Learning Aloud

Returning to the beginning

Have you ever had what you thought was a great idea and after getting started working on it you were distracted by an even bigger and probably more important project? Did you ever go back to the original idea?

In the early 1990s, my wife and I were involved in introducing computers to students in ways we hoped would allow students to learn through engagement in multimedia projects. One of our first projects which became known as the butterfly project involved an elementary teacher (Pam Carlson) who annually involved her students in studying butterflies. The students learned the life cycle of a butterfly (egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult) and both read about butterflies and raised Painted Lady butterflies. We worked with Pam to extend her existing activities to include multimedia authoring using Macintosh computers, Kid Pix, and Hypercard.

We found a thematic coloring book about butterflies and digitized images. Students selected a butterfly and used Kid Pix to color the image appropriately. They also investigated their butterfly to find interesting facts including where is the country the butterfly could be found. They indicated the range on a map and added facts as audio.

Kid Pix saved content in a unique type of file. Sound and images were saved in the file as resources. I was able to use a program called ResEdit to extract images and sound from these files and paste this content into Hypercard cards. It may seem strange now, but early tech involved some hacking. I was able to create a HyperCard stack consisting of the cards created by all of the students that would play as a slideshow. This required I generate a script for each card that started playing the audio when the card opened and wait long enough for the audio to play before advancing to the next card. I created a front card for the stack that showed an insect collection box with miniatures of each butterfly that served as buttons to link to the card providing the information about that butterfly. When displayed on a large television monitor it was pretty impressive for the time.

Some months later my wife and I were attending a conference in Chicago and were exploring a large bookstore. We discovered a section containing a large number of thematic coloring books. This became the starting point for our adventure. In the front matter of a coloring book, I found that the collection of coloring books was published by Houghton-Mifflin and an address was included for the publisher. When I returned home, I used the address to propose an idea. Houghton-Mifflin should digitize the coloring books and I would write a short manual explaining how the collection of images could be used in learner multimedia projects. I explained several different types of projects.

Some time went by and we were eventually informed that HMCO did not really have a way to implement what they thought was an interesting idea. Another month or so went by and we received another contact from Houghton-Mifflin explaining that our idea had somehow been passed around the company and the editor for the higher education division wanted to visit us and see some of our projects in schools. I know quite a few book reps and textbook authors and I have never heard of this type of response. Again, at the time what we said grade school kids were creating sounded very strange.

We had a great visit setting up meetings with a couple of teachers we worked with and showing the projects. We were eventually offered a book deal with the expectation that we include our ideas about technology-enabled project-based learning within a general book for what I came to describe as the teacher training “learning to integrate technology” course. This was the big adventure that took over our work leaving behind the specific proposal for multimedia authoring to learn projects. We eventually wrote this book (Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning) and two years later with the dawning of the Internet age Integrating the Internet for Meaningful Learning. These two textbooks were eventually merged and we published 5 editions of the resulting book over the next 15+ years.

HMCO sold its higher ed collection and eventually, we ended up publishing through Cengage. As our perspective on the ideal resource for the type of course that would best serve practicing and in-service teachers changed and as our familiarity with textbook companies increased, we proposed changing the resources offered to learners. The three-year or so revision process in a rapidly changing field like educational technology made it impossible to address current thinking and resources. The revision cycle also required that we wait and then frantically revise when a new edition was authorized.

As an alternative, we proposed a less expensive ($29) Primer focused on core ideas and a website that would be continually updated with current content. The Primer would incorporate some portions of this web content when the next edition was created and this revision process could be quicker and more effective given this approach. We could never get to an agreement on a way to do this and as we approached retirement we agreed that we would receive our copyright on our content and we ended up creating a version of our proposal as a Kindle book. Even book companies offering leasing/rental plans do not deal with all of the challenges of the textbook industry. The revision cycle combined with the reality that companies only make income on the original sale encourages companies to continually push new releases. I still think less expensive (and smaller) textbooks combined with online resources offer a good compromise solution.

