Embedding equity

As you consider barriers and challenges to GenAI integration in the classroom, consider how a range of students might experience it and interact with it. Note that the below is not an exhaustive list, and any implementation of a GenAI tool should be considered in its own unique context and according to Deakin policy, frameworks and relevant legislation. 

The GenAI tool

• Was the tool trained on diverse datasets reflecting inclusive values and representative of a broad range of people from different populations, including minority groups? What voices are respectively elevated or excluded? 
• How transparent is the tool’s decision-making process and outputs? Can students and educators understand and critically evaluate these? 
• Are there existing or added ‘guard rails’ to prevent derogatory, biased, stereotypical, discredited or otherwise harmful output? 
• Do you know what happens to the interaction data from student or staff users? Are there protections against exploitation or surveillance? 
• Have you considered risks to privacy or data sovereignty, particularly for people who have historically experienced culture, knowledge or other data taken without consent?  
• Will use of this tool create a more even playing field or less? 

Access

• Are there financial costs that may disadvantage some students? 
• If a free version is available, will students using the paid version have an inequitable advantage? 
• How will a student with limited or slow internet access be impacted? 
• Does the tool support screen readers, voice input, keyboard navigation and other assistive technology? 
• Can students use the tool in their preferred language or dialect? 
• Have you taught and scaffolded use of the tool to prevent disadvantage to those who haven’t used it or have lower digital literacy? 
• Have you discussed and provided examples of the boundaries in using the tool? 
• Students already use AI to assist with accessibility. Does your approach allow autonomy to use AI as an assistive technology? 
• If a tool is inaccessible for a student, will their learning experience be significantly impacted or inequitable? 

Student experience

• What staff supervision is in place for use of the tool?
• How could the experience impact student wellbeing?
• Is there a plan to manage any unintended harmful outputs? 
• Is there a process for a range of students to have input or give feedback?  
• Is the student supported to develop responsible, ethical and critical use? 
• Can equity students’ voices be prioritised to ensure they are effectively heard? 
• How might you adapt the activity or approach if a student experiences barriers? 
• Is the approach justified from a pedagogical perspective? 
• Is your approach contributing to mastery of a learning outcome? If not, is the amount of time and effort required to learn the tool justified, particularly for those who experience time limitations? 
• Have you communicated with other educators within the course(s) to prevent significant overlap and ensure consistency (particularly in messaging to students)? 
• Can students make an informed and personal decision to opt out of use?  
• Are both the tool and the activity/approach authentic to a graduate’s future use (in a range of different future roles)? 
• After the activity/approach, will the student have a better understanding of and ability to perceive bias, stereotypes, cultural appropriation, inequity and/or misinformation in GenAI? 

Note: These prompts aim to help you consider access and inclusion for a range of different people. It intentionally raises many questions with no single or correct answer. 

These questions are not intended to present insurmountable barriers. Instead, with awareness of varied student experience, you may choose to provide additional support, scaffolding, rationale and/or alternatives, and seek direct student input. 

Resources

For additional resources on AI and equity, visit the (internal link) GenAI Action Plan 2025+.

GenAI Events at Deakin