AI辅助探究能否提升学生在社会科学议题中的决策能力？一项关于气候变化的三组实验研究
Can AI-Assisted Inquiry Enhance Students' Decision-Making Skills in Socio-Scientific Issues? A Three-Group Experimental Study on Climate Change
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
本研究通过三组实验发现，针对气候变化议题的AI辅助探究可显著提升中学生决策能力，AI以提问而非作答的设计能最大化其助益，且学生核对AI主张的次数与提升幅度正相关。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
气候变化是一个社会科学议题：它以科学为基础，但无法仅靠科学解决，因为任何严肃的应对措施都要求人们在不确定性下权衡成本、价值观和相互竞争的利益。帮助学生做好这类决策是科学教育的核心目标，而生成式人工智能的出现提出了一个尖锐问题：对话式AI伙伴是会深化学生的推理，还是只是替他们完成思考？本研究检验AI辅助探究是否能提升中学生在气候变化议题上的决策能力。采用前测-后测设计，设置三组（AI辅助探究组、无AI的探究组、传统教学组），共270名学生，每组90人。通过内容分析，使用具有高编码者间信度的四级分析量规，对从定义问题到通过适应性管理进行监测的七个决策步骤的推理进行评估。三组初始水平相当，大多处于较低水平，且均有提升，但提升幅度差异显著：AI辅助组提升最大，优于仅探究组和传统教学组；AI辅助组与传统教学组的提升量组间效应量为大，与仅探究组的提升量组间效应量为中到大，在利益相关者参与、备选方案、实施和监测方面优势最为明显。在AI组内，学生核对AI主张与来源的次数可预测其提升幅度，且没有学生被标记为过度依赖AI。研究结果表明，当AI被设计为提出问题而非提供答案时，它最能发挥帮助作用，且AI嵌入的探究过程带来了大部分益处。
英文摘要
Climate change is a socio-scientific issue: it rests on science but cannot be settled by science, because any serious response forces people to weigh costs, values, and competing interests under uncertainty. Helping students make such decisions well is a central aim of science education, and the arrival of generative artificial intelligence raises a sharp question: does a conversational AI partner deepen students' reasoning, or simply do the thinking for them? This study tested whether AI-assisted inquiry improves secondary students' decision-making about climate change. Using a pretest-posttest design with three groups (AI-assisted inquiry, inquiry without AI, and traditional instruction; 270 students, 90 per group), reasoning was assessed across seven decision-making steps, from defining the problem to monitoring with adaptive management, using a four-level analytic rubric scored through content analysis with high inter-coder agreement. All three groups began at comparable, mostly low levels and all improved, but the gains differed sharply. The AI-assisted group improved most, ahead of inquiry-only and of traditional instruction. Between-group effect sizes on gains were large for AI-assisted versus traditional instruction and moderate-to-large for AI-assisted versus inquiry-only, with the clearest advantages on stakeholder engagement, alternatives, implementation, and monitoring. Within the AI group, the number of times students checked the AI's claims against the sources predicted their gains, and no student was flagged for over-reliance. The findings suggest that AI helps most when it is designed to question rather than to answer, and that the inquiry it is embedded in carries much of the benefit.
发表机构
- Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences（潘特恩社会与政治科学学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