Back to the original idea

The clipart idea and multimedia projects were not actually wholly forgotten. I have always been an advocate of writing across the curriculum. My take has been to improve a text-only approach by emphasizing multimedia authoring. Writing and teaching others offer many advantages as generative activities requiring the use of knowledge and evaluation of understanding (metacognition). Authoring activities are relatively easy to implement in most curriculum areas and products can be shared as a means of encouragement. The productivity allowed by writing to learn is a reason I have mixed feelings about some AI applications. AI offers significant benefits for improving writing skills, but reliance on AI when writing to learn ruins the generative benefits that are involved. I think self-driven learners understand the difference, but those willing to satisfy assignments in the most convenient way possible will lose out when relying heavily on AI.

OWLs

Back to multimedia authoring. I had a unique opportunity to continue my interest in learner multimedia authoring. This opportunity emerged in an unusual way. My undergraduate training was in biology. I originally intended to be a high school biology teacher, but became interested in research on science teaching and was drafted for military service eventually resulting in a commitment to grad school.

When I finished and began working at the University of North Dakota, I connected with North Dakota Game and Fish promoting a program they called OWLS (Outdoor Wildlife Learning Sites). Game and Fish provided small grants to schools for the development of prairie gardens. These were small sites planted to native vegetation potentially attracting helpful insects and watchable wildlife (the organization’s term for wildlife they did not manage for hunting). I worked with the state agency to host a web server focused on providing project information and sharing among sites. I also visited and taught workshops to promote the concept and teaching related tech skills that would apply (e.g., multimedia authoring, digital photography). I did convince the organization to pay for a collection of wildlife clipart that was originally sold for $4 and sold as a hypercard stack. Eventually, we just placed the collection online allowing anyone to cut and paste what they might find helpful.

I happened to think of this experience and remembered that I still have this clipart on my server. It is saved as bitmaps so lacks the versatility now expected.

Useful clipart alternatives are available. I pay a small fee ($20 a year) to use images from the Noun Project and you will see these images in some of my posts. Educators interested in clipart for projects may find this source of value. The following were selected as alternatives to the images I selected from the ND CllipArt Collection

I have become a fan of digital photography and imagery as an alternative to the use of line art. With so many learners carrying smartphones, they have a high-quality camera always available. Images are also available online, but it is important to be sensible to copyright issues and look for images offered under a Creative Commons license. I make an effort to offer images I think may be helpful to others and propose that learning about Creative Commons and sharing images is a great learning opportunity.

One more addition. Since I mentioned AI, I asked Google’s Duet to comment on the educational benefits of student use of clipart. The following is the product of that request.

———————————

Created using Google Duet AI

Help me write an article about students using clipart to develop writing projects.

Help me write an article about students using clipart to develop writing projects. Students can use clipart to develop writing projects in a variety of ways. For example, they can use clipart to illustrate their writing, to create visual aids, or to brainstorm ideas.

Clipart can be a helpful tool for students who are struggling to get started on a writing project. By browsing through a collection of clipart, students can be inspired by the images and come up with ideas for their own writing. Clipart can also be used to create visual aids that can help students to explain their ideas more clearly. For example, a student could use clipart to create a timeline of events or to illustrate a concept.

Clipart can also be used to brainstorm ideas. By cutting and pasting images together, students can create collages that represent their thoughts and ideas. This can be a helpful way for students to generate ideas and to get their creative juices flowing.

Overall, clipart can be a valuable tool for students who are working on writing projects. It can help students to illustrate their writing, to create visual aids, and to brainstorm ideas.

Here are some additional tips for using clipart in writing projects:

Choose clipart that is relevant to the topic of the writing project.
Use clipart sparingly so that it does not distract from the text.
Label all clipart so that readers know what it represents.
Credit the source of the clipart if it is not your own original work.

Humata

Humata AI is another of those AI tools for exploring designated content. It is being promoted as a tool for researchers, but its use is not limited to any specific category of content explorers. An easy comparison would be ChatPDF as the service allows a user to upload and then interact with a pdf. However, the “pro” version also allows a user to interact with a collection of documents (see my description of other services with this capability).

