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
The benefits of worked examples for learning are well established. This study breaks new ground as the first to show that students’ beliefs about the usefulness of errors predict maths achievement in primary-aged children — previously only shown in secondary students — and by testing whether a learning-focused intervention also shifts motivation.
Shared by scott klepesch, 1 save total
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo