Trusting the Explainers: Teacher Validation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Course Design
It addresses trust issues in AI for education, but is incremental as it applies existing explainable AI methods to a specific domain.
This paper tackles the lack of trust and transparency in deep learning models for learning analytics by implementing explainable AI methods for student success prediction in online and blended learning, finding that explainers significantly disagree quantitatively and experts do not agree qualitatively on which explanations are most trustworthy.
Deep learning models for learning analytics have become increasingly popular over the last few years; however, these approaches are still not widely adopted in real-world settings, likely due to a lack of trust and transparency. In this paper, we tackle this issue by implementing explainable AI methods for black-box neural networks. This work focuses on the context of online and blended learning and the use case of student success prediction models. We use a pairwise study design, enabling us to investigate controlled differences between pairs of courses. Our analyses cover five course pairs that differ in one educationally relevant aspect and two popular instance-based explainable AI methods (LIME and SHAP). We quantitatively compare the distances between the explanations across courses and methods. We then validate the explanations of LIME and SHAP with 26 semi-structured interviews of university-level educators regarding which features they believe contribute most to student success, which explanations they trust most, and how they could transform these insights into actionable course design decisions. Our results show that quantitatively, explainers significantly disagree with each other about what is important, and qualitatively, experts themselves do not agree on which explanations are most trustworthy. All code, extended results, and the interview protocol are provided at https://github.com/epfl-ml4ed/trusting-explainers.