Enhancing active learning through collaboration between human teachers and generative AI
Open accessAbstract
To address the increasing demand for AI literacy, we introduced a novel active learning approach that leverages both teaching assistants (TAs) and generative AI to provide feedback during in-class exercises. This method was evaluated through two studies in separate Computer Science courses, focusing on the roles and impacts of TAs in this learning environment, as well as their collaboration with ChatGPT in enhancing student feedback. The studies revealed that TAs were effective in accurately determining students’ progress and struggles, particularly in areas such as “backtracking”, where students faced significant challenges. This intervention’s success was evident from high student engagement and satisfaction levels, as reported in an end-of-semester survey. Further findings highlighted that while TAs provided detailed technical assessments and identified conceptual gaps effectively, ChatGPT excelled in presenting clarifying examples and offering motivational support. Despite some TAs’ resistance to fully embracing the feedback guidelines-specifically their reluctance to provide encouragement-the collaborative feedback process between TAs and ChatGPT improved the quality of feedback in several aspects, including technical accuracy and clarity in explaining conceptual issues. These results suggest that integrating human and artificial intelligence in educational settings can significantly enhance traditional teaching methods, creating a more dynamic and responsive learning en…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Learning can be significantly enhanced once supportive teacher interactions are increased and a more dynamic and responsive learning environment is created.
“Learning can be significantly enhanced once supportive teacher interactions are increased and a more dynamic and responsive learning environment is created (Pahi et al., 2024).”
From Exploring the factors influencing college students’ learning satisfaction in generative AI-supported MOOCs learning environment: a learning experience framework perspective (2025) · cites this paper as Pahi et al., 2024
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · see citing works
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · Cited by 3,004 · see citing works
What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lo, C. K. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040410 · Cited by 2,024 · see citing works
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4 · Cited by 1,927 · see citing works
BAİDOO-ANU, D., & OWUSU ANSAH, L. (2023) · Journal of AI · doi:10.61969/jai.1337500 · Cited by 1,826 · see citing works
Generative AI and ChatGPT: applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration
Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814 · Cited by 1,363 · see citing works
A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms
Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-020-00140-9 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhai, X. (2025) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-024-10174-0 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Guo, Q., Zhen, J., Wu, F., He, Y., & Qiao, C. (2025) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241312365 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Quantum leap in medical mentorship: exploring ChatGPT’s transition from textbooks to terabytes
Chokkakula, S., Chong, S., Yang, B., Jiang, H., Yu, J., Han, R., Attitalla, I. H., Yin, C., & Zhang, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1517981 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Evaluating Trust in AI, Human, and Co-produced Feedback Among Undergraduate Students
Zhang, A., Gao, Y., Suraworachet, W., Nazaretsky, T., & Cukurova, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.10961 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Lv, P., Wang, X., Nie, Y., Wu, R., & Wang, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1633686 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Learning can be significantly enhanced once supportive teacher interactions are increased and a more dynamic and responsive learning environment is created (Pahi et al., 2024).”
- Authors
- Pahi, K., Hawlader, S., Hicks, E., Zaman, A., & Phan, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Memphis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Phan, Vinhthuy
- Venue
- Computers and Education Open
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 100183
- ISSN
- 2666-5573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4396979009
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 11
- FWCI
- 41.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Keywords
- active learning, generative AI in education, ChatGPT, teaching assistants, human-AI collaboration, automated feedback, in-class exercises, AI literacy, computer science education, student engagement, backtracking, conceptual gaps, student motivation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review