The increased accessibility and rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has compelled every sector of society to reflect on its potential benefits and risks. This has led to a proliferation of publications attempting to record the concerns that different sectors have with respect to AI and provide guidelines to minimize existing or potential negative consequences attached to its use. Documents like IBM’s Everyday Ethics for Artificial Intelligence (2022), UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021), and the more recent Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard (Australian Government, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2024) and European Union (EU) AI Act (AI Act, 2024) exemplify these efforts across a variety of sectors which might involve high levels of risk, such as healthcare, transport, finance or education. These policy documents attempt to summarize and codify key concerns surrounding the use of AI in society while providing ethical and regulatory frameworks to address them as part of a commitment to relational accountability.
The ethical aspects of AI have attracted attention from researchers, ethicists, policy-makers, and other interested stakeholders. A systematic review of ethical AI frameworks conducted in 2019 identified over 80 sets of principles (Jobin et al., Reference Jobin, Ienca and Vayena2019), and the AI Ethics Guidelines Global Inventory (compiled by AlgorithmWatch, n.d.), contains 167 guidelines submitted as of April 2024. It is notable, however, that ethical AI frameworks specifically tailored for AI in education are only recently starting to receive attention (Adams et al., Reference Adams, Pente, Lemermeyer, Rockwell, Roll, McNamara, Sosnovsky, Luckin and Dimitrova2021; Holmes & Porayska-Pomsta, Reference Holmes and Porayska-Pomsta2022; Holmes & Tuomi, Reference Holmes and Tuomi2022; Holstein & Doroudi, Reference Holstein and Doroudi2021; Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023), and that frameworks specifically targeted to the uses of AI in assessment, including language assessment, are even more scarce.
The lack of frameworks for ethical AI within language assessment has become more of a concern now that, with the emergence of regulatory frameworks such as the EU AI Act, certain language assessments would be classified as high-risk, as they may determine important decisions about education, training or employment, which might affect an individual’s livelihood. AI systems for language testing and for activities such as evaluation of learning outcomes, marking of extended test-taker responses or detecting malpractice, will, therefore, constitute high-risk systems and be subject to specific obligations and responsibilities. The EU AI Act outlines such obligations only within its jurisdiction – the European Union – but it is likely that other countries and regions may soon follow.
The emergence and increased pervasiveness of AI technologies in education has long been perceived as a major change-maker in the education and assessment sectors (Aiken & Epstein, Reference Aiken and Epstein2000; Holmes & Tuomi, Reference Holmes and Tuomi2022). Its potential for both positive and negative developments (Holmes, Reference Holmes2023) imposes many ethical and moral obligations that stand alongside the requirements of legal regulatory frameworks. It is therefore timely and crucial that a comprehensive set of principles is developed for use in the domain of language assessment.
Building on the existing corpus of ethical frameworks for general and education-specific applications of AI in the manner depicted in Figure 1, the aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive and systematic framework of principles that may support the ethical design, development, use, and evaluation of AI systems within the language assessment domain.
Levels of context-specificity in ethical frameworks.
The specificity of this framework stems from the fact that each domain or context will inevitably require principles that address its own use-cases or logic, and that cannot be fully covered even by closely related disciplines (as is the case for education and assessment). In fact, “principles should be understood in their cultural, linguistic, geographic and organizational context, and some themes will be more relevant to a particular context and audience than others” (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020, p. 5).
By assembling the set of principles and considerations presented in this study, we hope to provide a robust starting point for what is certain to be an ever-evolving lens through which to view theory and practice in the use of AI in language assessment. Two questions guided our exploration:
What are widely espoused ethical principles and guidelines on the use of AI in education policies and frameworks?
How might these principles and guidelines apply to the language assessment context?
Method
Defining key terms
Before delving into the analysis of ethical AI guidelines, it is necessary to establish a common understanding of two key concepts. The first is the term Artificial Intelligence itself, which we define based on UNICEF’s conceptualization: “machine-based systems that can, given a set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions that influence real or virtual environments. (…) Often, they appear to operate autonomously, and can adapt their behaviour by learning about the context” (2021, p. 21).
A second key term is Generative AI (GenAI). While the availability of GenAI applications, such as ChatGPT, has made this type of AI synonymous with the technology itself, it is important to emphasize that it is not the only AI technology (or even the most widely used in education and assessment). GenAI is a kind of AI technology that “automatically generates content in response to prompts written in natural-language conversational interfaces” (UNESCO, 2023, p. 8). This is in contrast to other AI technologies, which, instead of creating novel content, may be used for prediction, classification, or other automated statistical-, probability-, or rule-based operations.
