Early identification of at-risk students is crucial for timely pedagogical intervention. Determining which assessments instructors should prioritize is complicated by the fact that different eXplainable-AI (XAI) methods can produce conflicting rankings for the same predictive model. We develop a framework combining a sequential GRU model with two complementary XAI techniques, Gradient SHAP (attribution) and DiCE (counterfactuals), and evaluate it in a foundational Data Structures and Algorithms course. The framework produces predictions and explanations for every prefix length throughout the semester and quantifies inter-method agreement and intra-method stability using three disagreement metrics. Intersecting the top-k features identified by both methods isolates a compact subset of assessments whose predictive role is confirmed across two fundamentally different explanation mechanisms. We interpret this cross-method agreement as a heuristic that increases confidence in identified features relative to single-method results, though not as evidence of causal validity. For individual students, the framework uses the intersection of the two types of explanations when it is non-empty; otherwise, the instructor chooses between SHAP’s diagnostic view and DiCE’s prescriptive view, with an optional check against the top-k list. The resulting guidance is less susceptible to method-specific biases than analyses relying on a single method.
Lu et al. (Mon,) studied this question.