Search

Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) language models has grown considerably following the release of 'generative pre-trained transformer' (GPT). Framing AI as an extractive technology, this article details how GPT harnesses human labour and sensemaking at two stages: (1) during training when the algorithm 'learns' biased communicative patterns extracted from the Internet and (2) during usage when humans write alongside the AI. This second phase is framed critically as a form of unequal 'affective labour' where the AI imposes narrow and biased conditions for the interaction to unfold, and then exploits the resulting affective turbulence to sustain its simulation of autonomous performance. Empirically, this article draws on an in-depth case study where a human engaged with an AI writing tool, while the researchers recorded the interactions and collected qualitative data about perceptions, frictions and emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a pragmatic approach to data justice in education that draws upon Nancy Fraser's theory. The main argument is premised on the theoretical and practical superiority of a deontological framework for addressing algorithmic bias and harms, compared to ethical guidelines. The purpose of a deontological framework is to enable the evaluation of justice claims, not as a burden for individuals or groups, but as part of an ongoing public dialogue about the disparate impacts of algorithmic decisions. In a deontological framework, scrutiny is not limited to differences in treatment but is broader and more demanding, involving the evaluation of design approaches and a wider-ranging political discussion about who might be harmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teachers are increasingly required to enact assessment policies in digitalised spaces, raising ethical issues of privacy and surveillance in the process. Yet, while policy enactment has been examined extensively, there remains research uncertainty around the ethical dimensions associated with assessment policy in digitalised settings. Drawing upon Ball et al.'s Typology of Policy Positions, and utilising Australian teachers' interviews, we illustrate how the policy positions of the latter were shaped by critical ethical incidents in digitalised conditions. We describe how teachers struggled to reconcile their ethical obligation to provide valid assessment outcomes with their duty of care, procedural institutional commitments, and the need to protect student privacy. To ensure 'ethical assessment' practices that best fulfil their obligations, the educators were not confined to one policy position, rather they moved across roles, also framed as moral recuperation mechanisms. Regulations to help facilitate policy enactments of 'ethical assessment' in digitalised contexts are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this analytical essay, part of Harvard Educational Review's symposium on Platform Studies in Education, Ben Williamson, Kalervo N. Gulson, Carlo Perrotta, and Kevin Witzenberger argue that global technology companies have begun acting as governance organizations in education. Their analysis focuses on the global technology company Amazon, which has begun penetrating education through a connective architecture of digital infrastructure and platform services. Looking at Amazon technical documentation and publicly available materials, the authors identify and examine five interlocking governance operations and their effects: inscribing commercial business models on the education sector, habituating educational users to Amazon technologies, creating new interfaces with educational institutions, platforming third-party education providers on the cloud, and seeking market dominance over provision and control of key information infrastructures of education. In showing how Amazon is potentially developing infrastructural dominance in the education sector as part of its transformation into a statelike corporation with significant social, technical, economic, and political power to govern and control state and public services, this article highlights the broader implications of increasing technological governance in education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]