Data sources and analysis
Best practice in the development of policies or guidelines suggests that a variety of sources of evidence should be included, not only because a plurality of voices enriches the scope of the policy but also to ensure that the most relevant and effective measures are considered. For this reason, this analysis builds on existing ethical frameworks developed for general uses of AI (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020) and AI for educational purposes (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023; The Institute for Ethical AI in Education, 2021) – that is, the two outermost layers in Figure 1, extending them to address issues that pertain to the language assessment domain.
These foundational frameworks used policy analysis (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020; Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023) and expert consultation techniques (The Institute for Ethical AI in Education, 2021) to survey the ethical AI policies and viewpoints from key actors in the field, including international and/or intergovernmental organizations (e.g., Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]), governments (e.g., Mexico), multistakeholder initiatives (e.g., Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE]), organizations in the private sector (e.g., Google) and civil society (e.g., Access Now), and individual expert opinion (e.g., policy-makers, educators). Their analyses resulted in consensus-based sets of ethical principles that respond to common concerns regarding the use of AI in general and for educational purposes in particular (summarized in Table 1). These three frameworks are not exhaustive representations of the relevant literature as compared to, for example, the extensive scoping reviews offered by Jobin et al. (Reference Jobin, Ienca and Vayena2019) and Whittlestone et al. (Reference Whittlestone, Nyrup, Alexandrova, Dihal and Cave2019). They were, however, selected as foundational for our purposes due to their comprehensive and robust approach to identifying concepts and principles of relevance for the general and educational domains.
Summary of principles in the core sources used
In order to build a comprehensive set of principles regarding the ethical use of AI in language assessment, we designed a thematic analysis procedure based on the thematic analysis process described by Braun and Clarke (Reference Braun and Clarke2006, Reference Braun, Clarke, Cooper, Coutanche, McMullen, Panter, Rindskopf and Sher2023), which included several iterations of inductive and deductive (theoretical) thematic analysis, as shown in Figure 2.
Stages in the analysis of policy documents.
In the first stage of the analysis, we familiarized ourselves with the three core frameworks (see Table 1) and employed an inductive method to derive an initial set of codes. This initial set of codes consisted of the principles and sub-principles explicitly stated in the frameworks, compiled and refined by separating principles that appeared merged (e.g., Transparency and Explainability) and by merging principles from different frameworks that overlapped (e.g., the principle of privacy appears in all three frameworks). Two researchers independently revised the initial list of codes and then jointly and iteratively continued improving it until agreement on a coding scheme was achieved. The initial set included 52 codes related to the ethics of AI in the general and educational domains.
The initial coding scheme was then applied to several additional ethical AI policy documents, selected as they allowed us to expand this framework to GenAI and the adjacent domain of language assessment. These documents represent the perspectives of two types of actor that play key roles in the development, use, and regulation of AI in L2 assessment: international or professional organizations (UNESCO, Association of Test Publishers) and English language test providers (Cambridge University Press & Assessment, Educational Testing Service [ETS], Duolingo). The selected documents for coding were:
Guidance for generative AI in education and research (UNESCO, 2023)
Artificial Intelligence Principles (Association of Test Publishers, 2022)
English language education in the era of generative AI: our perspective (Cambridge University Press & Assessment, 2023)
Responsible Use of AI in Assessment (ETS Research Institute, n.d.)
The Duolingo English Test Responsible AI Standards (Burstein, Reference Burstein2023)
The application of the initial coding scheme to these documents allowed us to confirm that the codes identified in the previous stage were still applicable. We then conducted inductive thematic analysis on the second set of documents to identify codes that may have not previously emerged (e.g., codes specific to L2 assessment). At this stage, working definitions of the codes were constructed based on those found in the documents and, in this process, some codes were merged (e.g., the code “Robustness” became part of the definition of “Security” and was removed from the coding scheme). These emerging codes were added to the coding scheme through an iterative process of corroboration and agreement between the two researchers. The final coding scheme contained 64 codes.
