网络出版日期: 2025-01-18
基金资助
浙江省普通本科高校“十四五”教学改革项目“促进大学生合作问题解决能力:项目化学习合作模式的探究”(jg20220006)。
版权
Learn to Question: Study on the Pattern of Undergraduates-GAI Collaborative Learning
Online published: 2025-01-18
Copyright
以ChatGPT为代表的生成式人工智能的问世,给传统的学习模式带来了巨大的机遇与挑战。学生如何运用生成式人工智能促进学习成为教育教学改革亟待探索的问题。本研究在大学生课程学习过程中引入GAI,对学生与GAI的话语类型、提问水平、提问策略以及自我报告进行编码分析,探究了大学课堂中学生如何与GAI进行协同学习。研究发现,在学生与GAI的对话中,学生是对话的发起主体,单个对话构成的对话单元居多,持续性的讨论较少。学生话语主要以初始提问、拓展提问和改述提问为主,评价和继续指令话语较少。同时学生提问的认知水平较低,以知识水平、理解水平提问为主,提问策略单一,较少使用角色提问、材料提问、方案提问等策略。在不同任务阶段、不同使用经验的学生与GAI的对话存在差异性,在任务后期人智之间展开更高频、更持续的互动对话,且提问认知水平更高、提问策略使用更熟练。使用GAI经验越丰富的学生产生更多的高认知水平对话。在呈现出不同话语特征的对话过程中,学生对在大学课堂教学中引入GAI整体上持积极态度但有所分化。学生普遍认为,GAI能够积极地辅助学习,具有回应优势、能够为学生提供信息价值、处理多类任务和促进学生能力发展,但同时也存在技术局限,引发对学生主体、学习评价和教育生态的挑战。在此基础上,本研究从提供提问训练、丰富提问场景、加强回答反思三个方面为进一步在课堂教学过程中引入生成性人工智能提供了有效的建议。
何珊云 , 沈演 . 学会提问:大学生与生成式人工智能协同学习模式的研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025 , 43(2) : 34 -48 . DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.02.004
The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence(GAI) represented by ChatGPT has challenged the traditional learning. How students learn through GAI tends to be an urgent problem to be explored in the current education and teaching reform. This research analyses the dialogues in class between undergraduate and GAI by coding discourse types, questioning levels, questioning strategies and students’ self report to explore the learning model of human-artificial intelligence collaboration. It is found that in student-GAI dialogues dominated by students, there are more single round conversations and less continuous discussions around a topic. The main types of students’ discourse are initial questioning, extended questioning and rephrasing questioning, while the evaluation and continuing instruction discourses are less. What’s more, students’cognitive level of questioning is low, focusing on knowledge level questioning and comprehension level questioning. The using of questioning strategies is unfamiliar and students seldom use role questioning, material questioning and scheme questioning. In addition, it is discovered that different task stages and different experience both lead to different conversation situation between students and GAI. With the development of task solving, there are more frequent and sustained dialogues, along with the deeper cognitive level and more proficient using of questioning strategies. Meanwhile, students with more experience in using GAI generate more dialogues with high cognitive level. In student-GAI dialogues representing different characteristics, though there are different opinions towards using GAI in class teaching, most of the students hold a positive attitude. In students’ perception, GAI has the advantage in generating responses, furnishing valuable information, handling various types of tasks and fostering the development of student abilities, thereby assisting students in learning. But at the same time, GAI faces challenges related to technical limitations, raising concerns about student development, learning assessment, and overall educational ecosystem. According to the findings of the research, our study provides effective suggestions for further introducing GAI into classroom teaching from three aspects: providing question guidance, enriching question scenes and strengthening reflection of GAI response.
比斯塔. (2018). 教育的美丽风险(赵康, 译). 北京: 北京师范大学出版社. | |
柴少明, 李克东. (2010). CSCL中基于对话的协作意义建构研究. 远程教育杂志, (04), 19- 26. | |
陈静远, 胡丽雅, 吴飞. (2023). ChatGPT/生成式人工智能促进以知识点为核心的教学模式变革研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 177- 186. | |
戴岭, 赵晓伟, 祝智庭. (2023). 智慧问学: 基于ChatGPT的对话式学习新模式. 开放教育研究, 29 (6), 42- 51+111. | |
杜华, 孙艳超. (2024). 生成式人工智能浪潮下知识观的再审视——兼论两个经典知识之问的当代回应. 现代教育技术, (01), 96- 106. | |
顾小清, 胡艺龄, 郝祥军. (2023). AGI临近了吗: ChatGPT热潮之下再看人工智能与未来教育发展. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 117- 130. | |
韩琴. (2019). 课堂提问能力实训. 北京: 高等教育出版社. | |
贺樑, 应振宇, 王英英, 孙文琪. (2023). 教育中的ChatGPT: 教学能力诊断研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 162- 176. | |
刘畅. (2012).两种教育情境下的师幼互动研究. 上海: 华东师范大学硕士论文 | |
刘伟, 谭维智. (2022). 人工智能时代的师生交互: 困顿与突破. 开放教育研究, (02), 54- 63. | |
秦乐琦. (2023). 归纳式回音的话语策略及其意义建构. 全球教育展望, (05), 25- 38. | |
邵怀领. (2009). 课堂提问有效性: 标准、策略及观察. 教育科学, (01), 38- 41. | |
沈小碚. (1996). 课堂教学提问类型的概括研究. 江西教育科研, (01), 46- 48. | |
宋萑, 林敏. (2023). ChatGPT/生成式人工智能时代下教师的工作变革: 机遇、挑战与应对. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 78- 90. | |
王春燕, 林静峰. (2011). 幼儿园集体教学中教师提问的现状及其改进. 学前教育研究, (02), 12- 18. | |
徐国庆, 蔡金芳, 姜蓓佳, 李政, 杨惠, 郑杰. (2023). ChatGPT/生成式人工智能与未来职业教育. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 64- 77. | |
荀渊. (2023). ChatGPT/生成式人工智能与高等教育的价值和使命. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 56- 63. | |
喻葵. (2021). 职业教育中聊天机器人激发学生学习兴趣的技术干预实验. 当代职业教育, (01), 44- 51. | |
钟秉林. (2022). 高等学校要主动应对数字化转型新挑战. 中国高等教育, (Z2), 1. | |
朱永新, 杨帆. (2023). ChatGPT/生成式人工智能与教育创新: 机遇、挑战以及未来. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (07), 1- 14. | |
