Machine learning for human learners: opportunities, issues, tensions and threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning systems are infiltrating our lives and are beginning to become important in our education systems. This article, developed from a synthesis and analysis of previous research, examines the implications of recent developments in machine learning for human learners and learning. In this article we first compare deep learning in computers and humans to examine their similarities and differences. Deep learning is identified as a sub-set of machine learning, which is itself a component of artificial intelligence. Deep learning often depends on backwards propagation in weighted neural networks, so is non-deterministic—the system adapts and changes through practical experience or training. This adaptive behaviour predicates the need for explainability and accountability in such systems. Accountability is the reverse of explainability. Explainability flows through the system from inputs to output (decision) whereas accountability flows backwards, from a decision to the person taking responsibility for it. Both explainability and accountability should be incorporated in machine learning system design from the outset to meet social, ethical and legislative requirements. For students to be able to understand the nature of the systems that may be supporting their own learning as well as to act as responsible citizens in contemplating the ethical issues that machine learning raises, they need to understand key aspects of machine learning systems and have opportunities to adapt and create such systems. Therefore, some changes are needed to school curricula. The article concludes with recommendations about machine learning for teachers, students, policymakers, developers and researchers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".