The final set of codes was analyzed and classified into potential themes and subthemes. Themes and subthemes were further reviewed and refined to ensure that the patterns observed were not only accurately identified but also that they sufficiently captured the ethical concerns and considerations reflected in the documents reviewed (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006). The working definitions constructed in the previous stage were now refined and reformulated by the researchers, using the definitions from previous frameworks to create overarching concepts for each theme and subtheme. The identified themes and subthemes were formulated into the 10 principles and 40 considerations described in the following section.
Principles and considerations
The final proposed framework contained statements related to ethical AI when applied to general, educational, and language assessment domains. They were grouped into the following high-level principles:
• Governance and Stewardship
• Human control of technology
• Accountability
• Human-centricity
• Sustainability and Proportionality
• Privacy
• Fairness and Justice
• Security and Safety
• Transparency and Explainability
• Assessment standards
As a starting point, we have presented these principles and associated considerations in Figure 3, arranged against a general-specific continuum. We believe that this is a useful lens, though we are aware that it is simply one lens through which to view the findings.
Framework for ethical AI in language assessment.
Governance and Stewardship
The principle of “Governance and Stewardship” refers to the need to establish and implement relevant and sufficient policies, procedures, and standards for the adequate management of the AI system lifecycle, from design and development to implementation and evaluation. The considerations here aim to provide guidance regarding the processes that must be established to ensure that AI systems are compatible with their intended purposes (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023) and that they uphold all the other identified considerations for the ethical, safe, and responsible use of AI (Leslie et al., Reference Leslie, Rincon, Briggs, Perini, Jayadeva, Borda, Bennett, Burr, Aitken, Katell and Fischer2024). When enacted, these “Governance” considerations turn into “Stewardship” policies, or “governance actions” (Leslie et al., Reference Leslie, Rincon, Briggs, Perini, Jayadeva, Borda, Bennett, Burr, Aitken, Katell and Fischer2024), in that they provide concrete actions to be followed in order to responsibly manage the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of AI systems in educational or assessment contexts.
Six considerations related to “Governance and Stewardship” were found to be common in the documents concerning the ethical use of AI in education and language assessment, as follows:
Human control of technology
The principle of “Human control of technology” highlights concerns related to who is responsible for and in control of any outcomes obtained through AI systems (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020) and emphasizes that AI systems are “not a replacement for trained, qualified, or licensed individuals to arrive at an outcome” (Association of Test Publishers, 2022). The three identified considerations under this principle therefore establish that the locus of control should remain with humans, particularly for those applications that have a high impact on a person’s life, such as high-stakes assessment decisions. In other words, “Human control of technology” considerations emphasize that “humans may err, but they alone can shoulder responsibility for mistakes” (Kishimoto et al., Reference Kishimoto, Régis, Denis, Axente, Régis, Denis, Axente and Kishimoto2024, p. 3).
It is acknowledged that complete control over the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of an AI system may not always be possible. Different levels of control may be feasible depending on the features of the AI system, the expertise of the users, ownership over the technologies, and many other variables specific to the different scenarios of use. The purpose of the considerations set out here is to highlight that questions regarding who controls and bears responsibility for the actions of AI systems need to be considered by designers, developers, and users so as to provide safeguards against potential harms derived from the use of AI. Each actor’s individual level of responsibility and control may differ based on their capabilities, but the necessity of including humans as overseers, designers, developers, implementers, and evaluators of AI technologies remains.
Accountability
The considerations under the “Accountability” principle provide guidance on who should be held accountable for outcomes or decisions that are made by AI systems (Fjeld et al., Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020). In general terms, this principle refers to the need to “explicitly address acknowledgment and responsibility for each stakeholder’s actions” (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023, p. 4,230) throughout the AI system lifecycle.
In the context of AI used for assessment purposes, as in many other high-risk domains, there is a strong preference for maintaining human legal and ethical accountability in cases where AI systems are tasked with making high-stakes decisions (UNESCO, 2021, 2023).
Human-centricity
While the determination of roles and responsibilities of human agents involved in the AI system lifecycle has been a concern of the previous principles, the “Human-centricity” principle focuses on the imperative to design, develop, and use AI systems to “complement and enhance human cognitive, social, and cultural capabilities” (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023, p. 4,234). The concept of human-centricity has been key in the development of many frameworks of ethical AI, as it both highlights the need to place AI systems under the control of humans (covered here by the “Human control of technology” principle) as well as establishing that AI systems should be used to contribute to the needs and values of human societies (Kishimoto et al., Reference Kishimoto, Régis, Denis, Axente, Régis, Denis, Axente and Kishimoto2024) and to empower and enable human users (Capel & Brereton, Reference Capel and Brereton2023). The four considerations provide further insight into the use of AI for the benefit of human societies and individuals in general and education and assessment in particular.