Alshater, Muneer. (2022). Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Academic Performance: A Case Study of ChatGPT. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=4312358. | |
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete Edition). New York: Longman. | |
Cai, Q., Lin, Y., & Yu, Z. (2024). Factors Influencing Learner Attitudes Towards ChatGPT-Assisted Language Learning in Higher Education. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,40(22), 7112—7126. | |
Cain, W. (2024). Prompting change: Exploring prompt engineering in large language model AI and its potential to transform education. Techtrends, 68 (1), 47- 57. | |
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1315- 1346. | |
Duong, C. D., Bui, D. T., Pham, H. T., Vu, A. T., & Nguyen, V. H. (2023). How effort expectancy and performance expectancy interact to trigger higher education students’ uses of ChatGPT for learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 356—380. | |
Ekin, S. (2023). Prompt engineering for ChatGPT. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22683919.v2. | |
Frieder, S., Pinchetti, L., Chevalier, A., Griffiths, R., Salvatori, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Petersen, P. C., & Berner, J. (2023). Mathematical capabilities of ChatGPT. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36:Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. | |
Geerling, W., Mateer, G. D., Wooten, J., Damodaran, N. (2023). ChatGPT has Mastered the Principles of Economics: Now What?. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=4356034. | |
Gilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023). How does ChatGPT perform on the united states medical licensing examination? the implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Medical Education, 9. | |
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1978). Looking in classrooms (2nd ed. ).New York: Harper & Row. | |
Groisser, Philip L. (1964). How to Use the Fine Art of Questioning. New York: Teachers Practical Press. | |
Hargreaves, S. (2023). “Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup”: ChatGPT & law school assessments. Legal Education Review, 33(1). | |
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26 (1), 48- 94. | |
Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasinski, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11 (3), 25- 37. | |
Koschmann, T. (1999). Toward a Dialogic Theory of Learning: Bakhtin’s Contribution to Understanding Learning in Settings of Collaboration.International conference on computer supported collaborative learning. | |
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Lee, H. (2020). Intelligent assistants in language learning: An analysis of features and limitations. In K. -M. Frederiksen, S. Larsen, L. Bradley, & S. Thou?sny (Eds. ), CALL for widening participation: Short papers from EUROCALL 2020 (1st ed.). | |
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex Pub. Corp. | |
Michalon, B., & Camacho-Zu?iga, C. (2023). ChatGPT, a brand-new tool to strengthen timeless competencies. Frontiers in Education, 8 | |
Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13 (9) | |
Rudolph, J.; Tan, S.; Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, (06), 342-363. | |
Sánchez-Ruiz, L. M., Moll-López, S., Nu?ez-Pérez, A., Mora?o-Fernández, J. A., & Vega-Fleitas, E. (2023). ChatGPT challenges blended learning methodologies in engineering education: A case study in mathematics. Applied Sciences, 13 (10) | |
Shoufan, A. (2023). Exploring students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic analysis and follow-up survey. IEEE Access, 11, 38805- 38818. | |
Singh, H., Tayarani-Najaran, M., & Yaqoob, M. (2023). Exploring computer science students’ perception of ChatGPT in higher education: A descriptive and correlation study. Education Sciences, 13 (9) | |
Spasic, A. J., & Jankovic, D. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT standard prompt engineering techniques in lesson preparation: Role, instructions and seed-word prompts.2023 58th International Scientific Conference on Information, Communication and Energy Systems and Technologies (ICEST), 47-50. | |
Stutz, P., Elixhauser, M., Grubinger-Preiner, J., Linner, V., Reibersdorfer-Adelsberger, E., Traun, C., Wallentin, G., W?hs, K., & Zuberbühler, T. (2023). Ch(e)atGPT? an anecdotal approach addressing the impact of ChatGPT on teaching and learning GIScience. GI Forum, 11, 140- 147. | |
Tang, P. M., Koopman, J., Yam, K. C., De Cremer, D., Zhang, J. H., & Reynders, P. (2023). The self-regulatory consequences of dependence on intelligent machines at work: Evidence from field and experimental studies. Human Resource Management, 62 (5), 721- 744. | |
White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., & Schmidt, D. C. (2023). A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.11382. | |
Wilen, William W. (1991). Questioning Skills, for Teachers: What Research Says to The Teacher(3rd).Washington, D. C. : National Education Association of the United States. |
/
〈 |
|
〉 |