Reflecting on the scope chosen by Blackboard for our working group - "Ethical use of AI in Education" - it's worth considering what, if anything, makes education different as a venue for artificial intelligence. Education is, I think, different from commercial businesses because our measure of success should be what pupils/students achieve. Educational institutions should have the same goal as those they teach, unlike commercial settings where success is often a zero-sum game.
Since becoming involved in Jisc's work on learning analytics, I've been trying to work out the best place to fit the use of students' digital data to improve education into data protection law. I've now written up those thoughts as a paper, and submitted it to the Journal of Learning Analytics. As the abstract says:
I was invited to speak at the Russell Group IT Directors' meeting yesterday, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and its implications for universities. My slides are attached to this post.
Most of the Act is concerned with human, rather than technology, issues but the Act does require universities and colleges to have "due regard for the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism". However, as I concluded:
Last week I gave a seminar at Southampton University on how data protection law could provide support and guidance for universities' use of learning analytics. The next day Jisc launched a Code of Practice on Learning Analytics, which puts many of the same ideas into practical form.
I've done a couple of presentations this week, comparing the risks and benefits of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) with those that research and education organisations already accept in the ways we use organisation-managed mobile devices. As the title of my talk in Dundee asked, "What’s the Difference?"
