Cited by 110Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningTeaching and Learning Programming

Enhancing active learning through collaboration between human teachers and generative AI

Open access
Pahi, Kritish, Hawlader, Shiplu, Hicks, Eric, Zaman, Alina, Phan, Vinhthuy·2024·Computers and Education Open

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100183

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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