从模仿游戏到机器人教师:法学硕士在计算机教育中的角色回顾与讨论

IF 5.1 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Tobias Kohn
{"title":"从模仿游戏到机器人教师:法学硕士在计算机教育中的角色回顾与讨论","authors":"Tobias Kohn","doi":"10.1111/jcal.70043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The recent advent of powerful, exam-passing large language models (LLMs) in public awareness has led to concerns over students cheating, but has also given rise to calls for including or even focusing education on LLMs. There is a perceived urgency to react immediately, as well as claims that AI-based reforms of education will lead to a broadening of accessibility to high-quality education.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We review and discuss three major themes that appear in the research literature on LLMs and computing education, namely that (i) LLMs exhibit human-like performance and can pass exams, (ii) LLMs are freely available and intuitive to use, and (iii) students use LLMs to cheat or accept the results without critical evaluation. Moreover, we highlight the importance of a more human-centric view on the topic.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The discussion is based on a review of the (research) literature in the fields related to computing education, picks up claims and statements from the literature, and compares them with research findings from the area. By making some of the rather tacit premises more explicit and putting them into context, we aim to base the discourse about AI in education on more solid grounds.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We find that claims such as the broadening of accessibility to high-quality education or calls for urgent educational reforms are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, we argue that there is a central human element in education that cannot be automated or replaced by AI tools.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcal.70043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Imitation Games to Robot-Teachers: A Review and Discussion of the Role of LLMs in Computing Education\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Kohn\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcal.70043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The recent advent of powerful, exam-passing large language models (LLMs) in public awareness has led to concerns over students cheating, but has also given rise to calls for including or even focusing education on LLMs. There is a perceived urgency to react immediately, as well as claims that AI-based reforms of education will lead to a broadening of accessibility to high-quality education.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We review and discuss three major themes that appear in the research literature on LLMs and computing education, namely that (i) LLMs exhibit human-like performance and can pass exams, (ii) LLMs are freely available and intuitive to use, and (iii) students use LLMs to cheat or accept the results without critical evaluation. Moreover, we highlight the importance of a more human-centric view on the topic.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The discussion is based on a review of the (research) literature in the fields related to computing education, picks up claims and statements from the literature, and compares them with research findings from the area. By making some of the rather tacit premises more explicit and putting them into context, we aim to base the discourse about AI in education on more solid grounds.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>We find that claims such as the broadening of accessibility to high-quality education or calls for urgent educational reforms are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, we argue that there is a central human element in education that cannot be automated or replaced by AI tools.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcal.70043\",\"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.70043\",\"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.70043","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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,公众意识中出现了强大的、通过考试的大型语言模型(llm),这引发了对学生作弊的担忧,但也引发了将llm纳入甚至关注教育的呼吁。人们意识到立即采取行动的紧迫性,而且有人声称,基于人工智能的教育改革将扩大获得高质量教育的机会。我们回顾并讨论了法学硕士和计算机教育研究文献中出现的三个主要主题,即(i)法学硕士表现出类似人类的表现,可以通过考试,(ii)法学硕士是免费提供的,使用起来很直观,(iii)学生使用法学硕士作弊或在没有严格评估的情况下接受结果。此外,我们强调以人为中心的观点对该主题的重要性。方法在回顾计算机教育相关领域的研究文献的基础上进行讨论,从文献中挑选主张和陈述,并将其与该领域的研究成果进行比较。通过使一些相当默契的前提更加明确,并将它们置于上下文中,我们的目标是将关于教育中的人工智能的论述建立在更坚实的基础上。结果与结论我们发现,诸如扩大高质量教育的可及性或呼吁紧急教育改革等主张没有证据支持。此外,我们认为教育中有一个核心的人为因素,不能被自动化或被人工智能工具取代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Imitation Games to Robot-Teachers: A Review and Discussion of the Role of LLMs in Computing Education

Background

The recent advent of powerful, exam-passing large language models (LLMs) in public awareness has led to concerns over students cheating, but has also given rise to calls for including or even focusing education on LLMs. There is a perceived urgency to react immediately, as well as claims that AI-based reforms of education will lead to a broadening of accessibility to high-quality education.

Objectives

We review and discuss three major themes that appear in the research literature on LLMs and computing education, namely that (i) LLMs exhibit human-like performance and can pass exams, (ii) LLMs are freely available and intuitive to use, and (iii) students use LLMs to cheat or accept the results without critical evaluation. Moreover, we highlight the importance of a more human-centric view on the topic.

Methods

The discussion is based on a review of the (research) literature in the fields related to computing education, picks up claims and statements from the literature, and compares them with research findings from the area. By making some of the rather tacit premises more explicit and putting them into context, we aim to base the discourse about AI in education on more solid grounds.

Results and Conclusion

We find that claims such as the broadening of accessibility to high-quality education or calls for urgent educational reforms are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, we argue that there is a central human element in education that cannot be automated or replaced by AI tools.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
6.00%
发文量
116
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信