发表机构
University of Tennessee at Knoxville（田纳西大学诺克斯维尔分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过两门研究生课程检验约束优先设计的AI教学伙伴，发现其仅提升AI素养（自我报告），而批判性思维等未变，强调需用交互记录而非自我报告评估AI学习设计。
AI 中文摘要
生成式AI教学伙伴应支持推理而非直接提供结论；然而，这一点尚未在真实课程的学习情境中得到检验。基于设计型研究，我们将该定位具体化为一张猜想图，并在两门研究生层次的研究方法课程中报告了首个设计周期。学生使用了一个采用约束优先序列的AI教学伙伴，该序列要求他们在收到问题之前先陈述立场并给出理由。我们收集了AI素养、批判性思维和元认知意识的前测与后测数据，以及交互记录。AI素养有所提升，主要集中在理解AI方面，而批判性思维、元认知意识和知识水平未发生变化。由于变化仅限于自我报告测量，这些变化可能反映的是自信心的增长而非能力的提升。与此同时，交互记录显示交互时间短暂、约束优先序列的执行不均衡，并且存在记录缺失。这些发现说明了为何AI支持的学习需要交互记录，以为AI支持的设计提供比自我报告更可靠的依据。
英文摘要
A generative AI teaching partner should support reasoning over supplying conclusions; however, this has not been tested against learning in an authentic course. Drawing on design-based research, we specify the position as a conjecture map and report a first design cycle in two graduate-level research methods courses. Students used an AI teaching partner employing a constraint-first sequence requiring them to state and justify positions before receiving questions. Pre- and post-measures of AI literacy, critical thinking, and metacognitive awareness were collected alongside interaction records. AI literacy increased, concentrating in understanding AI, whereas critical thinking, awareness, and knowledge did not change. Since changes were limited to self-report measures, they may reflect growth in confidence instead of capacity. Interaction records, meanwhile, showed brief exchanges, uneven enactment of the constraint-first sequence, and missing records. These findings show why AI-supported learning requires interaction records to provide a more defensible basis for AI-supported designs than self-reports.
Comments37 pages, 1 figure
