CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Teaching and Learning ProgrammingProblem and Project Based LearningGender and Technology in Education

The Effects on Secondary School Students of Applying Experiential Learning to the Conversational AI Learning Curriculum

Open access
Hsu, Ting-Chia, Abelson, Hal, Van Brummelen, Jessica·2022·The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
DOI 10.19173/irrodl.v22i4.5474
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to design a curriculum of artificial intelligence (AI) application for secondary schools. The learning objective of the curriculum was to allow students to learn the application of conversational AI on a block-based programming platform. Moreover, the empirical study actually implemented the curriculum in the formal learning of a secondary school for a period of six weeks. The study evaluated the learning performance of students who were taught with the cycle of experiential learning in one class, while also evaluating the learning performance of students who were taught with the conventional instruction, which was called the cycle of doing projects. Two factors, learning approach and gender, were taken into account. The results showed that females’ learning effectiveness was significantly better than that of males regardless of whether they used experiential learning or the conventional projects approach. Most of the males tended to be distracted from the conversational AI curriculum because they misbehaved during the conversational AI process. In particular, in their performance using the Voice User Interface with the conventional learning approach, the females outperformed the males significantly. The results of two-way ANCOVA revealed a significant interaction between gender and learning approach on computational thinking concepts. Females with the conventional learning approach of doing projects had the best computational thinking concepts in comparison with the other groups.

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 · 10.19173/irrodl.v22i4.5474

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Hsu et al. (2022) found that combining GenAI with experiential learning improved computational thinking and engagement among secondary students.

    “Hsu et al. (2022) found that combining GenAI with experiential learning improved computational thinking and engagement among secondary students.”

    From Enhancing service-learning through Generative AI: a mixed-methods study on educational Game design in a finance course (2025) · cites this paper as Hsu et al. (2022)

    The ‘Students’ Computational Thinking with Different Learning Approaches and Gender’ section reports better computational-thinking scores for boys taught through experiential learning than for boys taught through conventional projects, but not an improvement across all students. The ‘Introduction’ and ‘Overview of the Study’ describe a conversational-AI curriculum using block-based programming and Alexa, not a study of generative AI; the reported findings do not establish improved engagement. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-25). Vancouver, Canada.
  2. Korkmaz, Ö., & Altun, H. (2013). Engineering and CEIT student's attitude towards learning computer programming. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 6(2), 1169-1185.
  3. Sendall, P., Stuetzle, C. S., Kissel, Z. A., Hameed, T. (2019). Experiential learning in the technology disciplines. Proceedings of the 2019 EDSIG Conference (Vol.5, n4968). Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hsu, T.-C., Abelson, H., & Van Brummelen, J.
Affiliations
National Taiwan Normal University (TW)
ORCID
Hsu, Ting-Chia
Venue
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Publisher
Athabasca University Press
Published
2022-02-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
82-103
ISSN
1492-3831 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.19173/irrodl.v22i4.5474
OpenAlex
W4210809437
Cited by
65
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Érudit (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
experiential learning, conversational AI, high school students, block-based programming, AI curriculum design, computational thinking, gender differences in learning, voice user interface, project-based learning, student distraction

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