Empowering Teachers with AI: Co-Designing a Learning Analytics Tool for Personalized Instruction in the Science Classroom
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AI-based educational technology that is designed to support teachers in providing personalized instruction can enhance their ability to address the needs of individual students, hopefully leading to better learning gains. This paper presents results from participatory research aimed at co-designing with science teachers a learning analytics tool that will assist them in implementing a personalized pedagogy in blended learning contexts. The development process included three stages. In the first, we interviewed a group of teachers to identify where and how personalized instruction may be integrated into their teaching practices. This yielded a clustering-based personalization strategy. Next, we designed a mock-up of an AI-based tool that supports this strategy and worked with another group of teachers to define an `explainable learning analytics' scheme that explains each cluster in a way that is both pedagogically meaningful and can be generated automatically. Third, we developed an AI algorithm that supports this `explainable clusters' pedagogy and conducted a controlled experiment that evaluated its contribution to teachers' ability to plan personalized learning sequences. The planned sequences were evaluated in a blinded fashion by an expert, and the results demonstrated that the experimental group -- teachers who received the clusters with the explanations -- designed sequences that addressed the difficulties exhibited by different groups of students better than those designed by teachers who received the clusters without explanations. The main contribution of this study is twofold. First, it presents an effective personalization approach that fits blended learning in the science classroom, which combines a real-time clustering algorithm with an explainable-AI scheme that can automatically build pedagogically meaningful explanations from item-level meta-data (Q Matrix). Second, it demonstrates how such an end-to-end learning analytics solution can be built with teachers through a co-design process and highlights the types of knowledge that teachers add to system-provided analytics in order to apply them to their local context. As a practical contribution, this process informed the design of a new learning analytics tool that was integrated into a free online learning platform that is being used by more than 1000 science teachers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».