PreprintCited by 3

Generative AI in the Classroom: Can Students Remain Active Learners?

Abdelghani, Rania, Sauzéon, Hélène, Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) can be seen as a double-edged weapon in education. Indeed, it may provide personalized, interactive and empowering pedagogical sequences that could favor students' intrinsic motivation, active engagement and help them have more control over their learning. But at the same time, other GAI properties such as the lack of uncertainty signalling even in cases of failure (particularly with Large Language Models (LLMs)) could lead to opposite effects, e.g. over-estimation of one's own competencies, passiveness, loss of curious and critical-thinking sense, etc. These negative effects are due in particular to the lack of a pedagogical stance in these models' behaviors. Indeed, as opposed to standard pedagogical activities, GAI systems are often designed to answers users' inquiries easily and conveniently, without asking them to make an effort, and without focusing on their learning process and/or outcomes. This article starts by outlining some of these opportunities and challenges surrounding the use of GAI in education, with a focus on the effects on students' active learning strategies and related metacognitive skills. Then, we present a framework for introducing pedagogical transparency in GAI-based educational applications. This framework presents 1) training methods to include pedagogical principles in the models, 2) methods to ensure controlled and pedagogically-relevant interactions when designing activities with GAI and 3) educational methods enabling students to acquire the relevant skills to properly benefit from the use of GAI in their learning activities (meta-cognitive skills, GAI litteracy).

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.2310.03192

Cites

1 of 1 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?

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: 35

  1. Rania Abdelghani et al. "Conversational agents for fostering curiosity-driven learning in children". In: International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 167 (2022), p. 102887.
  2. Rania Abdelghani et al. "Gpt-3-driven pedagogical agents to train children's curious question- asking skills". In: International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (2023), pp. 1- 36.
  3. Rania Abdelghani et al. "Interactive environments for training children's curiosity through the practice of metacognitive skills: a pilot study". In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 2023, pp. 495-501.
  4. Philip C Abrami et al. "Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis". In: Review of educational research 85.2 (2015), pp. 275-314.
  5. Mehdi Alaimi et al. "Pedagogical agents for fostering question-asking skills in children". In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2020, pp. 1-13.
  6. David Baidoo-Anu and Leticia Owusu Ansah. "Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning". In: Journal of AI 7.1 (2023), pp. 52-62.
  7. Emily M Bender et al. "On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?" In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 2021, pp. 610-623.
  8. Som Biswas. "Role of Chat GPT in Education". In: Available at SSRN 4369981 (2023).
  9. Robert A Bjork, John Dunlosky, and Nate Kornell. "Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, tech- niques, and illusions". In: Annual review of psychology 64 (2013), pp. 417-444.
  10. Mayuri Borah. "Motivation in learning". In: Journal of Critical Reviews 8.2 (2021), pp. 550- 552.
  11. Tom Brown et al. "Language models are few-shot learners". In: Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), pp. 1877-1901.
  12. Stephen Casper et al. Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. 2023. arXiv: 2307.15217 [cs.AI]. · arXiv
  13. Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. "Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?" In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13788 (2023). · arXiv
  14. Blaženka Divjak and Damir Tomić. "The impact of game-based learning on the achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics-literature review". In: Journal of information and organizational sciences 35.1 (2011), pp. 15-30.
  15. Jochen Hartmann, Jasper Schwenzow, and Maximilian Witte. "The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01768 (2023). · arXiv
  16. Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. "An experimental study of apparent behavior". In: The American journal of psychology 57.2 (1944), pp. 243-259.
  17. Brett D Jones. "Motivating students to engage in learning: the MUSIC model of academic motivation." In: International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 21.2 (2009), pp. 272-285.
  18. Erik Jones and Jacob Steinhardt. "Capturing failures of large language models via human cog- nitive biases". In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), pp. 11785- 11799.
  19. Celeste Kidd and Abeba Birhane. "How AI can distort human beliefs". In: Science 380.6651 (2023), pp. 1222-1223.
  20. Grgur Kovač et al. "Large Language Models as Superpositions of Cultural Perspectives". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07870 (2023). · arXiv
  21. Ming-Hung Lin, Huang-Cheng Chen, and Kuang-Sheng Liu. "A study of the effects of digital learning on learning motivation and learning outcome". In: Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 13.7 (2017), pp. 3553-3564.
  22. G. Loewenstein. "The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation". In: Psycho- logical Bulletin 116 (July 1994), pp. 75-98. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Jakub Macina et al. MathDial: A Dialogue Tutoring Dataset with Rich Pedagogical Properties Grounded in Math Reasoning Problems. 2023. arXiv: 2305.14536 [cs.CL]. · arXiv
  24. Kou Murayama, Lily FitzGibbon, and Michiko Sakaki. "Process account of curiosity and inter- est: A reward-learning perspective". In: Educational Psychology Review 31 (2019), pp. 875- 895.
  25. Claudio Novelli et al. "Taking AI Risks Seriously: a Proposal for the AI Act". In: Available at SSRN 4447964 (2023).
  26. Evan Orticio, Martin Meyer, and Celeste Kidd. "Children flexibly adapt their evidentiary standards to their informational environment". In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Vol. 45. 45. 2023.
  27. P-Y Oudeyer, Jacqueline Gottlieb, and Manuel Lopes. "Intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and learning: Theory and applications in educational technologies". In: Progress in brain research 229 (2016), pp. 257-284.
  28. Charvi Rastogi et al. "Supporting human-ai collaboration in auditing llms with llms". In: Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 2023, pp. 913-926.
  29. Jean-François Rouet. "What was I looking for? The influence of task specificity and prior knowledge on students' search strategies in hypertext". In: Interacting with computers 15.3 (2003), pp. 409-428.
  30. Mark A Sabbagh and Dare A Baldwin. "Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers' theory of mind and semantic development". In: Child development 72.4 (2001), pp. 1054-1070.
  31. Emily Theophilou et al. "Learning to Prompt in the Classroom to Understand AI Limits: A pilot study". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01540 (2023). · arXiv
  32. Bill Thompson and Thomas L Griffiths. "Human biases limit cumulative innovation". In: Proceedings of the Royal Society B 288.1946 (2021), p. 20202752.
  33. Jason Wei et al. "Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models". In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), pp. 24824-24837.
  34. Jason Wei et al. "Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652 (2021). · arXiv
  35. Ce Zhou et al. "A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: A history from bert to chatgpt". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09419 (2023). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdelghani, R., Sauzéon, H., & Oudeyer, P.-Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
1
Type
Preprint

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