Artificial Intelligence in Education Meets Inclusive Educational Technology—The Technical State-of-the-Art and Possible Directions

  • Gunay KazimzadeEmail author
  • Yasmin Patzer
  • Niels Pinkwart
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)


Adaptive educational technologies as well as inclusion are two research fields that have a huge impact on current educational questions. Nevertheless, they are seldom seen together, which explains why there are not too many results in the intersection of the fields yet. This contribution discusses possible directions for combining Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) and inclusive educational technologies and shows some emerging practices. The introduction presents a state of the art on the history of adaptive learning technologies and on assistive technology (AT). A section that highlights the impairment/disability dimension of inclusion follows. Furthermore, emerging practices that combine accessibility/inclusion with Artificial Intelligence (AI) are discussed. The next section focuses on cultural dimensions of inclusion and the impact on AI in learning technologies. We then discuss the origins of cultural biases in technology and how to address this issue. Gender and ethnicity are connected to this cultural dimension and therefore are considered in this discussion as well. The conclusion describes the requirements for combining AI and inclusive learning technologies in the future. There is a need for more awareness of possible biases when creating learning systems and training algorithms with suitable data sets.


Assistive technology Bias Cultural inclusion Disability Gender 


  1. Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In Learning analytics (pp. 61–75). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bellocchi, S., Muneaux, M., Bastien-Toniazzo, M., & Ducrot, S. (2013). I can read it in your eyes: What eye movements tell us about visuo-attentional processes in developmental dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchard, E. G. (2012). On the WEIRD nature of ITS/AIED conferences: A 10 year longitudinal study analyzing potential cultural biases. In 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS2012) (pp. 280–285). Chania, Greece: Springer LNCS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard, E. G. (2015). Socio-cultural imbalances in AIED research: Investigations, implications and opportunities. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(2), 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouraoui, A., & Soufi, M. (2018). Br’Eye: An Android mobile application to teach Arabic and French Braille alphabets to blind children in Tunisia. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 357–364). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Language and symbolic power.Google Scholar
  7. Brewster, S. (2002). Visualization tools for blind people using multiple modalities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(11–12), 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruno, B., Chong, N. Y., Kamide, H., Kanoria, S., Lee, J., Lim, Y., et al. (2017). Paving the way for culturally competent robots: A position paper. In 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon (pp. 553–560).Google Scholar
  9. Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2010). Open learner models. In Advances in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 301–322). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Buolamwini, J. (2017). Gender shades: Intersectional phenotypic and demographic evaluation of face datasets and gender classifiers (MIT master’s thesis).Google Scholar
  11. Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An artificial-intelligence approach to computer-assisted instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11(4), 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CAST. (2018a). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. URL: Accessed February 11, 2019.
  13. CAST. (2018b). About universal design for learning. URL: Accessed September 04, 2018.
  14. Cohen, R. F., Yu, R., Meacham, A., & Skaff, J. (2005). PLUMB: displaying graphs to the blind using an active auditory interface. In Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 182–183). ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Collis, B. (2002). Designing for Differences: Cultural Issues in the Design of WWW‐Based Course‐Support Sites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 201–215. Scholar
  16. Darvishy, A. (2018). PDF accessibility: Tools and challenges. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 113–116). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dillon, P., Wang, R., & Tearle, P. (2007). Cultural disconnection in virtual education. Pedagogy. Culture & Society, 153–174. Scholar
  18. D’Mello, S. K. (2016). Giving eyesight to the blind: Towards attention-aware AIED. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreras, A., Poveda, R., Quílez, M., & Poll, N. (2017). Improving the quality of life of persons with intellectual disabilities through ICTs. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 242, 257–264.Google Scholar
  20. Gay, G., Mirri, S., Roccetti, M., & Salomoni, P. (2009). Adapting learning environments with AccessForAll. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) (pp. 90–91). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Ginman, M., & von Ungern-Sternberg, S. (2003). Cartoons as information. Journal of Information Science, 29(1), 69–77. Scholar
  22. Godfrey, A. J. R., Murrell, P., & Sorge, V. (2018). An accessible interaction model for data visualisation in statistics. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 590–597). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. (2018). About the global public inclusive infrastructure (GPII). URL: Accessed September 04, 2018.
  24. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.Google Scholar
  25. Kushalnagar, R., & Kushalnagar, K. (2018). SubtitleFormatter: Making subtitles easier to read for deaf and hard of hearing viewers on personal devices. In: International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 211–219). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Vuorikari, R., Hummel, H., & Koper, R. (2011). Recommender systems in technology enhanced learning. In Recommender systems handbook (pp. 387–415). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, D. P., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & Siegwart, R. (2008). Robots for education. In Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1283–1301). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Ochoa, X. (2017). Multimodal learning analytics. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics (1st edn., pp. 129–141).Google Scholar
  29. Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, IEEE, 45, 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patzer, Y., & Pinkwart, N. (2017). Inclusive E-learning—Towards an integrated system design. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 242, 878–885.Google Scholar
  31. Patzer, Y., Russler, N., & Pinkwart, N. (2018). Gamification in inclusive eLearning. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 154–158). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Pop, C. A., Simut, R. E., Pintea, S., Saldien, J., Rusu, A. S., Vanderfaeillie, J., et al. (2013). Social robots vs. computer display: Does the way social stories are delivered make a difference for their effectiveness on ASD children? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(3), 381–401. Scholar
  33. Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2015). Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 875–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheel, N. P., & Branch, R. C. (1993). The role of conversation and culture in the systematic design of instruction. Educational Technology, 33(8), 7–18.Google Scholar
  35. Schwarz, T., Rajgopal, S., & Stiefelhagen, R. (2018). Accessible EPUB: Making EPUB 3 documents universal accessible. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 85–92). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Sevens, L., Daems, J., De, A. V., Schuurman, I., Vandeghinste, V., & Van, F. E. (2017). Building an accessible pictograph interface for users with intellectual disabilities. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 242, 870–877.Google Scholar
  37. Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. In The disability studies reader (Vol. 2, pp. 197–204).Google Scholar
  38. Stefik, M. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Artificial Intelligence, 26(2), 238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., et al. (2016). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030: One hundred year study on artificial intelligence. Report of the 2015–2016 study panel. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Doc: Accessed September 06, 2016.
  40. Volpato, L., Hilzensauer, M., Krammer, K., & Chan, M. (2018). Teaching the national written language to deaf students: A new approach. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 163–171). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. World Wide Web Consortium. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. URL: Accessed February 11, 2019.
  42. Worsley, M., Barel, D., Davison, L., Large, T., & Mwiti, T. (2018). Multimodal interfaces for inclusive learning. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 389–393). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunay Kazimzade
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yasmin Patzer
    • 2
  • Niels Pinkwart
    • 2
  1. 1.Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked SocietyTechnical University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Humboldt-University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations