Explainable AI in Education: Techniques and Qualitative Assessment
Source abstract
Abstract
Many of the articles on AI in education compare the performance and fairness of different models, but few specifically focus on quantitatively analyzing their explainability. To bridge this gap, we analyzed key evaluation metrics for two machine learning models—ANN and DT—with a focus on their performance and explainability in predicting student outcomes using the OULAD. The methodology involved evaluating the DT, an intrinsically explainable model, against the more complex ANN, which requires post hoc explainability techniques. The results show that, although the feature-based and structured decision-making process of the DT facilitates natural interpretability, it struggles to model complex data relationships, often leading to misclassification. In contrast, the ANN demonstrated higher accuracy and stability but lacked transparency. Crucially, the ANN showed great fidelity in result predictions when it used the LIME and SHAP methods. The results of the experiments verify that the ANN consistently outperformed the DT in prediction accuracy and stability, especially with the LIME method. However, improving the interpretability of ANN models remains a challenge for future research.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
Funding
Academy of Finland
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning10.1145/3457607 ↗
2. DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program
3. Carvalho, D.V., Pereira, E.M., and Cardoso, J.S. (2019). Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electronics, 8.10.3390/electronics8080832 ↗
4. Saarela, M., and Podgorelec, V. (2024). Recent Applications of Explainable AI (XAI): A Systematic Literature Review. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14198884 ↗
5. Gunasekara, S., and Saarela, M. (2024, January 15–19). Explainability in Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: An Umbrella Review. Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Atlanta, GA, USA.
6. Li, C., Li, M., Huang, C.L., Tseng, Y.T., Kim, S.H., and Yeom, S. (2022, January 21–25). Educational Data Mining in Prediction of Students’ Learning Performance: A Scoping Review. Proceedings of the IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education, Hiroshima, Japan.10.1007/978-3-031-43393-1_33 ↗
7. Masruroh, S.U., Rosyada, D., and Vitalaya, N.A.R. (2021, January 22–23). Adaptive Recommendation System in Education Data Mining using Knowledge Discovery for Academic Predictive Analysis: Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), Bengkulu, Indonesia.10.1109/CITSM52892.2021.9588895 ↗
8. A review on predicting student’s performance using data mining techniques10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.157 ↗
9. Early prediction of learners at risk in self-paced education: A neural network approach10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118868 ↗
10. Matetic, M. (2019, January 20–24). Mining learning management system data using interpretable neural networks. Proceedings of the 2019 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia.10.23919/MIPRO.2019.8757113 ↗
11. Evaluating the explainers: Black-box explainable machine learning for student success prediction in MOOCs
12. Rangone, G.N., Montejano, G.A., Garis, A.G., Pizarro, C.A., and Molina, W.R. (2022, January 23–25). An Educational Data Mining Model based on Auto Machine Learning and Interpretable Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Global Conference on Computing, Power and Communication Technologies (GlobConPT), New Delhi, India.10.1109/GlobConPT57482.2022.9938243 ↗
13. Interpretable and Adaptable Early Warning Learning Analytics Model
14. Kondo, N., Matsuda, T., Hayashi, Y., Matsukawa, H., Tsubakimoto, M., Watanabe, Y., Tateishi, S., and Yamashita, H. (2020, January 1–15). Academic Success Prediction based on Important Student Data Selected via Multi-objective Evolutionary Computation. Proceedings of the 2020 9th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Kitakyushu, Japan.10.1109/IIAI-AAI50415.2020.00082 ↗
15. Capuano, N., Rossi, D., Ströele, V., and Caballé, S. (2023, January 14–16). Explainable Prediction of Student Performance in Online Courses. Proceedings of the Learning Ideas Conference, New York, NY, USA.10.1007/978-3-031-41637-8_52 ↗
16. Explainable student performance prediction models: A systematic review10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3061368 ↗
17. Decision trees10.1007/0-387-25465-X_9 ↗
18. Artificial neural networks for neuroscientists: A primer10.1016/j.neuron.2020.09.005 ↗
19. Enhancing Student Success Prediction with FeatureX: A Fusion Voting Classifier Algorithm with Hybrid Feature Selection10.1007/s10639-023-12139-z ↗
20. Notions of explainability and evaluation approaches for explainable artificial intelligence10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.009 ↗
21. Explainable student agency analytics10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3116664 ↗
22. Open university learning analytics dataset10.1038/sdata.2017.171 ↗
23. Chavez, H., Chavez-Arias, B., Contreras-Rosas, S., Alvarez-Rodríguez, J.M., and Raymundo, C. (2023). Artificial neural network model to predict student performance using nonpersonal information. Front. Educ., 8.10.3389/feduc.2023.1106679 ↗
24. Casalino, G., Ducange, P., Fazzolari, M., and Pecori, R. (2022, January 18). Fuzzy Hoeffding Decision Trees for Learning Analytics. Proceedings of the OLUD@ WCCI, Parma, Italy.
