Causal ML in Education: Enhancing Teacher pedagogical Strategies and Decision-Making

Authors

  • Mrs. Kajal Ankitkumar Mantri Student, Department of Computer Engineering, Sigma University, Gujarat, India Author
  • Dr. Sheshang Degadwala Professor & Head of Department, Department of Computer Engineering, Sigma University, Vadodara, Gujarat, India Author
  • Mrs. Malini Joshi Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Engineering, Sigma University, Vadodara, Gujarat, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST26136

Keywords:

Causal Machine Learning, Personalized Learning, Educational Artificial Intelligence, Teacher Decision Support, Causal Bayesian Networks, Explainable AI, Counterfactual Reasoning, Pedagogical Strategies

Abstract

The present paper examines shifts in preservice students understandings about teaching and learning because of developing of a student. This review paper explores how causal ML techniques can support teachers in evaluating and refining pedagogical interventions using observational educational data. Pedagogical decision made by teacher educators construct curriculum development. This explores the application of Causal ML in education, highlighting its potential to enhance teacher decision-making, personalize instruction, and optimize resource allocation. Research indicates that ideas prioritized by teacher educators are presented more explicitly within the curriculum. This report explores how teacher educators shape curriculum through pedagogical decisions, influenced by their purposes and contexts, as evidenced by collaborative self-studies in physical education teacher education. Furthermore, it proposes an educational artificial intelligence framework that integrates neural collaborative filtering with causal reasoning. causal inference foundations, modern machine learning–based causal estimators, and recent applications in educational data mining. It also discusses the role of counterfactual explanations in making AI-driven recommendations interpretable and actionable for teachers. By utilizing a hybrid architecture of generalized matrix factorization and multi-layer perceptron, alongside double machine learning for quantifying individual treatment effects, the framework achieves counterfactual decision optimization. The integration of these technologies enhances long-term learning efficiency while maintaining ethical regulation. Experimental validation demonstrates that this framework significantly enhances the explainability and long-term learning efficiency of teaching decisions while maintaining large-scale exhortation efficiency, providing a solution robust in both technology and ethical regulation. The main goal is to build teacher-centered, fair, and trustworthy causal decision- pedagogical support systems that empower educators to make evidence-based decisions that are technically robust and philosophically aligned with core pedagogical values. This paper reviews the foundations of causal inference and recent machine learning–based causal models used in educational data mining to analyze observational data from learning management systems, online assessments, and intelligent tutoring platforms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

J. Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161

G. W. Imbens and D. B. Rubin, Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139025751

J. D. Angrist and J.-S. Pischke, Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton Univ. Press, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829828

A. C. Sales and N. T. Heffernan, “Causal inference in educational data mining,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Educational Data Mining (EDM), Durham, U.K., 2022, pp. 852–852.

A. C. Sales, N. T. Heffernan, and R. S. Baker, “Applying causal inference in educational data mining: A pilot study,” Educational Data Mining, pp. 78–92, 2012.

J. S. H. Wong, M. K. J. Lee, and S. R. J. Lin, “Assessing the causal effect of special education services on math achievement: A causal inference and machine learning study,” Journal of Educational Data Mining, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2021.

U. Shalit, F. D. Johansson, and D. Sontag, “Estimating individual treatment effect: Generalization bounds and algorithms,” in Proc. 34th Int. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML), Sydney, Australia, 2017, pp. 3076–3085.

F. D. Johansson, U. Shalit, and D. Sontag, “Learning representations for counterfactual inference,” in Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML), New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 3020–3029.

S. Athey and G. W. Imbens, “Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 27, pp. 7353–7360, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510489113

S. Wager and S. Athey, “Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 113, no. 523, pp. 1228–1242, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839

S. R. Künzel, J. S. Sekhon, P. J. Bickel, and B. Yu, “Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 10, pp. 4156–4165, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804597116

R. Guo, L. Cheng, J. Li, P. R. Hahn, and H. Liu, “A survey of learning causality with data: Problems and methods,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1–37, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3397269

Z. Yao, Y. Zhang, and J. Sun, “A survey on causal inference in machine learning,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1–46, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3444944

D. B. Rubin, “Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 688–701, 1974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350

P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin, “The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects,” Biometrika, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 41–55, 1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

V. Chernozhukov et al., “Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters,” The Econometrics Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. C1–C68, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ectj.12097

R. S. Baker and K. Yacef, “The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions,” Journal of Educational Data Mining, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2009.

C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 601–618, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2053532

J. Kleinberg, J. Ludwig, S. Mullainathan, and Z. Obermeyer, “Prediction policy problems,” American Economic Review, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 491–495, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151023

M. Kusner, J. Loftus, C. Russell, and R. Silva, “Counterfactual fairness,” in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017, pp. 4066–4076.

Downloads

Published

07-01-2026

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

[1]
Mrs. Kajal Ankitkumar Mantri, Dr. Sheshang Degadwala, and Mrs. Malini Joshi, Trans., “Causal ML in Education: Enhancing Teacher pedagogical Strategies and Decision-Making”, Int J Sci Res Sci & Technol, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 46–52, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.32628/IJSRST26136.