; 31(3): 388-409. doi: 10.1080/0960085x.2021.1927212

[20]Leavy S. Gender bias in artificial intelligence: The need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering; 28 May 2018; Gothenburg, Sweden. pp. 14-16.

[21]Yapo A, Weiss J. Ethical Implications of Bias in Machine Learning. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 3-6 January 2018; Hilton Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA. pp. 5365-5372. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2018.668

[22]Mehrabi N, Morstatter F, Saxena N, et al. A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Computing Surveys. 2021; 54(6): 1-35. doi: 10.1145/3457607

[23]Zhou KZ, Cao J, Yuan X, et al. “I’m Not Confident in Debiasing AI Systems Since I Know Too Little”: Teaching AI Creators About Gender Bias Through Hands-on Tutorials. arXiv. 2023; arXiv:2309.08121.

[24]Roshanaei M. Towards best practices for mitigating artificial intelligence implicit bias in shaping diversity, inclusion and equity in higher education. Education and Information Technologies. 2024; 1-26. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12605-2

[25]Broussard M. More than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech. MIT Press; 2023.

[26]Jackson S, Panteli N. Trust or mistrust in algorithmic grading? An embedded agency perspective. International Journal of Information Management. 2023; 69: 102555. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102555

[27]Slimi Z, Carballido BV. Navigating the Ethical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: An Analysis of Seven Global AI Ethics Policies. TEM Journal. 2023; 12(2): 590-602. doi: 10.18421/tem122-02

[28]Le-Nguyen HT, Tran TT. Generative AI in Terms of Its Ethical Problems for Both Teachers and Learners: Striking a Balance. In: Generative AI in Teaching and Learning. IGI Global; 2023. pp. 144-173.

[29]Schwartz R, Vassilev A, Greene K, et al. Towards a Standard for Identifying and Managing Bias in Artificial Intelligence. NIST Special Publication; 2022.

[30]Hersh RH, Merrow J. Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk. St. Martin’s Press; 2015.

[31]Mashhadi A, Zolyomi A, Quedado J. A Case Study of Integrating Fairness Visualization Tools in Machine Learning Education. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts; 29 April-5 May 2022; New Orleans, LA, USA. pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1145/3491101.3503568

[32]Islam SR, Russell I, Eberle W, et al. Incorporating the Concepts of Fairness and Bias into an Undergraduate Computer Science Course to Promote Fair Automated Decision Systems. In: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V2; 2-5 March 2022; Providence, RI, USA. pp. 1075-1075. doi: 10.1145/3478432.3499043

[33]Borenstein J, Howard A. Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics. 2020; 1(1): 61-65. doi: 10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7

[34]Aleven V, Baraniuk R, Brunskill E, et al. Towards the Future of AI-Augmented Human Tutoring in Math Learning. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023. pp. 26-31.

[35]Giani MS, Walling D. Will I Get In? Using Predictive Analytics to Develop Student-Facing Tools to Estimate University Admissions Decisions. Journal of College Access. 2020; 5(1): 4.

[36]Smithers L. Predictive analytics and the creation of the permanent present. Learning, Media and Technology. 2022; 48(1): 109-121. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2022.2036757

[37]Umer R, Susnjak T, Mathrani A, et al. Current stance on predictive analytics in higher education: opportunities, challenges and future directions. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021; 31(6): 3503-3528. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1933542

[38]Fuller K, Lupton-Smith C, Hubal R, et al. Automated Analysis of Preceptor Comments: A Pilot Study Using Sentiment Analysis to Identify Potential Student Issues in Experiential Education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2023; 87(9): 100005. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.02.005

[39]Beal CR. AnimalWatch: An intelligent tutoring system for algebra readiness. In: International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies. Springer; 2013. pp. 337-348.

[40]Chu CH, Nyrup R, Leslie K, et al. Digital Ageism: Challenges and Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence for Older Adults. The Gerontologist. 2022; 62(7): 947-955. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnab167

[41]Tomalin M, Byrne B, Concannon S, et al. The practical ethics of bias reduction in machine translation: Why domain adaptation is better than data debiasing. Ethics and Information Technology. 2021; 23: 419-433. doi: 10.1007/s10676-021-09583-1

[42]Li C, Xing W. Revealing factors influencing students’ perceived fairness: A case with a predictive system for math learning. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale; 1-3 June 2022; New York City, NY, USA. pp. 409-412.

[43]Fu R, Huang Y, Singh PV. AI and algorithmic bias: Source, detection, mitigation and implications. In: Detection, Mitigation and Implications. 2020.

[44]Dignum V. Relational artificial intelligence. arXiv. 2022; arXiv:2202.07446.

[45]Woodgate J, Ajmeri N. Macro ethics for governing equitable sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS); 9-13 May 2022; Online Conference. pp. 1824-1828.

