What students really think: unpacking AI ethics in educational assessments through a triadic framework
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education vol. 22, no. 1 (Dec 2025), p. 56 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autor: | |
| Další autoři: | , |
| Vydáno: |
Springer Nature B.V.
|
| Témata: | |
| On-line přístup: | Citation/Abstract Full Text Full Text - PDF |
| Tagy: |
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 3257250012 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 022 | |a 2365-9440 | ||
| 022 | |a 1698-580X | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s41239-025-00556-8 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a 3257250012 | ||
| 045 | 2 | |b d20251201 |b d20251231 | |
| 084 | |a 142233 |2 nlm | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Lim, Tristan |u Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.443365.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 0388 6484) | |
| 245 | 1 | |a What students really think: unpacking AI ethics in educational assessments through a triadic framework | |
| 260 | |b Springer Nature B.V. |c Dec 2025 | ||
| 513 | |a Journal Article | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a The rise of AI in educational assessments has significantly enhanced efficiency and accuracy. However, it also introduces critical ethical challenges, including bias in grading, data privacy risks, and accountability gaps. These issues can undermine trust in AI-driven assessments and compromise educational fairness, making a structured ethical framework essential. To address these challenges, this study empirically validates an existing triadic ethical framework for AI-assisted educational assessments, originally proposed by Lim, Gottipati and Cheong (In: Keengwe (ed) Creative AI tools and ethical implications in teaching and learning, IGI Global, 2023), grounded in student perceptions. The framework encompasses three ethical domains—physical, cognitive, and informational—which intersect with five key assessment pipeline stages: system design, data stewardship, assessment construction, administration, and grading. By structuring AI-driven assessments within this ethical framework, the study systematically maps key concerns, including fairness, accountability, privacy, and academic integrity. To validate the proposed framework, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to examine its relevance and alignment with learners' ethical concerns. Specifically, the study aims to (1) evaluate how well the triadic framework aligns with learners' perceptions of ethical issues using SEM analysis, and (2) examine relationships among the assessment pipeline stages, ethical considerations, pedagogical outcomes, and learner experiences. Findings reveal robust connections between AI-assisted assessment stages, ethical concerns, and learners' perspectives. By bridging theoretical validation with practical insights, this study emphasizes actionable strategies to support the development of AI-driven assessment systems that balance technological efficiency, pedagogical effectiveness, and ethical responsibility. | |
| 653 | |a Students | ||
| 653 | |a Assessments | ||
| 653 | |a Educational evaluation | ||
| 653 | |a Ontology | ||
| 653 | |a Systems design | ||
| 653 | |a Automation | ||
| 653 | |a Privacy | ||
| 653 | |a Cognitive ability | ||
| 653 | |a Ethics | ||
| 653 | |a Research & development--R&D | ||
| 653 | |a Feedback | ||
| 653 | |a Cognition & reasoning | ||
| 653 | |a Accountability | ||
| 653 | |a Artificial intelligence | ||
| 653 | |a Educational objectives | ||
| 653 | |a Education | ||
| 653 | |a Instructional scaffolding | ||
| 653 | |a Personalized learning | ||
| 653 | |a Literature reviews | ||
| 653 | |a Surveillance | ||
| 653 | |a Perceptions | ||
| 653 | |a Efficiency | ||
| 653 | |a Fairness | ||
| 653 | |a Risk assessment | ||
| 653 | |a Teaching | ||
| 653 | |a Ethical dilemmas | ||
| 653 | |a Morality | ||
| 653 | |a Frame analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Evaluation | ||
| 653 | |a Learning | ||
| 653 | |a Management | ||
| 653 | |a Effectiveness | ||
| 653 | |a Structural equation modeling | ||
| 653 | |a Learning Analytics | ||
| 653 | |a Dropout Rate | ||
| 653 | |a Intelligent Tutoring Systems | ||
| 653 | |a Influence of Technology | ||
| 653 | |a Diagnostic Tests | ||
| 653 | |a Learning Theories | ||
| 653 | |a Educational Technology | ||
| 653 | |a Grading | ||
| 653 | |a Student Experience | ||
| 653 | |a Network Analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Integrity | ||
| 653 | |a Interpersonal Relationship | ||
| 653 | |a At Risk Students | ||
| 653 | |a Instructional Effectiveness | ||
| 653 | |a Adaptive Testing | ||
| 653 | |a Educational Assessment | ||
| 653 | |a Formative Evaluation | ||
| 653 | |a Outcomes of Education | ||
| 653 | |a Language Processing | ||
| 653 | |a Data Processing | ||
| 653 | |a Algorithms | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Gottipati, Swapna |u Singapore Management University, School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.412634.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0697 8112) | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cheong, Michelle |u Singapore Management University, School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.412634.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0697 8112) | |
| 773 | 0 | |t International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education |g vol. 22, no. 1 (Dec 2025), p. 56 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t Political Science Database | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3257250012/abstract/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3257250012/fulltext/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text - PDF |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3257250012/fulltextPDF/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |