Pedagogy, Cognition, Human Rights, and Social Justice

[...]it has built on and developed a wide range of techniques used by human teachers (du Boulay & Luckin, 2001, 2016; Graesser et al., 2001; Person et al., 1995; Porayska-Pomsta & Mellish, 2013). [...]there is a mis-characterisation of both the traditional and the posited “new” role of AIED to “address pedagogy, cognition, human rights, and social justice” as if these were not already part of its brief. Pedagogic strategies: not just question asking and answering and one-to-one interaction as in Scholar but problem-solving (Anderson et al., 1995; VanLehn et al., 2005), learning through examples (Najar et al., 2016), learning by teaching (Biswas et al., 2016), learning by prompted discussion (Graesser, 2016), reciprocal teaching (Chou & Chan, 2016), learning from critiquing (Saadawi et al., 2008), learning by challenging (Lehman et al., 2013), learning by confusing (Lehman et al., 2013), learning through gaming (Pareto, 2014). Not at all as in Scholar but now concern for the ethical (Sjödén, 2020), social (Kim, 2005; Ogan, 2011; Walker & Ogan, 2016) and cultural context of the field (Casas et al., 2015; Johnson, 2007) including human rights (Burleson & Lewis, 2016; Schiff, 2022). The interest in ethics and human rights is relatively more recent but is strong. The second is that it implied that there were areas such as pedagogy, cognition as well as the social, cultural, ethical and human rights aspects of the field that were not yet part of the existing areas of research in AIED when they were.