Usage examples for the AI GANESH ethical framework for AIED

Context

Dean Prof. Peters is being asked by her university to endorse the use of a technology called SmarterProctoring in the faculty's courses. She is skeptical about this tool and looks up information about it online. She finds the following description on their official website:

“SmarterProctering is an automated proctoring tool which offers a flexible, secure solution that provides on-demand testing, reduces test anxiety, and addresses privacy concerns while maintaining exam integrity. It is supported by a lockdown extension, webcam recording, and screen recording for added security. Students can take exams comfortably with 24/7 support available, ensuring both convenience and security. Our trained proctors review sessions within 48 hours of exam completion and provide incident reports, ensuring easy follow-up for faculty.

We offer proctoring that saves faculty time. With the AI Monitoring feature, suspicious activity is flagged by AI, ensuring exam integrity without constant human supervision. 24/7 availability ensures that exams can be taken anytime, anywhere, offering flexibility and convenience for busy students. With our review assurance, proctors review sessions for added security, providing detailed reports on suspicious behavior.”

Prof. Peters would like to evaluate this tool using the AI GANESH ethical framework.

Example

Prof. Peters begins by forming a focus group with all the educational stakeholders and identifies her role as an 'educational institution representative'. She then moves on to Step 2 - reading the information about the AIED tool and the educational context. She then continues to Step 3 - assessment using the rubric. She starts with the value of Goodwill.

Code	Level 1	Level 2	NA	Comments
EN-G1		X		Needs of students not fully considered - could cause added anxiety. Driven by efficiency instead
EN-G2		X		External proctor review could undermine the role of educator
EN-G3	X
EN-G4		X		Some aspects about the ethical application are not clearly outlined or considered - such as autonomy, well-being of students, data security.

For EN-G1, she selects Level 2 as such a tool could cause some students to get anxious, thereby affecting their performance. So, the tool does not fully consider the needs of students. For EN-G2, she selects Level 2 because there is good adaptation to AIED but the review by an external proctor might undermine the role of the educator. In the case of EN-G3, the institution promotes AIED tools with good integration into the learning environment. For EN-G4, some points about the ethical application are not clearly outlined or considered - such as autonomy, well-being of students, data security. However, the time of the faculty and the flexibility of the students is considered. As some ethical aspects are considered while others are not, she selects Level 2 for EN-G4.

Prof. Peters then proceeds to the value of Aptness for Education

Code	Level 1	Level 2	NA	Comments
EN-A1		X		Rigorous evidence about enhancement of learning goals is not provided
EN-A2		X		Only supports the traditional metric of detection of cheating
EN-A3		X		Educators not consulted while choosing the tool
EN-A4		X		Support of learning goals besides supporting online assessment is not made explicit
EN-A5			X
EN-A6			X
EN-A7		X		Tool selected based on factors such as cost-cutting and easy student monitoring without enough critical evaluation
EN-A8		X		Students are passive users of the tool

For EN-A1, while the proctoring tool does align with the learning goal, rigorous evidence about enhancement of learning goals is not provided and hence selects Level 2. For EN-A2, the proctoring tool is very narrow in focus and only supports the traditional metric of detection of cheating - resulting in Level 2. For EN-A3, as the choice to use this proctoring tool was made by the educational institution without consulting the educators, it is marked as Level 2. EN-A4 is marked as Level 2 because the tool supports online assessment but the support of other learning goals is implicit. EN-A5 and EN-A6 are marked as NA because the proctoring tool is not being used for learning. For EN-A7, the use of this tool seems to be based on factors such as cost-cutting and easy student monitoring during exams. There is some critical evaluation but it is partial and hence it is marked as Level 2. Lastly, for EN-A8, AI literacy does not come into the picture but students are passive users of the tool - resulting in selection of Level 2.

Prof. Peters then moves forward to the value of Non-discrimination.