Sustainability and Proportionality
The principle “Sustainability and Proportionality” concerns the impact that every part of the AI system lifecycle may have on nature, the economy, society, and individuals. “Sustainability” encompasses considerations focused on the effects of the design and use of AI systems on nature and society, while “Proportionality” encourages the discerning and commensurate use of AI systems. These principles are closely related to notions of beneficence or non-maleficence (“Human-centred” principle) as well as “Fairness and Justice.”
The two key considerations within this principle help us reflect on how AI design, development, use, and evaluation may affect or be affected by its ecological footprint and its effects on human employment and well-being.
Privacy
The “Privacy” principle emerged as one of the fundamental concepts to consider when establishing frameworks for the ethical use of AI and has long been at the centre of the regulations and guidelines that govern our increasingly data-based world. Examples of regulatory frameworks that highlight the importance of privacy and data protection are the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (General Data Protection Regulation, 2016) and the more recent AI Act (2024), both seminal pieces of legislation that outline quintessential data safeguards and foundational regulatory and guidance documents. The four considerations within “Privacy” highlight key concerns and possible remediations.
Fairness and Justice
The principle of “Fairness and Justice” enjoys a long tradition of academic debate in the language assessment literature and remains a strong area of academic interest and policy-making. It is also the most recurrent theme/principle found in the ethical AI documents reviewed by Fjeld et al. (Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020), which is testimony to its continued importance.
While intrinsically related, “Fairness” and “Justice” may be defined as having different areas of influence. In the context of education and language assessment, fairness refers to the imperative to provide equal treatment and respect for all individuals and subgroups of individuals, as well as the need to minimize bias through the technical qualities of the test (Davies, Reference Davies2010; Deygers, Reference Deygers and Gao2019; Kunnan, Reference Kunnan and Kunnan2013, Reference Kunnan2018; McNamara & Ryan, Reference McNamara and Ryan2011). The concept of (social) justice, on the other hand, is closer to that of social impact, and is concerned with maximizing the positive or neutral consequences of education and assessment practices on society, while minimizing their negative consequences (Deygers, Reference Deygers and Gao2019; Kunnan, Reference Kunnan and Kunnan2013, Reference Kunnan2018). In this sense, fairness may be understood as referring to test-internal systematic impacts on individuals/groups (e.g., bias) and justice as referring to test-external systemic impacts on the whole of society or sectors (e.g., access to technology) (McNamara & Ryan, Reference McNamara and Ryan2011). In light of these definitions, the six considerations under “Fairness and Justice” address questions of diversity, inclusion, accessibility, and bias.
Security and Safety
The principle “Security and Safety” contains two considerations, which could be considered to be on the more technical side of the ethical debate, as they require that the designers and developers of AI systems introduce technical safeguards against external attacks and system-internal misuse. The “Security and Safety” considerations are formulated to minimize the possibility of external or internal risks affecting those who use AI systems or are subject to AI-based decisions.
Transparency and Explainability
The “Transparency and Explainability” principle comprises another set of two closely related yet different concepts of a technical nature. “Transparency” refers to the need to clearly and openly communicate to stakeholders the use and functioning of AI systems throughout their lifecycle, to the extent that it does not compromise the security of the system. “Transparency” is not, therefore, a binary quality: different levels of disclosure may be suitable in different contexts and for different purposes. For example, it would be expected that a higher level of disclosure would be provided to knowledgeable auditors or monitors who are in charge of evaluating the AI system; while lower levels of disclosure may be expected for the general public, as revealing certain details of the algorithms used may expose the system to adversarial attacks. Despite these nuances, and the tensions derived from the level of control different actors have over the use of data, organizations who develop and/or use AI technologies should establish practices that acknowledge and protect intellectual property rights.
“Explainability” may be conceptualized as the requirement that the technical aspects, operations, and decisions of AI systems are explained in such a way that humans with different levels of technical knowledge and expertise may understand them. Similar to the principle of “Transparency,” different AI systems may allow for varying levels of explainability. Large language models (LLMs), like the ones powering some of the more well-known GenAI applications, are known to be complex “black boxes” whose inner functioning is beyond explainability. When the use of such models is deemed to be necessary due to, for example, their ability to better predict outcomes, these compromises should be adequately recorded and communicated.