You can presently explore the capabilities of this service at no cost for individual documents. The Pro version is $15 a month for 250 pages and an additional penny a page after that page allocation is exhausted.

Humata automatically generates a short summary of the document uploaded and proposes some questions. It is not clear to me which large language tool is being used to power this service. The product description proposes that a user can ask for descriptions (summaries), ask questions, and generate responses and write material based on the content that is uploaded. If you have used other AI tools, you can use this tool in a similar way and just see what it will do in response to requests.

The one feature I found uniquely useful in comparison to most of me experiences with other tools is that it assumes you may want to connect the content generated with the source material. It will both highlight and link to this material in an adjacent window (see image).

Here is another description of this product.

I have a Threads account

I admit it. I have a Threads account.

Yes, I have a Threads account. I also have a Twitter account and Mastodon accounts on several different instances. When I am in an idealistic mood, I would describe this assortment of social services as an effort to diversify my attention and support multiple platforms. I think it is valuable to have alternatives both for myself and others. If I were forced to pick one, my choice would probably be Mastodon. Mastodon is a federated service without commercial priorities that allow me to interact without requiring me to view ads that require the collection of my data.

When I think about my priorities in a more utilitarian way, I recognize I must also make use of Twitter and now Threads. One use I have for these social platforms is to attract attention to my blog posts. Twitter has a large population base and Threads will likely soon have the same. Many internet users no longer follow blogs using RSS and identify posts that might want to view from the content they encounter on social sites. A federated service allows users to identify an ideal instance that tends to fit their personal interests and values and find content on other instances by identifying specific individuals they happen to encounter. The process is cumbersome requiring some skill and time. My approach ends up being a compromise allowing both my personal values and the utility of the more undifferentiated sites.

Applying AI to Discuss Your Own Content

I have moved past the initial stage of awe in connection with access to large language models such as ChatGPT and after considerable exploration have begun to focus on how I might find value in what these systems can provide. I presently use AI tools to support the research I do to inform my writing – blog posts such as this. I have found that I feel uncomfortable trusting a tool like ChatGPT when I simply prompt it to provide me information. There are simply too many situations in which it generates replies that sound good, but are fabrications when checked.

The one task most trustworthy requires that I focus the AI on a source of content I control and can use to check if something seems off. In this post, I will identify three such tools and explain a little of how you might also find these tools helpful.

ChatPDF

As the name implies, ChatPDF allows a user to interact with the content of a designated PDF. Much of the content I personally review consists of scientific journal articles available to me as PDFs from my university library. This has been the case now for many years and I have a collection of hundreds of such files I have read, highlighted, and annotated. The link I provide above explains how ChatPDF allows me to explore the content of content in such files. Because I read and annotate such files anyway, I actually don’t interact with journal articles in this way very often. The link I have provided describes the use of ChatPDF as a tutor applied to a textbook chapter. The intent of the description was to describe multiple ways in which ChatPDF could benefit a learner trying to understand and store important ideas from a document.

The other two examples here describe AI tools available to allow a user to interact with collections of notes. One tool works with notes saved in Obsidian and the second with notes in Mem.AI. These are digital tools for storing and organizing personal notes and digital content. The tools are designed for the organization and exploration of such notes, but as AI has become available new ways to make use of what can become large collections of information can also be applied.

Smart Chat Obsidian Plugin

I have prepared a video to offer some idea of how Smart Chat prompts can be applied to the content stored in Obsidian. If you are unfamiliar with Obsidian, the video also offers a glimpse of Obsidian itself. One point I think is important Obsidian and differentiates it from Mem.AI is the way it stores content. Obsidian stores content as individual text files which include content as text and what is called markdown. Markdown is a simple set of tags that allow a user to establish links, tags, and text embellishments such as bolding, size, etc. The benefit is the independence of the files from any specific tool. So, if Obsidian was to go away, you would still have a collection of documents with your information you could salvage. In contrast, Mem.AI stores content in what I think of a database in the cloud. There are ways to export your content, but I find value in knowing I have my content on my computer in a format I can access if necessary.

