PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 20, 2025Information4 citationsOpen Access

Theoretical Foundations for Governing AI-Based Learning Outcome Assessment in High-Risk Educational Contexts

View Full Paper
FMFlavio ManganelloANAlberto NicoGBG Boccuzzi

Key Points

  • The study develops the XAI-ED Consequential Assessment Framework to enhance accountability in AI-based learning assessments, addressing student autonomy and pedagogical validity.
  • Indicators for self-assessment are identified, demonstrating that trustworthy AI in education extends beyond compliance to include fairness and interpretability.
  • Theoretical integration of evaluation theories reinterprets ALTAI's requirements, fostering a connection between regulatory obligations and educational evaluation standards.
  • Future research is needed to refine the XAI-ED framework through practical applications in various educational settings.

Abstract

The governance of artificial intelligence (AI) in education requires theoretical grounding that extends beyond system compliance toward outcome-focused accountability. The EU AI Act classifies AI-based learning outcome assessment (AIB-LOA) as a high-risk application (Annex III, point 3b), underscoring the importance of algorithmic decision-making in student evaluation. Current regulatory frameworks such as GDPR and ALTAI focus primarily on ex-ante and system-focused approaches. ALTAI applications in education concentrate on compliance and vulnerability analysis while often failing to integrate governance principles with established educational evaluation practices. While explainable AI research demonstrates methodological sophistication (e.g., LIME, SHAP), it often fails to deliver pedagogically meaningful transparency. This study develops the XAI-ED Consequential Assessment Framework (XAI-ED CAF) as a sector-specific, outcome-focused governance model for AIB-LOA. The framework reinterprets ALTAI’s seven requirements (human agency, robustness, privacy, transparency, fairness, societal well-being, and accountability) through three evaluation theories: Messick’s consequential validity, Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, and Stufflebeam’s CIPP framework. Through this theoretical integration, the study identifies indicators and potential evidence types for institutional self-assessment. The analysis indicates that trustworthy AI in education extends beyond technical transparency or legal compliance. Governance must address student autonomy, pedagogical validity, interpretability, fairness, institutional culture, and accountability. The XAI-ED CAF reconfigures ALTAI as a pedagogically grounded accountability model, establishing structured evaluative criteria that align with both regulatory and educational standards. The framework contributes to AI governance in education by connecting regulatory obligations with pedagogical evaluation theory. It supports policymakers, institutions, and researchers in developing outcome-focused self-assessment practices. Future research should test and refine the framework through Delphi studies and institutional applications across various contexts.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Manganello et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d469d631b076d99fa66da9https://doi.org/10.3390/info16090814
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1"Why Should I Trust You?"2016 · 16,335 citations
  2. 2Explainable Artificial Intelligence in education2022 · 796 citations
  3. 3A Systematic Review of AI Ethics in Education2025 · 55 citations
  4. 4Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology1997 · 430 citations
  5. 5A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning2023 · 1,420 citations