Abstract
AbstractArtificial intelligence in higher education is becoming more prevalent as it promises improvements and acceleration of administrative processes concerning student support, aiming for increasing student success and graduation rates. For instance, Academic Performance Prediction (APP) provides individual feedback and serves as the foundation for distributing student support measures. However, the use of APP with all its challenges (e.g., inherent biases) significantly impacts the future prospects of young adults. Therefore, it is important to weigh the opportunities and risks of such systems carefully and involve affected students in the development phase. This study addresses students’ fairness perceptions of the distribution of support measures based on an APP system. First, we examine how students evaluate three different distributive justice norms, namely, equality, equity, and need. Second, we investigate whether fairness perceptions differ between APP based on human or algorithmic decision-making, and third, we address whether evaluations differ between students studying science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or social sciences, humanities, and the arts for people and the economy (SHAPE), respectively. To this end, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a 2 $$\times$$
×
3 factorial design among n = 1378 German students, in which we utilized the distinct distribution norms and decision-making agents as design factors. Our findings suggest that students prefer an equality-based distribution of support measures, and this preference is not influenced by whether APP is based on human or algorithmic decision-making. Moreover, the field of study does not influence the fairness perception, except that students of STEM subjects evaluate a distribution based on the need norm as more fair than students of SHAPE subjects. Based on these findings, higher education institutions should prioritize student-centric decisions when considering APP, weigh the actual need against potential risks, and establish continuous feedback through ongoing consultation with all stakeholders.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,Human-Computer Interaction,Education,Mathematics (miscellaneous)
Reference144 articles.
1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
2. Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf.
3. Adams, Richard, & McIntyre, Niamh. (2020). England a-Level Downgrades Hit Pupils from Disadvantaged Areas Hardest: Analysis Also Shows Pupils at Private Schools Benefited Most from Algorithm. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/13/england-a-level-downgrades-hit-pupils-from-disadvantaged-areas-hardest#.
4. Ahmed, SA., & Khan, SI. (2019). A machine learning approach to predict the engineering students at risk of dropout and factors behind: bangladesh perspective. In 10th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT45670.2019.8944511.
5. Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1990). Social decision heuristics in the use of shared resources. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960030304
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献