No More Marking
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
If people aren’t reading in a decade, should schools still teach reading as a fundamental? Maybe reading becomes specialized—taught later, taught alongside other modes, taught to those who need it. Maybe literacy being the gateway toward higher-order thinking only was true when information was scarce and delivered textually.
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
How much have students' ordinary learning processes shifted in response to generative AI, and how does that affect their durable learning outcomes? Self-report surveys show little change, while small-scale behavioral studies report widespread AI use without the scale or duration to measure learning consequences. We address both questions using a ten-year panel of 3.2 million ALEKS learning interactions for investigating time-on-task, complemented by ALEKS PPL placement-assessment data for examining proctoring and learning outcomes, with a quasi-experimental design exploiting variation in tasks that are more susceptible to AI (text-based word problems) and less susceptible to AI (interactive graph-based problems). Learning time on AI-susceptible problems declines 2.8% per quarter among college students after ChatGPT's release, cumulating to 26.9% over eleven quarters; high-schoolers show 31.3%, middle-schoolers 9.0%, and Grade 5 students no detectable change. Among college students, the post-ChatGPT divergence vanishes entirely under proctoring, ruling out broad efficiency gains as the likely explanation. Logistic fixed-effects models on randomly assigned proctored retention items yield a 25% cumulative decline in odds of correct response; the same estimator on non-proctored assessment produces a large opposite-signed increase -- inconsistent with any platform, cohort, or curriculum explanation
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
But here is the thing the policy quietly assumes: that the assignments waiting on the other side of the ban are still worth doing as written. A ban and a bolted-on chatbot are two faces of the same error — both change what students may touch while leaving the instructional design exactly where it was. If Norway protects the foundational years and then hands its fourteen-year-olds the same outsourceable worksheets and take-home essays it always assigned, it will have bought time and changed nothing; the moment the tool is permitted, the old work fails the same way it fails everywhere else. Prohibition without redesign doesn’t beat the problem. It postpones it — and integration without redesign doesn’t beat it either. The variable that decides whether either approach works is never the tool; it is whether the work itself was rebuilt to be worth doing.
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
The same hour of maths teaching can be worth twice as much depending on what the teacher does with it. Time on a topic helps, but how you use it matters at least as much. Build genuine pupil participation and discussion into your explanations rather than lecturing straight through.
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
The act of writing is precisely the management of that load, not the exercise of any single faculty. When Berninger and Winn called their model the Not-So-Simple View of Writing, the name was an admission as much as a description: the field has looked for its own Simple View and concluded that the object will not yield one.
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
Shared by Tami Brass, 1 save total
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo