The Effects on Secondary School Students of Applying Experiential Learning to the Conversational AI Learning Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to design a curriculum of artificial intelligence (AI) application for secondary schools. The learning objective of the curriculum was to allow students to learn the application of conversational AI on a block-based programming platform. Moreover, the empirical study actually implemented the curriculum in the formal learning of a secondary school for a period of six weeks. The study evaluated the learning performance of students who were taught with the cycle of experiential learning in one class, while also evaluating the learning performance of students who were taught with the conventional instruction, which was called the cycle of doing projects. Two factors, learning approach and gender, were taken into account. The results showed that females’ learning effectiveness was significantly better than that of males regardless of whether they used experiential learning or the conventional projects approach. Most of the males tended to be distracted from the conversational AI curriculum because they misbehaved during the conversational AI process. In particular, in their performance using the Voice User Interface with the conventional learning approach, the females outperformed the males significantly. The results of two-way ANCOVA revealed a significant interaction between gender and learning approach on computational thinking concepts. Females with the conventional learning approach of doing projects had the best computational thinking concepts in comparison with the other groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".