An official website of the United States government
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
Value‐sensitive design of chatbots in environmental education: Supporting identity, connectedness, well‐being and sustainability
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
- Award ID(s):
- 2241596
- PAR ID:
- 10566567
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Volume:
- 56
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0007-1013
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 1370-1390
- Size(s):
- p. 1370-1390
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract This paper provides an experience report on a co‐design approach with teachers to co‐create learning analytics‐based technology to support problem‐based learning in middle school science classrooms. We have mapped out a workflow for such applications and developed design narratives to investigate the implementation, modifications and temporal roles of the participants in the design process. Our results provide precedent knowledge on co‐designing with experienced and novice teachers and co‐constructing actionable insight that can help teachers engage more effectively with their students' learning and problem‐solving processes during classroom PBL implementations. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicSuccess of educational technology depends in large part on the technology's alignment with teachers' goals for their students, teaching strategies and classroom context.Teacher and researcher co‐design of educational technology and supporting curricula has proven to be an effective way for integrating teacher insight and supporting their implementation needs.Co‐designing learning analytics and support technologies with teachers is difficult due to differences in design and development goals, workplace norms, and AI‐literacy and learning analytics background of teachers.What this paper addsWe provide a co‐design workflow for middle school teachers that centres on co‐designing and developing actionable insights to support problem‐based learning (PBL) by systematic development of responsive teaching practices using AI‐generated learning analytics.We adapt established human‐computer interaction (HCI) methods to tackle the complex task of classroom PBL implementation, working with experienced and novice teachers to create a learning analytics dashboard for a PBL curriculum.We demonstrate researcher and teacher roles and needs in ensuring co‐design collaboration and the co‐construction of actionable insight to support middle school PBL.Implications for practice and/or policyLearning analytics researchers will be able to use the workflow as a tool to support their PBL co‐design processes.Learning analytics researchers will be able to apply adapted HCI methods for effective co‐design processes.Co‐design teams will be able to pre‐emptively prepare for the difficulties and needs of teachers when integrating middle school teacher feedback during the co‐design process in support of PBL technologies.more » « less
-
Abstract As use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased, concerns about AI bias and discrimination have been growing. This paper discusses an application called PyrEval in which natural language processing (NLP) was used to automate assessment and provide feedback on middle school science writing without linguistic discrimination. Linguistic discrimination in this study was operationalized as unfair assessment of scientific essays based on writing features that are not considered normative such as subject‐verb disagreement. Such unfair assessment is especially problematic when the purpose of assessment is not assessing English writing but rather assessing the content of scientific explanations. PyrEval was implemented in middle school science classrooms. Students explained their roller coaster design by stating relationships among such science concepts as potential energy, kinetic energy and law of conservation of energy. Initial and revised versions of scientific essays written by 307 eighth‐grade students were analyzed. Our manual and NLP assessment comparison analysis showed that PyrEval did not penalize student essays that contained non‐normative writing features. Repeated measures ANOVAs and GLMM analysis results revealed that essay quality significantly improved from initial to revised essays after receiving the NLP feedback, regardless of non‐normative writing features. Findings and implications are discussed. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicAdvancement in AI has created a variety of opportunities in education, including automated assessment, but AI is not bias‐free.Automated writing assessment designed to improve students' scientific explanations has been studied.While limited, some studies reported biased performance of automated writing assessment tools, but without looking into actual linguistic features about which the tools may have discriminated.What this paper addsThis study conducted an actual examination of non‐normative linguistic features in essays written by middle school students to uncover how our NLP tool called PyrEval worked to assess them.PyrEval did not penalize essays containing non‐normative linguistic features.Regardless of non‐normative linguistic features, students' essay quality scores significantly improved from initial to revised essays after receiving feedback from PyrEval. Essay quality improvement was observed regardless of students' prior knowledge, school district and teacher variables.Implications for practice and/or policyThis paper inspires practitioners to attend to linguistic discrimination (re)produced by AI.This paper offers possibilities of using PyrEval as a reflection tool, to which human assessors compare their assessment and discover implicit bias against non‐normative linguistic features.PyrEval is available for use ongithub.com/psunlpgroup/PyrEvalv2.more » « less
-
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
-
Abstract In this study, support for teaching data literacy in social studies is provided through the design of a pedagogical support system informed by participatory design sessions with both pre‐service and in‐service social studies teachers. It provides instruction on teaching and learning data literacy in social studies, examples of standards‐based lesson plans, made‐to‐purpose data visualization tools and minimal manuals that put existing online tools in a social studies context. Based on case studies of eleven practicing teachers, this study provides insight into features of technology resources that social studies teachers find usable and useful for using data visualizations as part of standards‐ and inquiry‐based social studies instruction, teaching critical analysis of data visualizations and helping students create data visualizations with online computing tools. The final result, though, is that few of our participating teachers have yet adopted the provided resources into their own classrooms, which highlights weaknesses of the technology acceptance model for describing teacher adoption. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicData literacy is an important part of social studies education in the United States.Most teachers do not teach data literacy as a part of social studies.Teachers may adopt technology to help them teach data literacy if they think it is useful and usable.What this paper addsEducational technology can help teachers learn about data literacy in social studies.Social studies teachers want simple tools that fit with their existing curricula, give them new project ideas and help students learn difficult concepts.Making tools useful and usable does not predict adoption; context plays a large role in a social studies teachers' adoption.Implications for practice and/or policyDesigning purpose‐built tools for social studies teachers will encourage them to teach data literacy in their classes.Professional learning opportunities for teachers around data literacy should include opportunities for experimentation with tools.Teachers are not likely to use tools if they are not accompanied by lesson and project ideas.more » « less
