Bryan Abendschein, Xialing Lin, Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, Varun Rijhwani
{"title":"AI 年级学生在课堂上的可信度和改变的交流方式","authors":"Bryan Abendschein, Xialing Lin, Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, Varun Rijhwani","doi":"10.1111/jcal.12979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Education is often the primary arena for exploring and integrating new technologies. AI and human-machine communication (HMC) are prevalent in the classroom, yet we are still learning how student perceptions of these tools will impact education.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We sought to understand student perceptions of credibility related to written feedback attributed to a human or an AI grader (Study One). We also investigated how corrective messages containing verbal immediacy and social support influenced student perceptions of an AI grader's credibility based on feedback in an evaluated essay (Study Two).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used an online experimental design to assess the perceived credibility of a grader. In Study One, we randomly assigned students (<i>N</i> = 155) to a condition that contained a paragraph they were told was evaluated by a human or an AI grader. In Study Two (<i>N</i> = 222), we investigated ways of increasing perceptions of an AI grader's credibility by writing messages with higher/lower levels of immediacy and social support.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In Study One, the students rated both the human and AI grader as credible (yet rated the AI grader lower on goodwill). The data suggest that students in Study Two attributed more goodwill (i.e., caring) to the AI grader when the feedback included more verbal immediacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our results highlight the importance of student perceptions and communication styles when integrating technology into education. The two studies imply that students viewed the human and AI graders as competent, caring, and trustworthy, specifically when feedback included more immediacy cues.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","volume":"40 4","pages":"1766-1776"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Credibility and altered communication styles of AI graders in the classroom\",\"authors\":\"Bryan Abendschein, Xialing Lin, Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, Varun Rijhwani\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcal.12979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Education is often the primary arena for exploring and integrating new technologies. AI and human-machine communication (HMC) are prevalent in the classroom, yet we are still learning how student perceptions of these tools will impact education.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We sought to understand student perceptions of credibility related to written feedback attributed to a human or an AI grader (Study One). We also investigated how corrective messages containing verbal immediacy and social support influenced student perceptions of an AI grader's credibility based on feedback in an evaluated essay (Study Two).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We used an online experimental design to assess the perceived credibility of a grader. In Study One, we randomly assigned students (<i>N</i> = 155) to a condition that contained a paragraph they were told was evaluated by a human or an AI grader. In Study Two (<i>N</i> = 222), we investigated ways of increasing perceptions of an AI grader's credibility by writing messages with higher/lower levels of immediacy and social support.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In Study One, the students rated both the human and AI grader as credible (yet rated the AI grader lower on goodwill). The data suggest that students in Study Two attributed more goodwill (i.e., caring) to the AI grader when the feedback included more verbal immediacy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our results highlight the importance of student perceptions and communication styles when integrating technology into education. The two studies imply that students viewed the human and AI graders as competent, caring, and trustworthy, specifically when feedback included more immediacy cues.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"volume\":\"40 4\",\"pages\":\"1766-1776\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12979\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12979","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Credibility and altered communication styles of AI graders in the classroom
Background
Education is often the primary arena for exploring and integrating new technologies. AI and human-machine communication (HMC) are prevalent in the classroom, yet we are still learning how student perceptions of these tools will impact education.
Objectives
We sought to understand student perceptions of credibility related to written feedback attributed to a human or an AI grader (Study One). We also investigated how corrective messages containing verbal immediacy and social support influenced student perceptions of an AI grader's credibility based on feedback in an evaluated essay (Study Two).
Methods
We used an online experimental design to assess the perceived credibility of a grader. In Study One, we randomly assigned students (N = 155) to a condition that contained a paragraph they were told was evaluated by a human or an AI grader. In Study Two (N = 222), we investigated ways of increasing perceptions of an AI grader's credibility by writing messages with higher/lower levels of immediacy and social support.
Results
In Study One, the students rated both the human and AI grader as credible (yet rated the AI grader lower on goodwill). The data suggest that students in Study Two attributed more goodwill (i.e., caring) to the AI grader when the feedback included more verbal immediacy.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the importance of student perceptions and communication styles when integrating technology into education. The two studies imply that students viewed the human and AI graders as competent, caring, and trustworthy, specifically when feedback included more immediacy cues.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning is an international peer-reviewed journal which covers the whole range of uses of information and communication technology to support learning and knowledge exchange. It aims to provide a medium for communication among researchers as well as a channel linking researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. JCAL is also a rich source of material for master and PhD students in areas such as educational psychology, the learning sciences, instructional technology, instructional design, collaborative learning, intelligent learning systems, learning analytics, open, distance and networked learning, and educational evaluation and assessment. This is the case for formal (e.g., schools), non-formal (e.g., workplace learning) and informal learning (e.g., museums and libraries) situations and environments. Volumes often include one Special Issue which these provides readers with a broad and in-depth perspective on a specific topic. First published in 1985, JCAL continues to have the aim of making the outcomes of contemporary research and experience accessible. During this period there have been major technological advances offering new opportunities and approaches in the use of a wide range of technologies to support learning and knowledge transfer more generally. There is currently much emphasis on the use of network functionality and the challenges its appropriate uses pose to teachers/tutors working with students locally and at a distance. JCAL welcomes: -Empirical reports, single studies or programmatic series of studies on the use of computers and information technologies in learning and assessment -Critical and original meta-reviews of literature on the use of computers for learning -Empirical studies on the design and development of innovative technology-based systems for learning -Conceptual articles on issues relating to the Aims and Scope