前沿模型聊天机器人可以帮助教师创建、改进和使用学习目标。

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1152/advan.00159.2024
Gregory J Crowther, Merrill D Funk, Kelly M Hennessey, Marcus M Lawrence
{"title":"前沿模型聊天机器人可以帮助教师创建、改进和使用学习目标。","authors":"Gregory J Crowther, Merrill D Funk, Kelly M Hennessey, Marcus M Lawrence","doi":"10.1152/advan.00159.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learning Objectives (LOs) are a pillar of course design and execution, and thus a focus of curricular reforms. This study explored the extent to which the creation and usage of LOs might be facilitated by three leading chatbots: ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini Advanced. We posed three main questions, as follows. Question A: When given course content, can chatbots create LOs that are consistent with five best practices in writing LOs? Question B: When given LOs for a low level of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, can chatbots convert them to a higher level? Question C: When given LOs, can chatbots create assessment questions that meet six criteria of quality? We explored these questions in the context of four undergraduate courses: Applied Exercise Physiology, Human Anatomy, Human Physiology, and Motor Learning. According to instructor ratings, chatbots had a >70% success rate on most individual criteria for Questions A-C. However, chatbots' \"difficulties\" with a few criteria (e.g., provision of appropriate context for an LO's action, assignment of an appropriate Revised Bloom's taxonomy level) meant that, overall, only 38.3% of chatbot outputs fully met all criteria and thus were possibly ready for use with students. Our findings thus underscore the continuing need for instructor oversight of chatbot outputs, but also illustrate chatbots' potential to expedite the design and improvement of LOs and LO-related curricular materials such as Test Question Templates (TQTs), which directly align LOs with assessment questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frontier-Model Chatbots Can Help Instructors Create, Improve, and Use Learning Objectives.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory J Crowther, Merrill D Funk, Kelly M Hennessey, Marcus M Lawrence\",\"doi\":\"10.1152/advan.00159.2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Learning Objectives (LOs) are a pillar of course design and execution, and thus a focus of curricular reforms. This study explored the extent to which the creation and usage of LOs might be facilitated by three leading chatbots: ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini Advanced. We posed three main questions, as follows. Question A: When given course content, can chatbots create LOs that are consistent with five best practices in writing LOs? Question B: When given LOs for a low level of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, can chatbots convert them to a higher level? Question C: When given LOs, can chatbots create assessment questions that meet six criteria of quality? We explored these questions in the context of four undergraduate courses: Applied Exercise Physiology, Human Anatomy, Human Physiology, and Motor Learning. According to instructor ratings, chatbots had a >70% success rate on most individual criteria for Questions A-C. However, chatbots' \\\"difficulties\\\" with a few criteria (e.g., provision of appropriate context for an LO's action, assignment of an appropriate Revised Bloom's taxonomy level) meant that, overall, only 38.3% of chatbot outputs fully met all criteria and thus were possibly ready for use with students. Our findings thus underscore the continuing need for instructor oversight of chatbot outputs, but also illustrate chatbots' potential to expedite the design and improvement of LOs and LO-related curricular materials such as Test Question Templates (TQTs), which directly align LOs with assessment questions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00159.2024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00159.2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习目标是课程设计和实施的支柱,是课程改革的焦点。本研究探讨了三种领先的聊天机器人(chatgpt - 40、Claude 3.5 Sonnet和谷歌Gemini Advanced)在多大程度上促进了LOs的创建和使用。我们提出了以下三个主要问题。问题A:当给定课程内容时,聊天机器人是否可以创建与编写lo的五个最佳实践一致的lo ?问题B:当在修订后的Bloom分类法中给出较低级别的LOs时,聊天机器人可以将其转换为更高级别吗?问题C:当给定LOs时,聊天机器人可以创建满足六个质量标准的评估问题吗?我们在四门本科课程中探讨了这些问题:应用运动生理学、人体解剖学、人体生理学和运动学习。根据讲师的评分,聊天机器人在问题a - c的大多数单独标准上的成功率都达到了70%左右。然而,聊天机器人在一些标准上的“困难”(例如,为LO的动作提供适当的上下文,分配适当的修订后的Bloom分类水平)意味着,总体而言,只有38.3%的聊天机器人输出完全符合所有标准,因此可能准备好与学生一起使用。因此,我们的研究结果强调了讲师对聊天机器人输出的持续监督的必要性,但也说明了聊天机器人在加速LOs和lo相关课程材料(如测试问题模板(tqt))的设计和改进方面的潜力,这些材料直接使LOs与评估问题保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Frontier-Model Chatbots Can Help Instructors Create, Improve, and Use Learning Objectives.

Learning Objectives (LOs) are a pillar of course design and execution, and thus a focus of curricular reforms. This study explored the extent to which the creation and usage of LOs might be facilitated by three leading chatbots: ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini Advanced. We posed three main questions, as follows. Question A: When given course content, can chatbots create LOs that are consistent with five best practices in writing LOs? Question B: When given LOs for a low level of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, can chatbots convert them to a higher level? Question C: When given LOs, can chatbots create assessment questions that meet six criteria of quality? We explored these questions in the context of four undergraduate courses: Applied Exercise Physiology, Human Anatomy, Human Physiology, and Motor Learning. According to instructor ratings, chatbots had a >70% success rate on most individual criteria for Questions A-C. However, chatbots' "difficulties" with a few criteria (e.g., provision of appropriate context for an LO's action, assignment of an appropriate Revised Bloom's taxonomy level) meant that, overall, only 38.3% of chatbot outputs fully met all criteria and thus were possibly ready for use with students. Our findings thus underscore the continuing need for instructor oversight of chatbot outputs, but also illustrate chatbots' potential to expedite the design and improvement of LOs and LO-related curricular materials such as Test Question Templates (TQTs), which directly align LOs with assessment questions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
期刊最新文献
How to get recognition for peer review? Talk less, listen more. Ultrasound technology as a tool to teach basic concepts of physiology and anatomy in undergraduate and graduate courses: a systematic review. A qualitative survey on perception of medical students on the use of large language models for educational purposes. Study while you sleep: using targeted memory reactivation as an independent research project for undergraduates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1