More Like this

1. Providing tailored reflection instructions in collaborative learning using large language models

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13548  

   Naik, Atharva; Yin, Jessica Ruhan; Kamath, Anusha; Ma, Qianou; Wu, Sherry Tongshuang; Murray, R Charles; Bogart, Christopher; Sakr, Majd; Rose, Carolyn P (March 2025, British Journal of Educational Technology)

   AbstractThe relative effectiveness of reflection either through student generation of contrasting cases or through provided contrasting cases is not well‐established for adult learners. This paper presents a classroom study to investigate this comparison in a college level Computer Science (CS) course where groups of students worked collaboratively to design database access strategies. Forty‐four teams were randomly assigned to three reflection conditions ([GEN] directive to generate a contrasting case to the student solution and evaluate their trade‐offs in light of the principle, [CONT] directive to compare the student solution with a provided contrasting case and evaluate their trade‐offs in light of a principle, and [NSI] a control condition with a non‐specific directive for reflection evaluating the student solution in light of a principle). In the CONT condition, as an illustration of the use of LLMs to exemplify knowledge transformation beyond knowledge construction in the generation of an automated contribution to a collaborative learning discussion, an LLM generated a contrasting case to a group's solution to exemplify application of an alternative problem solving strategy in a way that highlighted the contrast by keeping many concrete details the same as those the group had most recently collaboratively constructed. While there was no main effect of condition on learning based on a content test, low‐pretest student learned more from CONT than GEN, with NSI not distinguishable from the other two, while high‐pretest students learned marginally more from the GEN condition than the CONT condition, with NSI not distinguishable from the other two. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicReflection during or even in place of computer programming is beneficial for learning of principles for advanced computer science when the principles are new to students.Generation of contrasting cases and comparing contrasting cases have both been demonstrated to be effective as opportunities to learn from reflection in some contexts, though questions remain about ideal applicability conditions for adult learners.Intelligent conversational agents can be used effectively to deliver stimuli for reflection during collaborative learning, though room for improvement remains, which provides an opportunity to demonstrate the potential positive contribution of large language models (LLMs).What this paper addsThe study contributes new knowledge related to the differences in applicability conditions between generation of contrasting cases and comparison across provided contrasting cases for adult learning.The paper presents an application of LLMs as a tool to provide contrasting cases tailored to the details of actual student solutions.The study provides evidence from a classroom intervention study for positive impact on student learning of an LLM‐enabled intervention.Implications for practice and/or policyAdvanced computer science curricula should make substantial room for reflection alongside problem solving.Instructors should provide reflection opportunities for students tailored to their level of prior knowledge.Instructors would benefit from training to use LLMs as tools for providing effective contrasting cases, especially for low‐prior‐knowledge students. 

   more » « less
2. Enhancing student experience and learning with iterative design in an intelligent educational game

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13526  

   Hare, Ryan; Ferguson, Sarah; Tang, Ying (October 2024, British Journal of Educational Technology)

   With increasing interest in computer‐assisted educa‐ tion, AI‐integrated systems become highly applicable with their ability to adapt based on user interactions. In this context, this paper focuses on understanding and analysing first‐year undergraduate student responses to an intelligent educational system that applies multi‐agent reinforcement learning as an AI tutor. With human–computer interaction at the centre, we discuss principles of interface design and educational gamification in the context of multiple years of student observations, student feedback surveys and focus group interviews. We show positive feedback from the design methodology we discuss as well as the overall process of providing automated tutoring in a gamified virtual environment. We also discuss students' thinking in the context of gamified educational systems, as well as unexpected issues that may arise when implementing such systems. Ultimately, our design iterations and analysis both offer new insights for practical implementation of computer‐assisted educational systems, focusing on how AI can augment, rather than replace, human intelligence in the classroom. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicAI‐integrated systems show promise for personalizing learning and improving student education.Existing research has shown the value of personalized learner feedback.Engaged students learn more effectively.What this paper addsStudent opinions of and responses to an HCI‐based personalized educational system.New insights for practical implementation of AI‐integrated educational systems informed by years of student observations and system improvements.Qualitative insights into system design to improve human–computer interaction in educational systems.Implications for practice and/or policyActionable design principles for computer‐assisted tutoring systems derived from first‐hand student feedback and observations.Encourage new directions for human–computer interaction in educational systems. 

