As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in classrooms, tutoring systems, and learning platforms, it is essential that these tools are not only powerful, but also easy to understand, fair, and supportive of real learning. Many current AI systems can generate fluent responses or accurate predictions, yet they often fail to clearly explain their decisions, reflect students’ cultural contexts, or give learners and educators meaningful control. This gap can reduce trust and limit the educational value of AI-supported learning. This paper introduces the PEARL framework, a human-centered approach for designing and evaluating explainable AI in education. PEARL is built around five core principles: Pedagogical Personalization (adapting support to learners’ levels and curriculum goals), Explainability and Engagement (providing clear, motivating explanations in everyday language), Attribution and Accountability (making AI decisions traceable and justifiable), Representation and Reflection (supporting fairness, diversity, and learner self-reflection), and Localized Learner Agency (giving learners control over how AI explains and supports them). Unlike many existing explainability approaches that focus mainly on technical performance, PEARL emphasizes how students, teachers, and administrators experience and make sense of AI decisions. The framework is demonstrated through simulated examples using an AI-based tutoring system, showing how PEARL can improve feedback clarity, support different stakeholder needs, reduce bias, and promote culturally relevant learning. The paper also introduces the PEARL Composite Score, a practical evaluation tool that helps assess how well educational AI systems align with ethical, pedagogical, and human-centered principles. This study includes a small exploratory mixed-methods user study (N = 17) evaluating example AI tutor interactions; no live classroom deployment was conducted. Together, these contributions offer a practical roadmap for building educational AI systems that are not only effective, but also trustworthy, inclusive, and genuinely supportive of human learning.
Dakshit et al. (Wed,) studied this question.