Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36304958›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

Is it time we get real? A systematic review of the potential of data-driven technologies to address teachers' implicit biases.

Andrea Gauthier, Saman Rizvi, Mutlu Cukurova, Manolis Mavrikis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrea GauthierUCL Knowledge Lab, Department of Culture, Communication and Media, IOE UCL's Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Saman RizviUCL Knowledge Lab, Department of Culture, Communication and Media, IOE UCL's Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mutlu CukurovaUCL Knowledge Lab, Department of Culture, Communication and Media, IOE UCL's Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Manolis MavrikisUCL Knowledge Lab, Department of Culture, Communication and Media, IOE UCL's Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data-driven technologies for education, such as artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) systems, learning analytics dashboards, open learner models, and other applications, are often created with an aspiration to help teachers make better, evidence-informed decisions in the classroom. Addressing gender, racial, and other biases inherent to data and algorithms in such applications is seen as a way to increase the responsibility of these systems and has been the focus of much of the research in the field, including systematic reviews. However, implicit biases can also be held by teachers. To the best of our knowledge, this systematic literature review is the first of its kind to investigate what kinds of teacher biases have been impacted by data-driven technologies, how or if these technologies were designed to challenge these biases, and which strategies were most effective at promoting equitable teaching behaviors and decision making. Following PRISMA guidelines, a search of five databases returned

Indexed as

artificial intelligence in educationbiasdecision support systemsequitylearning analytics (LA)teachers

Identifiers

PMID36304958
PMCPMC9592763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.