   more » « less
3. Seeking to support preservice teachers' responsive teaching: Leveraging artificial intelligence‐supported virtual simulation

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13522  

   Zhang, Nuodi; Ke, Fengfeng; Dai, Chih‐Pu; Southerland, Sherry A; Yuan, Xin (September 2024, British Journal of Educational Technology)

   AbstractPreparing preservice teachers (PSTs) to be able to notice, interpret, respond to and orchestrate student ideas—the core practices of responsive teaching—is a key goal for contemporary science and mathematics teacher education. This mixed‐methods study, employing a virtual reality (VR)‐supported simulation integrated with artificial intelligence (AI)‐powered virtual students, explored the frequent patterns of PSTs' talk moves as they attempted to orchestrate a responsive discussion, as well as the affordances and challenges of leveraging AI‐supported virtual simulation to enhance PSTs' responsive teaching skills. Sequential analysis of the talk moves of both PSTs (n = 24) and virtual students indicated that although PSTs did employ responsive talk moves, they encountered difficulties in transitioning from the authoritative, teacher‐centred teaching approach to a responsive way of teaching. The qualitative analysis with triangulated dialogue transcripts, observational field notes and semi‐structured interviews revealed participants' engagement in (1) orchestrating discussion by leveraging the design features of AI‐supported simulation, (2) iterative rehearsals through naturalistic and contextualized interactions and (3) exploring realism and boundaries in AI‐powered virtual students. The study findings provide insights into the potential of leveraging AI‐supported virtual simulation to improve PSTs' responsive teaching skills. The study also underscores the need for PSTs to engage in well‐designed pedagogical practices with adaptive and in situ support. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicDeveloping the teaching capacity of responsive teaching is an important goal for preservice teacher (PST) education. PSTs need systematic opportunities to build fluency in this approach.Virtual simulations can provide PSTs with the opportunities to practice interactive teaching and have been shown to improve their teaching skills.Artificial intelligence (AI)‐powered virtual students can be integrated into virtual simulations to enable interactive and authentic practice of teaching.What this paper addsAI‐supported simulation has the potential to support PSTs' responsive teaching skills.While PSTs enact responsive teaching talk moves, they struggle to enact those talk moves in challenging teaching scenarios due to limited epistemic and pedagogical resources.AI‐supported simulation affords iterative and contextualized opportunities for PSTs to practice responsive teaching talk moves; it challenges teachers to analyse student discourse and respond in real time.Implications for practice and/or policyPSTs should build a teaching repertoire with both basic and advanced responsive talk moves.The learning module should adapt to PSTs' prior experience and provide PSTs with in situ learning support to navigate challenging teaching scenarios.Integrating interaction features and AI‐based virtual students into the simulation can facilitate PSTs' active participation. 

   more » « less
4. Value‐sensitive design of chatbots in environmental education: Supporting identity, connectedness, well‐being and sustainability

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13568  

   Nguyen, Ha; Nguyen, Victoria; Ludovise, Sara; Santagata, Rossella (January 2025, British Journal of Educational Technology)

   While offering the potential to support learning interactions, emerging AI applications like Large Language Models (LLMs) come with ethical concerns. Grounding technology design in human values can address AI ethics and ensure adoption. To this end, we apply Value‐Sensitive Design—involving empirical, conceptual and technical investigations—to centre human values in the development and evaluation of LLM‐based chatbots within a high school environmental science curriculum. Representing multiple perspectives and expertise, the chatbots help students refine their causal models of climate change's impact on local marine ecosystems, communities and individuals. We first perform an empirical investigation leveraging participatory design to explore the values that motivate students and educators to engage with the chatbots. Then, we conceptualize the values that emerge from the empirical investigation by grounding them in research in ethical AI design, human values, human‐AI interactions and environmental education. Findings illuminate considerations for the chatbots to support students' identity development, well‐being, human–chatbot relationships and environmental sustainability. We further map the values onto design principles and illustrate how these principles can guide the development and evaluation of the chatbots. Our research demonstrates how to conduct contextual, value‐sensitive inquiries of emergent AI technologies in educational settings. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies like Large Language Models (LLMs) can not only support learning, but also raise ethical concerns such as transparency, trust and accountability.Value‐sensitive design (VSD) presents a systematic approach to centring human values in technology design.What this paper addsWe apply VSD to design LLM‐based chatbots in environmental education and identify values central to supporting students' learning.We map the values emerging from the VSD investigations to several stages of GenAI technology development: conceptualization, development and evaluation.Implications for practice and/or policyIdentity development, well‐being, human–AI relationships and environmental sustainability are key values for designing LLM‐based chatbots in environmental education.Using educational stakeholders' values to generate design principles and evaluation metrics for learning technologies can promote technology adoption and engagement. 

