Machine learning evaluation demonstrates accurate misconception detection in gifted secondary students, highlighting explainable AI for tailored instruction.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) increasingly support personalised learning, intelligent assessment, and data-informed educational decision-making. However, persistent misconceptions among gifted students may remain undetected because high achievement can conceal conceptually coherent misunderstandings. This study develops and empirically evaluates a teacher-governed, closed-loop framework integrating Educational Data Mining (EDM), Learning Analytics (LA), ensemble machine learning, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), GenAI, and differentiated instruction. Educational data from 255 gifted secondary-school learners were transformed into learner profiles and analysed using Random Forest, XGBoost, Boost, Support Vector Machine, Artificial Neural Network, and Logistic Regression, which were then combined via validation-derived weighted probabilistic ensembling. The validation-weight ensemble achieved 96.88% accuracy, 92.00% precision, 100% recall, an F1-score of 95.83%, ROC-AUC of 0.9979, and PR-AUC of 0.9963, outperforming the individual classifiers in overall classification performance. SHAP provided learner-specific explanations, with average response time emerging most frequently as the leading explanatory feature. These explanations informed GenAI-supported personalised interventions, which teachers validated before differentiated delivery. Post-intervention evidence was subsequently incorporated into learner reassessment and profile updating. The principal contribution lies in the operational integration of learner profiling, weight prediction, explainability, evidence-conditioned instructional generation, professional validation, and reassessment within a continuous educational cycle. The findings provide initial empirical evidence for the framework’s computational feasibility and interpretability while supporting further external and longitudinal validation across educational contexts and learner populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mostafa Aboulnour Salem (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: