A simulated class of five AI students, each consistently enacting a distinct reasoning pattern drawn from the dual-process theory (DPT) framework of physics education research, is described and its first use in a university course for prospective physics teachers is reported on.
Abstract
Responding productively, in real time, to the reasoning students actually produce is among the most difficult and slowest to acquire of the skills physics teachers develop, and prospective teachers get few opportunities to practise it before entering a classroom. In this pilot study, we describe a simulated class of five AI students, each consistently enacting a distinct reasoning pattern drawn from the dual-process theory (DPT)"hazards"framework of physics education research, and report on its first use in a university course for prospective physics teachers. Fifteen graduate students worked through an instructional sequence on DPT and questioning strategies. They then diagnosed two parallel sets of written vignettes, in a crossover arrangement, before and after interacting in pairs with the simulated class on a static-friction problem. The data set is completed by individual written hypotheses and reflections, the session logs and a short feedback questionnaire. Diagnostic scores improved significantly from PRE to POST (n = 11 paired, Wilcoxon p = 0.014, r = 0.79; on a 0-18 scale). During the simulation itself, however, participants asked predominantly uniform guiding questions, and the DPT vocabulary they had been taught appeared in only 2 of 71 substantive teacher turns, while seven of thirteen POST sheets used it readily. We read this knowing-doing gap not as a failure but as a snapshot of where each participant stands on the developmental trajectory of responsiveness to student ideas, a trajectory the simulation makes visible with transcript-level granularity. We discuss design, findings and implications for physics teacher preparation.
Education systems are bringing artificial intelligence (AI) into K–12 curricula, but block-based environments, as usually configured, keep young learners at “toy” exercises. In this study, we examine whether a minimal interface backed by expanded machine capability changes teachers’ judgments of what students can build...
This research argues that the more important question is whether it sustains or closes down the dialogic conditions through which children’s mathematical reasoning develops, and reframes AI tutoring as a pedagogical setup in which the cognitive work of mathematical reasoning is distributed across child, teacher and AI.
Nick Huxley· Proceedings of AIE Symposium...· 0 citations
The Teaching Monster Challenge is introduced, the first instructional video generation benchmark to treat the learner persona as an explicit evaluation criterion and release the benchmark, rubric, and human judgments as a testbed for both teaching systems and automatic judges.
Yi-Cheng Lin, Yu-Kai Guo, Szu-Chi Chen et al.· 0 citations
In a preregistered randomized field experiment in a graduate corporate-finance course of an online MBA, 86 students were randomized between a structured tutor grounded in the course materials and a holdout in which consumer AI remained freely available.
Shi-Hao Yang, Marshall W. van Alstyne, Chrysanthos N. Dellarocas· 0 citations
How students interact with artificial intelligence (AI) systems in educational settings may determine whether that interaction supports or displaces critical thinking. This paper introduces two contributions. The first is the Three Paths of Student-AI Interaction, a typological framework identifying three qualitatively...
Findings showed that students utilized the TA-AI as a strategic safety net, and a “sweet spot” in quiz difficulty was identified where the TA-AI is most effective in activating metacognitive prompting.
Jing Huang, Seong Min Park, M. P. Lin et al.· CoED· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.