25. Alonso, J.M., and Casalino, G. (2019, January 6–7). Explainable artificial intelligence for human-centric data analysis in virtual learning environments. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Higher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online, Novedrate, Italy.10.1007/978-3-030-31284-8_10 ↗
26. An algorithm based on fuzzy ordinal classification to predict students’ academic performance10.1007/s10489-023-04810-2 ↗
27. Gunasekara, S., and Saarela, M. (April, January 31). Quantitative Assessment of Explainability in Machine Learning Models: A Study on the OULA Dataset. Proceedings of the 40th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, Sicily, Italy.
28. Mining sequential learning trajectories with hidden markov models for early prediction of at-risk students in e-learning environments10.1109/TLT.2022.3197486 ↗
29. An interpretable pipeline for identifying at-risk students10.1177/07356331211038168 ↗
30. Qin, A., and Boicu, M. (2023, January 18–21). EduBoost: An Interpretable Grey-Box Model Approach to Identify and Prevent Student Failure and Dropout. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), College Station, TX, USA.10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343186 ↗
31. Lu, J., Mou, J., and Li, P. (2023, January 21–23). Interpretive Analyses of Learner Dropout Prediction in Online STEM Courses. Proceedings of the 2023 5th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE), Xi’an, China.10.1109/CSTE59648.2023.00020 ↗
32. Casalino, G., Ducange, P., Fazzolari, M., and Pecori, R. (2022, January 21–23). Incremental and interpretable learning analytics through fuzzy hoeffding decision trees. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Higher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online, Palermo, Italy.10.1007/978-3-031-29800-4_51 ↗
33. Casalino, G., Castellano, G., and Zaza, G. (2021, January 13–15). Neuro-fuzzy systems for learning analytics. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, Online.10.1007/978-3-030-96308-8_124 ↗
34. Heuer, H., and Breiter, A. (2018, January 10–12). Student Success Prediction and the Trade-Off between Big Data and Data Minimization. Proceedings of the DeLFI 2018—Die 16. E-Learning Fachtagung Informatik, Bonn, Germany.
35. The role of demographics in online learning; A decision tree based approach10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.001 ↗
36. Azizah, E.N., Pujianto, U., and Nugraha, E. (2018, January 26–27). Comparative performance between C4.5 and Naive Bayes classifiers in predicting student academic performance in a Virtual Learning Environment. Proceedings of the 2018 4th International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET), Malang, Indonesia.10.1109/ICEAT.2018.8693928 ↗
37. Wasif, M., Waheed, H., Aljohani, N.R., and Hassan, S.U. (2019). Understanding student learning behavior and predicting their performance. Cognitive Computing in Technology-Enhanced Learning, IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-5225-9031-6.ch001 ↗
38. Haiyang, L., Wang, Z., Benachour, P., and Tubman, P. (2018, January 9–13). A time series classification method for behaviour-based dropout prediction. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Mumbai, India.10.1109/ICALT.2018.00052 ↗
39. Queiroga, E.M., Batista Machado, M.F., Paragarino, V.R., Primo, T.T., and Cechinel, C. (2022). Early prediction of at-risk students in secondary education: A countrywide k-12 learning analytics initiative in uruguay. Information, 13.10.3390/info13090401 ↗
40. Saarela, M. (2024, January 8–12). On the relation of causality-versus correlation-based feature selection on model fairness. Proceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, Ávila, Spain.10.1145/3605098.3636018 ↗
41. Al-kfairy, M., Mustafa, D., Kshetri, N., Insiew, M., and Alfandi, O. (2024). Ethical challenges and solutions of generative AI: An interdisciplinary perspective. Informatics, 11.10.2139/ssrn.4833030 ↗
42. Towards a framework for local Interrogation of AI ethics: A case study on text generators, academic integrity, and composing with ChatGPT10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102831 ↗