Towards responsible AI for education: Hybrid human-AI to confront the Elephant in the room

Despite significant advancements in AI-driven educational systems and ongoing calls for responsible AI for education, several critical issues remain unresolved -- acting as the elephant in the room within AI in education, learning analytics, educational data mining, learning sciences, and educational psychology communities. This critical analysis identifies and examines nine persistent challenges that continue to undermine the fairness, transparency, and effectiveness of current AI methods and applications in education. These include: (1) the lack of clarity around what AI for education truly means -- often ignoring the distinct purposes, strengths, and limitations of different AI families -- and the trend of equating it with domain-agnostic, company-driven large language models; (2) the widespread neglect of essential learning processes such as motivation, emotion, and (meta)cognition in AI-driven learner modelling and their contextual nature; (3) limited integration of domain knowledge and lack of stakeholder involvement in AI design and development; (4) continued use of non-sequential machine learning models on temporal educational data; (5) misuse of non-sequential metrics to evaluate sequential models; (6) use of unreliable explainable AI methods to provide explanations for black-box models; (7) ignoring ethical guidelines in addressing data inconsistencies during model training; (8) use of mainstream AI methods for pattern discovery and learning analytics without systematic benchmarking; and (9) overemphasis on global prescriptions while overlooking localised, student-specific recommendations. Supported by theoretical and empirical research, we demonstrate how hybrid AI methods -- specifically neural-symbolic AI -- can address the elephant in the room and serve as the foundation for responsible, trustworthy AI systems in education.

Towards Responsible and Trustworthy Educational Data Mining: Comparing Symbolic, Sub-Symbolic, and Neural-Symbolic AI Methods

Given the demand for responsible and trustworthy AI for education, this study evaluates symbolic, sub-symbolic, and neural-symbolic AI (NSAI) in terms of generalizability and interpretability. Our extensive experiments on balanced and imbalanced self-regulated learning datasets of Estonian primary school students predicting 7th-grade mathematics national test performance showed that symbolic and sub-symbolic methods performed well on balanced data but struggled to identify low performers in imbalanced datasets. Interestingly, symbolic and sub-symbolic methods emphasized different factors in their decision-making: symbolic approaches primarily relied on cognitive and motivational factors, while sub-symbolic methods focused more on cognitive aspects, learned knowledge, and the demographic variable of gender -- yet both largely overlooked metacognitive factors. The NSAI method, on the other hand, showed advantages by: (i) being more generalizable across both classes -- even in imbalanced datasets -- as its symbolic knowledge component compensated for the underrepresented class; and (ii) relying on a more integrated set of factors in its decision-making, including motivation, (meta)cognition, and learned knowledge, thus offering a comprehensive and theoretically grounded interpretability framework. These contrasting findings highlight the need for a holistic comparison of AI methods before drawing conclusions based solely on predictive performance. They also underscore the potential of hybrid, human-centered NSAI methods to address the limitations of other AI families and move us closer to responsible AI for education. Specifically, by enabling stakeholders to contribute to AI design, NSAI aligns learned patterns with theoretical constructs, incorporates factors like motivation and metacognition, and strengthens the trustworthiness and responsibility of educational data mining.