The five considerations contained in “Transparency and Explainability” address concerns surrounding the need for openness and communication of the use and technical operation of AI systems.
Assessment standards
The principle “Assessment standards” groups five considerations that most directly apply to the domain of language assessment. Best practice frameworks within L2 assessment and educational measurement are foundational to these “Assessment standards” considerations (AERA et al., 2014; ALTE, 2020; ILTA, 2020), as well as conceptualizations of justice, fairness, and validity within language assessment (Deygers, Reference Deygers and Gao2019; Kunnan, Reference Kunnan and Kunnan2013, Reference Kunnan2018; McNamara & Ryan, Reference McNamara and Ryan2011). We have defined distinct considerations which pertain to the fundamentals of language assessment, such as validity, test design, development, delivery, scoring, and psychometric quality of the test. It is important to note that these considerations are not mutually exclusive and there is conceptual overlap between them; for example, the principle of validity can be seen as an overarching concept subsuming all other considerations. Our aim is not to question this conceptual hierarchy, but to highlight key (inter-related) assessment considerations. The aspects of validity we have chosen to include here are the most specific to language assessment; other important aspects of relevance for assessment (e.g., test security, results reporting, accessibility) are included under the other principles presented above.
Ethical AI principles: from theory to practice
We now turn to a brief overview of considerations which need to be front-of-mind for stakeholders when engaging with and/or implementing the principles and considerations we have discussed so far. We do so through hypothetical scenarios typical of language assessment and illustrative guiding questions that highlight areas which require attention from an ethical AI perspective. In the interest of succinctness, we have been selective in the guiding questions we pose below, and mainly present questions that have a higher degree of domain-specificity. This does not mean that broader principles and considerations, for example, ones related to “Governance and Stewardship,” “Accountability,” or “Human-centricity” are less important. Rather, we assume that such general principles and considerations are foundational to all scenarios below, and we have instead put the spotlight on instances of direct application to language assessment.
Using AI for content creation
The recent widespread use of GenAI has opened new possibilities for assessment providers to create tasks and items at speed and at scale. For this scenario, our focus is on a test within a communicative language assessment paradigm designed to include a broad range of tasks representative of the domain (e.g., short and multi-paragraph reading texts, multi-speaker audio and transcripts, and prompts for extended writing and speaking tasks). The AI-generated materials need to accurately measure different ability levels and cover topics which are appropriate for the international test-taker cohort of this hypothetical test. The materials need to be on a par with the content developed by subject matter experts and reach acceptable quality standards, such as domain representation, suitable topics, and appropriate difficulty levels. (For an example of a detailed overview of the content development considerations by subject matter experts, see Galaczi & Ffrench, Reference Galaczi, French and Taylor2011).
• How appropriate are the selected topics in terms of domain representation, topic suitability and difficulty levels? [Assessment standards]
• How reliable are the estimations of item and task difficulty? [Assessment standards]
How transparent is the AI-based content development approach to relevant stakeholders? [Transparency and Explainability]
Are there adequate mechanisms, tools and training processes in place to ensure human review and feedback in key stages of the process? [Human control of technology]
What copyright oversight mechanisms are embedded in order to ensure that the intellectual property rights of content creators are respected? [Fairness and Justice]
Is the AI model adequately trained to avoid or minimize inaccurate/inappropriate content and identifiable biases against certain groups? [Fairness and Justice]
Using AI for marking
This scenario focuses on another key aspect of L2 assessment – the marking of extended speaking and writing test-taker responses. Currently, predictive machine learning and GenAI models are used to assess responses of this type, typically focusing on linguistic features such as punctuation in writing, pronunciation and fluency in speaking, as well as accuracy and complexity of grammar, breadth of vocabulary, and discourse management (see Xi, Reference Xi2023, for an in-depth theoretical discussion of the use of AI in this domain; see also Xu et al., Reference Xu, Schmidt, Galaczi and Somers2024, for an overview of key considerations for the practical application of automarking).