   more » « less
5. A multimodal approach to support teacher, researcher and AI collaboration in STEM +C learning environments

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13518  

   Cohn, Clayton; Snyder, Caitlin; Fonteles, Joyce Horn; Ashwin, TS; Montenegro, Justin; Biswas, Gautam (March 2025, British Journal of Educational Technology)

   AbstractRecent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) and multimodal learning analytics (MMLA) have allowed for new and creative ways of leveraging AI to support K12 students' collaborative learning in STEM+C domains. To date, there is little evidence of AI methods supporting students' collaboration in complex, open‐ended environments. AI systems are known to underperform humans in (1) interpreting students' emotions in learning contexts, (2) grasping the nuances of social interactions and (3) understanding domain‐specific information that was not well‐represented in the training data. As such, combined human and AI (ie, hybrid) approaches are needed to overcome the current limitations of AI systems. In this paper, we take a first step towards investigating how a human‐AI collaboration between teachers and researchers using an AI‐generated multimodal timeline can guide and support teachers' feedback while addressing students' STEM+C difficulties as they work collaboratively to build computational models and solve problems. In doing so, we present a framework characterizing the human component of our human‐AI partnership as a collaboration between teachers and researchers. To evaluate our approach, we present our timeline to a high school teacher and discuss the key insights gleaned from our discussions. Our case study analysis reveals the effectiveness of an iterative approach to using human‐AI collaboration to address students' STEM+C challenges: the teacher can use the AI‐generated timeline to guide formative feedback for students, and the researchers can leverage the teacher's feedback to help improve the multimodal timeline. Additionally, we characterize our findings with respect to two events of interest to the teacher: (1) when the students cross adifficulty threshold,and (2) thepoint of intervention, that is, when the teacher (or system) should intervene to provide effective feedback. It is important to note that the teacher explained that there should be a lag between (1) and (2) to give students a chance to resolve their own difficulties. Typically, such a lag is not implemented in computer‐based learning environments that provide feedback. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicCollaborative, open‐ended learning environments enhance students' STEM+C conceptual understanding and practice, but they introduce additional complexities when students learn concepts spanning multiple domains.Recent advances in generative AI and MMLA allow for integrating multiple datastreams to derive holistic views of students' states, which can support more informed feedback mechanisms to address students' difficulties in complex STEM+C environments.Hybrid human‐AI approaches can help address collaborating students' STEM+C difficulties by combining the domain knowledge, emotional intelligence and social awareness of human experts with the general knowledge and efficiency of AI.What this paper addsWe extend a previous human‐AI collaboration framework using a hybrid intelligence approach to characterize the human component of the partnership as a researcher‐teacher partnership and present our approach as a teacher‐researcher‐AI collaboration.We adapt an AI‐generated multimodal timeline to actualize our human‐AI collaboration by pairing the timeline with videos of students encountering difficulties, engaging in active discussions with a high school teacher while watching the videos to discern the timeline's utility in the classroom.From our discussions with the teacher, we define two types ofinflection pointsto address students' STEM+C difficulties—thedifficulty thresholdand theintervention point—and discuss how thefeedback latency intervalseparating them can inform educator interventions.We discuss two ways in which our teacher‐researcher‐AI collaboration can help teachers support students encountering STEM+C difficulties: (1) teachers using the multimodal timeline to guide feedback for students, and (2) researchers using teachers' input to iteratively refine the multimodal timeline.Implications for practice and/or policyOur case study suggests that timeline gaps (ie, disengaged behaviour identified by off‐screen students, pauses in discourse and lulls in environment actions) are particularly important for identifying inflection points and formulating formative feedback.Human‐AI collaboration exists on a dynamic spectrum and requires varying degrees of human control and AI automation depending on the context of the learning task and students' work in the environment.Our analysis of this human‐AI collaboration using a multimodal timeline can be extended in the future to support students and teachers in additional ways, for example, designing pedagogical agents that interact directly with students, developing intervention and reflection tools for teachers, helping teachers craft daily lesson plans and aiding teachers and administrators in designing curricula. 

   more » « less