[46]Guan H, Dong L, Zhao A. Ethical Risk Factors and Mechanisms in Artificial Intelligence Decision Making. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(9): 343. doi: 10.3390/bs12090343

[47]Köbis L, Mehner C. Ethical questions raised by AI-supported mentoring in higher education. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2021; 4: 624050.

[48]Bendechache M, Tal I, Wall P, et al. AI in My Life: AI, Ethics & Privacy Workshops for 15-16-Year-Olds. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference; 21-25 June 2021; Online Conference. pp. 34-39.

[49]Benhayoun L, Lang D. Does higher education properly prepare graduates for the growing artificial intelligence market? Gaps’ identification using text mining. Human Systems Management. 2021; 40(5): 639-651. doi: 10.3233/hsm-211179

[50]Holmes W, Porayska-Pomsta K, Holstein K, et al. Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2021; 32(3): 504-526. doi: 10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1

[51]Zytko D, Wisniewski P, Guha S, et al. Participatory Design of AI Systems: Opportunities and Challenges Across Diverse Users, Relationships, and Application Domains. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts; 29 April–5 May 2022; New Orleans, LA, USA. doi: 10.1145/3491101.3516506

[52]Goodyear P. Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2005; 21(1). doi: 10.14742/ajet.1344

[53]Triantafyllakos G, Palaigeorgiou G, Tsoukalas IA. Designing educational software with students through collaborative design games: The We! Design & Play framework. Computers & Education. 2011; 56(1): 227-242.

[54]Hossain S, Ahmed SI. Towards a New Participatory Approach for Designing Artificial Intelligence and Data-Driven Technologies. arXiv. 2021; arXiv:2104.04072.

[55]Jacobs M, Kurtz C, Simon J, et al. Value Sensitive Design and power in socio-technical ecosystems. Internet Policy Review. 2021; 10(3). doi: 10.14763/2021.3.1580

[56]Umbrello S, Van de Poel I. Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics. 2021; 1(3): 283-296.

[57]Gerdes A. A participatory data-centric approach to AI Ethics by Design. Applied Artificial Intelligence. 2021; 36(1). doi: 10.1080/08839514.2021.2009222

[58]Kasif S. Artificial Tikkun Olam: AI Can Be Our Best Friend in Building an Open Human-Computer Society. arXiv. 2020; arXiv:2010.12015.

[59]Nitta I, Ohashi K, Shiga S, et al. AI Ethics Impact Assessment based on Requirement Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 30th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW); 15-19 August 2022; Melbourne, Australia. pp. 152-161. doi: 10.1109/rew56159.2022.00037

[60]Metcalf J, Moss E, Watkins EA, et al. Algorithmic Impact Assessments and Accountability. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 3-10 March 2021; Online Conference. pp. 735-746. doi: 10.1145/3442188.3445935

[61]Beutel A, Chen J, Doshi T, et al. Putting fairness principles into practice: Challenges, metrics, and improvements. In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society; 27-28 January 2019; Honolulu, HI, USA. pp. 453-459.

[62]Broder RS, Berton L. Performance analysis of machine learning algorithms trained on biased data. In: Anais do XVIII Encontro Nacional de Inteligência Artificial e Computacional. SBC; 2021. pp. 548-558.

[63]Han X, Shen A, Li Y, et al. FairLib: A Unified Framework for Assessing and Improving Fairness. In: Che W, Shutova E (editors). Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-demos.7

[64]Gupta A, Wright C, Ganapini MB, et al. The State of AI Ethics Report. arXiv. 2021; arXiv:2108.03929.

[65]Patel K. Ethical Reflections on Data-Centric AI: Balancing Benefits and Risks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research and Development. 2024; 2(1): 1-17.

[66]Papamitsiou Z, Economides AA. Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2014; 17(4): 49-64.

[67]Gellai DB. Enterprising Academics: Heterarchical Policy Networks for Artificial Intelligence in British Higher Education. ECNU Review of Education. 2022; 6(4): 568-596. doi: 10.1177/20965311221143798

[68]Nelson LK, Zippel K. From Theory to Practice and Back: How the Concept of Implicit Bias was Implemented in Academe, and What this Means for Gender Theories of Organizational Change. Gender & Society. 2021; 35(3): 330-357. doi: 10.1177/08912432211000335

[69]Mohammed PS, Nell’Watson E. Towards inclusive education in the age of artificial intelligence: Perspectives, challenges, and opportunities. In: Knox J, Wang Y, Gallagher M (editors). Artificial Intelligence and Inclusive Education: Speculative Futures and Emerging Practices. Springer; 2019. pp. 17-37. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-8161-4_2

Published

2024-06-21

How to Cite

Barnes, E., & Hutson, J. (2024). Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in higher education: Strategies for mitigating bias and promoting fairness. Forum for Education Studies, 2(2), 1229. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i2.1229

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.