Code	Level 1	Level 2	NA	Comments
EN-N1		X		Information about diversity of implementation team missing
EN-N2			X
EN-N3		X		No information provided about bias in proctor check
EN-N4		X		Racial biases and accessibility not considered
EN-N5		X		Issues such as limited internet connectivity or shared resources such as shared spaces are not considered
EN-N6		X		Stakeholders not consulted by the institution

EN-N1 and EN-N2 are marked as NA because information about diversity of the implementation team is not available and a testing tool cannot provide education-to-industry support. For EN-N3, proctors check the AI output but no information about bias is provided here, resulting in Level 2. EN-N4 is marked as Level 2 because racial biases in the webcam recording and accessibility for differently-abled students is not considered. For EN-N5, as this is a testing tool, access is provided by the institution to all students. However, issues such as limited internet connectivity or shared resources such as shared spaces are not considered - resulting in Level 2. EN-N6 is marked as Level 2 because stakeholders were not consulted by the institution before selecting this tool.

Prof. Peters then continues to the value of Explicability.

Code	Level 1	Level 2	NA	Comments
EN-E1	X
EN-E2		X		Information about the tool evaluation and usage of AIED tools in other domains is unavailable
EN-E3		X		Developers do not fully consider the anxiety and stress that this tool could cause students

For EN-E1, Level 1 is selected because the role of the students, educators and the proctors are clearly defined and transparent. For EN-E2, Level 2 is selected as a complete evaluation and information about the usage of AIED tools in other domains is unavailable. However, the usage of this tool does not come with a complete evaluation. Lastly, Level 2 is also selected for EN-E3 because the developers of the tool seem to have some awareness of the impact of the tool. However, they do not fully consider the anxiety and stress that it could cause students.

Prof. Peters then continues with the value of Stewardship of Data.

Code	Level 1	Level 2	NA	Comments
EN-S1	X
EN-S2		X		Information is not provided about policy collaboration but only seems like reactive measures to policy
EN-S3		X		No education on AI risks and not enough emphasis on transparency
EN-S4		X		Ethical concerns are not evaluated and no review of contracts is mentioned
EN-S5		X		No additional privacy measures besides limiting access to recordings, data could be used for other purposes
EN-S6		X		Third party system is used without integration
EN-S7		X		Insufficient information is available about testing before deployment
EN-S8		X		No analysis provided on the accuracy rates across different groups and scenarios
EN-S9	X			Insufficient information is available about GDPR compliance and developer accountability

EN-S1 is grouped as Level 1 because technical safeguards for testing are implemented in the form of limited access to data and the complete recording shows the context. For EN-S5, limited access to the recording data is provided but no additional privacy measures are mentioned - resulting in a grouping of Level 2. EN-S6 is grouped as Level 2 because the AIED tool is not integrated into the educational institutions' own systems but a third party system is used without integration. For EN-S8, AIED results are verified by proctors but the accuracy rates are not mentioned across different groups and scenarios - thus grouping it as Level 2. For EN-S2, EN-S3, EN-S4, EN-S7 and EN-S9, insufficient information is available to group them into any level, thus resulting in Level 2.

Prof. Peters then proceeds to the value of Human oversight.

Code	Level 1	Level 2	NA	Comments
EN-H1	X
EN-H2		X		Tool leads to isolation of students during the tests
EN-H3	X
EN-H4		X		Insufficient information is available about professional development
EN-H5		X		Students are passive users without any control
EN-H6		X		End users do not have any information on how instances of cheating are flagged
EN-H7			X
EN-H8		X		Students are not offered an alternative option without AI
EN-H9		X		Consent is implied and without sufficient information

EN-H1 is marked as Level 1 because the AIED tools' decisions are verified by impartial proctors. EN-H2 is at Level 2 as the tool helps with scaling online testing but leads to isolation of students during the tests. For EN-H3, Level 1 is chosen because the responsibilities of the AIED tool and other human stakeholders is clearly defined with inbuilt human oversight. EN-H4 is marked as Level 2 because insufficient information is available. EN-H5 is classified as Level 2 because the students are passive users of the tool without any meaningful control. EN-H6 is grouped as Level 2 because end users have some information about the proctoring tool but it is not clear how the tool flags instances of cheating. EN-H7 is not applicable since the proctoring tool is not being used for learning and content creation. For EN-H8, students are not offered an alternative option without AI - resulting in Level 2. Lastly, EN-H9 is marked at Level 2 because consent is implied and without sufficient information.

As visible from the above use of the framework, the SmarterProctoring tool has a lot of guidelines evaluated as Level 2. Prof. Peters then proceeds to Step 4 by gathering the focus group with the other educational stakeholders (from Step 1) and reviewing the results of the evaluation together with them.