Cited by 69Augmented Reality ApplicationsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

The TA Framework: Designing Real-time Teaching Augmentation for K-12 Classrooms

Open access
An, Pengcheng, Holstein, Kenneth, d'Anjou, Bernice, Eggen, Berry, Bakker, Saskia·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Recently, the HCI community has seen increased interest in the design of teaching augmentation (TA): tools that extend and complement teachers' pedagogical abilities during ongoing classroom activities. Examples of TA systems are emerging across multiple disciplines, taking various forms: e.g., ambient displays, wearables, or learning analytics dashboards. However, these diverse examples have not been analyzed together to derive more fundamental insights into the design of teaching augmentation. Addressing this opportunity, we broadly synthesize existing cases to propose the TA framework. Our framework specifies a rich design space in five dimensions, to support the design and analysis of teaching augmentation. We contextualize the framework using existing designs cases, to surface underlying design trade-offs: for example, balancing actionability of presented information with teachers' needs for professional autonomy, or balancing unobtrusiveness with informativeness in the design of TA systems. Applying the TA framework, we identify opportunities for future research and design.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376277

Cites

153 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • By calling teachers' attention to discrepancies between their own judgments and those of an AIEd system, the system may promote productive teacher reflection and learning.

    “By calling teachers' attention to discrepancies between their own judgments and those of an AIEd system, the system may promote productive teacher reflection and learning”

    From Equity and Artificial Intelligence in Education: Will "AIEd" Amplify or Alleviate Inequities in Education? (2021) · cites this paper as An, Holstein, et al., 2020

    The Methods section discusses the tension between teachers’ contextual judgments and a system’s higher-level interpretations, and the Discussion describes a design that prompts teachers to reflect in action. The passages do not say that calling attention to discrepancies between teacher and AIEd judgments promotes teacher reflection and learning; that specific mechanism is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 155 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. 10.1080/15391523.2017.14014 · DOI
  2. Van Alphen, E. and Bakker, S. 2016. Lernanto: Using an ambient display during differentiated instruction. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (New York, New York, USA, 2016), 2334--2340.
  3. 10.1007/s10639-0169494--9 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s00779-014-0775--2 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s12193-0110062--8 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s12130-007--9022--8 · DOI
  7. Lamberty, K.K., Froiland, K., Biatek, J. and Adams, S. 2010. Encouraging awareness of peers' learning activities using large displays in the periphery. Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA '10 (New York, New York, USA, Apr. 2010), 3655.
  8. Laput, G., Ahuja, K., Goel, M. and Harrison, C. 2018. Ubicoustics: Plug-and-play acoustic activity recognition. The 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (2018), 213--224.
  9. 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010x · DOI
  10. Moraveji, N., Morris, M., Morris, D., Czerwinski, M. and Henry Riche, N. 2011. ClassSearch: Facilitating the Development of Web Search Skills Through Social Learning. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, New York, USA, May 2011), 1797--1806.
  11. 10.1037/0033295x.115.1.101 · DOI
  12. Scheu, O. and Zinn, C. 2007. How did the elearning session go? The Student Inspector. 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (AIED 2007) (2007).
  13. Slovák, P., Frauenberger, C. and Fitzpatrick, G. 2017. Reflective Practicum. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17 (New York, New York, USA, 2017), 2696--2707.
  14. 10.1007/s00779-013-0751--2 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/iwc · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
An, P., Holstein, K., d'Anjou, B., Eggen, B., & Bakker, S.
Affiliations
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
  • Philips Experience Design, Eindhoven, Netherlands
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-17
OpenAlex
W2999030356
Cited by
69
References
155
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
K-12 classrooms, design space, design trade-offs, teacher professional autonomy, unobtrusiveness, ambient displays, wearable devices, learning analytics dashboards, pedagogical support tools

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