• What scoring features are extracted to inform an automarked score and what is the degree of accuracy? [Assessment standards]
• What construct do the automarked features represent, and how relevant and representative are the features of the target ability and use domain? [Assessment standards]
• How is the potential for malpractice minimized? [Security and Safety]
• How explainable are the AI-based decisions? [Transparency and Explainability]
• What types of data has the AI system been trained on to minimize algorithm bias? [Fairness and Justice]
• What is the role of examiners in the scoring process? [Human control of technology]
Using AI for accessible assessment
The final scenario showcases the use of AI to enhance test accessibility. Test accessibility has started to enjoy more visibility in the last decade, especially related to neuro-diverse test-takers (as compared to test-takers with visible disabilities, who have been the focus of research attention in the past). This new and important area of theoretical and practical interest has brought to the fore the positive/neutral/negative impact of AI on test accessibility, fairness and justice considerations (Kormos & Taylor, Reference Kormos, Taylor, Winke and Brunfaut2020).
• What are the test design features aimed at enabling accessibility, and are they backed by theoretical and cognitive evidence? [Assessment standards]
• What effect on test-taker performance do relevant task design features have? [Assessment standards]
• What data have the underlying AI models been trained on to mitigate unfair treatment of neurodivergent test-takers? [Transparency and Explainability]
• What is the level of risk that the AI algorithms used (e.g., for scoring or adaptivity) might disadvantage neurodivergent test-takers? [Fairness and Justice]
• What procedures are in place for examiners to monitor and intervene in situations where AI models are falling short of the expected standard? [Human control of technology]
Final remarks and future directions
The principles and considerations we have proposed in this chapter are both an end and a beginning. They are the culmination of the research we carried out in order to distil principles for the ethical use of AI in the domain of language assessment. At the same time, we see these principles as the beginning of further debate and insights from practical implementation, as different individuals and organizations apply the suggested principles to their specific context (i.e., move into the most context-specific layer in Figure 1). To do that, this next phase of academic scholarship and practical insights needs to successfully grapple with two complex challenges.
The first is the gap between conceptual principles and practical implementation. In their discussions, Jobin et al. (Reference Jobin, Ienca and Vayena2019) and Fjeld et al. (Reference Fjeld, Achten, Hilligoss, Nagy and Srikumar2020, p. 66) note this divergence and the “wide and thorny gap” between identifying high-level principles and actually implementing them, arguing that translating principles into practice needs to be an important next step for those involved in and impacted by AI in the global community. Deygers (Reference Deygers and Gao2019) echoes this concern in the domain of language assessment, noting that codes of practice and standards of quality are currently mostly focused on “technical and operational” considerations (p. 23) and not ethical ones. He argues that ethical obligations need to become part of professional codes of practice and standards of quality in order to move from principle formulation to practical implementation. Our personal experience as researchers working in an examination organization frequently brings us face-to-face with this tension between theory and the very practical business of producing tests at a global scale. Explicitly embedding high-level principles will enable the language assessment professional community to deal systematically with the practicalities of embedding ethical regulations for the benefit of all stakeholders impacted by tests. Appropriate training and professional development on the ethical use of AI play a key role as well, since principles and practices are, after all, dependent on trained personnel who are supported through organizational policies in implementing them. We hope that the principles and considerations we have identified here will be a useful foundation for addressing inherent implementation challenges, guided additionally by the influential professional standards offered by AERA et al. (2014), ALTE (2020), and ILTA (2020).
The second key challenge is situated at the intersection between the powerful affordances of AI and the equally significant risks and concerns it poses to human capabilities and values. Discussions of inherent tensions are starting to emerge, as seen for example, in Briggs (Reference Briggs2024) who argues that one of the key principles in debates of ethical AI use – “transparency” – may, in fact, be “incompatible with the competitive marketplace that is funding” it (p. 694). Similarly, Whittlestone et al. (Reference Whittlestone, Nyrup, Alexandrova, Dihal and Cave2019) delve into these tensions in the broader social context of AI application and provide a number of insightful illustrations of the tensions between the values underlying ethical principles of AI and the necessary trade-offs. They point to, for example, the trade-off between the convenience enabled by AI versus the promotion of human agency. Arguing along similar lines, Nguyen et al. (Reference Nguyen, Ngo, Hong, Dang and Nguyen2023) voice an oft-repeated concern that the impact of the automation offered by AI might “reduce learners’ interactions with others and their ability to cultivate individual resourcefulness, metacognition, self-regulation, and independent thought” (p. 4235). Other tensions tap into the creation of short-term individual-level benefits versus longer-term collective values, increased personalization versus individuals’ data privacy and autonomy, or issues of access and equity across different groups (UNESCO, 2023; Whittlestone et al., Reference Whittlestone, Nyrup, Alexandrova, Dihal and Cave2019). We hope that the principles and considerations we have proposed here will be a spark for uncovering and exploring ways of resolving or minimizing these challenges and tensions.
