CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 9

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts

Mollick, Ethan, Mollick, Lilach·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.10052arXiv 2306.10052
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper examines the transformative role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education and their potential as learning tools, despite their inherent risks and limitations. The authors propose seven approaches for utilizing AI in classrooms: AI-tutor, AI-coach, AI-mentor, AI-teammate, AI-tool, AI-simulator, and AI-student, each with distinct pedagogical benefits and risks. The aim is to help students learn with and about AI, with practical strategies designed to mitigate risks such as complacency about the AI's output, errors, and biases. These strategies promote active oversight, critical assessment of AI outputs, and complementarity of AI's capabilities with the students' unique insights. By challenging students to remain the "human in the loop," the authors aim to enhance learning outcomes while ensuring that AI serves as a supportive tool rather than a replacement. The proposed framework offers a guide for educators navigating the integration of AI-assisted learning in classrooms

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.10052

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick. Harvard University Press.
  2. Chi, M. T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive science, 32(2), 301-341.
  3. Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive science, 25(4), 471-533.
  4. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257.
  5. Di Stefano, G., Pisano, G., & Staats, B. R. (2015). Learning by thinking: How reflection aids performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 12709). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
  6. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students' Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363.
  9. Fiorella, L. (2023). Making Sense of Generative Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 50.
  10. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity. Cambridge university press.
  11. Kirschner, P., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
  12. Klein, G. (2007). Performing a project premortem. Harvard business review, 85(9), 18-19.
  13. Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2017). Self-distancing: Theory, research, and current directions. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 81-136). Academic Press.
  14. Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual review of psychology, 68, 465-489.
  15. Mitchell, D. J., Edward Russo, J., & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2(1), 25-38.
  16. Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 483-504.
  17. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of educational research, 77(4), 534-574.
  18. Seligman, M. E., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(2), 119-141.
  19. Willingham, D. T. (2021). Why don't students like school?: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
  20. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning?. Studies in educational evaluation, 37(1), 3- 14.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mollick, E., & Mollick, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.10052
arXiv
2306.10052
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode

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