Ali Ünlü | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

A Longitudinal Analysis of Public Discourse on AI Ethics in Education Using Twitter Data

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (GenAI) into education presents significant opportunities to enhance teaching and learning, while raising ethical concerns about the responsible use of these technologies in educational settings. Understanding how the public perceives and debates these issues is increasingly important for educators, institutions, and policymakers seeking to integrate AI responsibly and equitably. Social media platforms, where such debates unfold frequently and at scale, offer a valuable lens for capturing large-scale, real-time public reactions to key developments as they emerge. In this study, we analyse five years (2019-2024) of discourse on Twitter (now X) to trace the evolving public conversation around AI ethics in education, paying particular attention to the release of ChatGPT as a pivotal moment that reshaped the nature and tone of that discourse. Using BERT-based topic modelling and SetFit sentiment analysis to identify dominant themes and track sentiment over time, we find that the discourse has been predominantly positive across the observation period, with negative sentiment concentrated around specific ethical controversies. More recently, anxieties about academic integrity and the broader implications of generative AI have come to dominate the conversation. Rather than reflecting a polarized debate, public discourse appears pragmatic and largely receptive to AI integration, though accompanied by growing calls for ethical oversight and institutional accountability. By providing a longitudinal account of public sentiment surrounding AI ethics in education, this study informs educators, institutions, and policymakers an empirically grounded understanding of public expectations, informing the development of responsible, transparent, and equitable approaches to AI integration across educational contexts.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2017

Resampling-based inference methods for comparing two coefficient alpha

The two-sample problem for Cronbach's coefficient $α_C$, as an estimate of test or composite score reliability, has attracted little attention, compared to the extensive treatment of the one-sample case. It is necessary to compare the reliability of a test for different subgroups, for different tests or the short and long forms of a test. In this paper, we study statistically how to compare two coefficients $α_{C,1}$ and $α_{C,2}$. The null hypothesis of interest is $H_0 : α_{C,1} = α_{C,2}$, which we test against one-or two-sided alternatives. For this purpose, resampling-based permutation and bootstrap tests are proposed. These statistical tests ensure a better control of the type I error, in finite or very small sample sizes, when the state-of-affairs \textit{asymptotically distribution-free} (ADF) large-sample test may fail to properly attain the nominal significance level. We introduce the permutation and bootstrap tests for the two-group multivariate non-normal models under the general ADF setting, thereby improving on the small sample properties of the well-known ADF asymptotic test. By proper choice of a studentized test statistic, the resampling tests are modified such that they are still asymptotically valid, if the data may not be exchangeable. The usefulness of the proposed resampling-based testing strategies is demonstrated in an extensive simulation study and illustrated by real data applications.

math.ST↗