The complexity of such endeavors is not to be underestimated, especially since the speed of AI innovation which we are currently witnessing is at odds with the typically conservative pace of reform in the education sector, including in large-scale assessment (UNESCO, 2023).
A related issue can be seen in practices that are becoming widely used but which violate ethical principles, and which would be complicated to reverse once they become embedded. Difficult – and perhaps currently impossible to answer – questions emerge. For example: considering that the latest generation of AI tools were created using internet data without regard for intellectual ownership, would all users of such AI tools, even if following ethical guidance, be complicit in violating transparency principles? Another example can be found in the environmental impact of AI tools (and specifically GenAI) and the emerging evidence that the LLMs which power GenAI systems are not environmentally sustainable due to their massive energy needs (see, for example Caines et al., Reference Caines, Benedetto, Taslimipoor, Davis, Gao, Andersen, Yuan, Elliott, Moore, Bryant, Rei, Yannakoudakis, Mullooly, Nicholls and Buttery2023). Without robust empirical evidence that LLMs perform substantially better than traditional AI models, how can informed decisions be made whether the additional computing and environmental costs are justified or not? As we grapple with these complex challenges, as a first step we need to understand the underlying dilemmas and values in order to reach an informed understanding of the trade-offs involved. Addressing these dilemmas in depth is beyond the scope of our chapter, but we hope that our suggested framework will serve as inspiration for further discussion, research and debate in language assessment, on a par with similar discussions of tensions offered by Jobin et al. (Reference Jobin, Ienca and Vayena2019) and Whittlestone et al. (Reference Whittlestone, Nyrup, Alexandrova, Dihal and Cave2019) within a broader societal lens.
Through writing this chapter and exploring the wealth of emerging literature on the ethical use of AI in education and assessment, including language assessment, we have become all too aware of the partial view we have presented in our discussion and our positionality as researchers from specific professional, disciplinary, and cultural contexts. Whittlestone et al. (Reference Whittlestone, Nyrup, Alexandrova, Dihal and Cave2019) offer an insightful discussion of the challenges present in engaging in such principle-building endeavours. The authors note challenges stemming from:
Terminological ambiguity: for example, are “black-box” AI models not transparent because algorithms are proprietary, or because of the exceptionally high level of algorithm complexity for all users and even for AI experts?
Differences in disciplinary terminology, for example, the meaning of the concept of “bias” differs in the statistical and social sense.
Cultural tendencies, for example, the concept of “privacy” would have different connotations in Western ethical traditions where individual privacy is viewed positively, in contrast to Eastern traditions where the privacy of collectives is typically seen as more important than that of individuals.
Complexity of conceptual interpretations, for example, the concept of fairness has layers of meaning embedded in philosophy, mathematics, and social sciences, and all of these interpretative lenses need to be considered for an in-depth treatment of this concept. (See also Ryan, Reference Ryan2024, who offers a discussion along similar lines in his critique of human-centred AI through a philosophy-of-technology lens).
These challenges also hold relevance for the data sources which formed the basis of our exploration. Their selection was based on a systematic rationale (as overviewed in the Method section), and yet all the policy documents we included are inevitably shaped by cultural and individual perspectives. We believe that the confluence we often discovered in concepts and themes across the range of diverse perspectives lends a level of universal robustness to the set of proposed principles. However, we must acknowledge that the current availability of mostly Western-based documents presents a limitation of our investigation, which we hope will be minimized through the future development of a broader set of guidelines and documents from a global perspective.
Notwithstanding the challenges we have discussed, we are cautiously optimistic that the language assessment professional community is well placed to develop an informed awareness of potential benefits and harms associated with AI in this domain. We hope that the ethical principles and considerations we have presented are a starting point for further theoretical and practical endeavours and continuous refinement as they are put into practice alongside other professional guidelines and standards. It is through such a focus on theory, policies, and practice that the language assessment community will be able to adopt an “ethical-by-design” approach to developing AI tools for language assessment which benefits all stakeholders at individual, institutional and systems levels.