The Smart Chat plugin requires that you have an Open.Ai account and add some money to cover the cost of your AI activity. I don’t consider the investment that large and have been contributing $5 a month which has covered the cost of my activity.

Mem.AI

This image shows the home screen for Mem.AI. At the top of the screen, you can see the AI prompt window. I pay $10 a month for MEM.AI, but the AI feature is included. The following prompt (same as I used for the Smart Chat plugin in Obsidian) generated the following response. The content of my two note systems is similar, but not completely identical. You see some differences in the content that was generated.

Prompt

List my notes that involve a comparison of taking notes by hand and by using a keyboard. Write a 400 word summary of these notes.

Response

Based on your knowledge base, there are two notes that involve a comparison of taking notes by hand and using a keyboard:

Horbury2021: This study compared the performance of 10 and 11-year-olds taking notes by hand or using a computer. The study found that conceptual understanding was superior when taking notes by hand. The authors speculated that keyboarding may have produced greater cognitive load, especially for children who may have less experience in keyboarding.
Writing a paper step by step: This note mentions a study by Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) that found no difference in terms of the number of facts students were able to remember whether they took notes by hand or by typing them into their laptops. However, in terms of understanding the content of the lecture, the students who took their notes by hand performed much better.

Here’s a 400-word summary of these notes:

The method of note-taking, whether by hand or keyboard, can significantly impact a student’s understanding and recall of the material. A study by Horbury (2021) compared the performance of 10 and 11-year-olds taking notes by hand or using a computer. The study found that students had a superior conceptual understanding when taking notes by hand. The authors speculated that keyboarding may have produced greater cognitive load, especially for children who may have less experience in keyboarding. This suggests that the physical act of writing might help students process and understand the information better.

On the other hand, a study by Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) found no difference in terms of the number of facts students were able to remember whether they took notes by hand or by typing them into their laptops. However, in terms of understanding the content of the lecture, the students who took their notes by hand performed much better. This suggests that while the amount of content stored may not significantly differ between handwriting and keyboarding, the process of handwriting might lead to a deeper understanding of the content.

These findings have several implications for educational practices. Given that handwriting seems to lead to a deeper understanding of the content, educators might want to encourage students to take notes by hand, especially during complex lectures or discussions. However, it’s also important to remember that what works best might vary from student to student. Personalization of learning strategies, taking into account individual strengths and preferences, could also be a valuable approach.

In conclusion, while technology has its place in the classroom, these findings suggest it should not completely replace traditional methods. A balance between digital and analog methods could be the key to effective learning. Furthermore, students could benefit from explicit instruction on effective note-taking strategies, such as focusing on understanding over verbatim transcription. The cognitive load of keyboarding for younger students or those less familiar with typing should also be considered when deciding on note-taking methods.

The Impact of Social Media on Youth Mental Health

A couple of recent resources concerned with the relationship between social media use and mental health. As an educational psychologist with an interest in technology. I find myself in the middle when addressing this topic. I see value in the use of online sources and I also have studied cyberbullying through social media and have some insights into at least that peril. A significant challenge in the actual study of this general question is the difficulty of applying experimental research methods. When you collect data without control (correlational research), you must deal with problems interpreting the direction of causation (does too much social media cause mental health issues or do those with mental health issues turn to social media) and the illusion of a relationship because both variables are related to a third variable. There is also the possibility that the relationship works differently for different individuals. Some may benefit and some may be harmed. What do you do then?

People often tire of researchers offering the results of their studies and then arguing more research is needed. However, this is probably the best advice as looking for simple answers often does not seem to fit the data. Why does this caution matter? Consider that politicians are being pressed to address social media issues. Those who work in specific fields frequently ridicule the knowledge of politicians. Aside from situations that this is legitimate, there are many situations in which there seems great pressure from the public for action. However, sometimes simple responses are not ideal.

In the digital age, social media has become a significant part of our lives, especially for the younger generation. However, its influence on youth mental health is a topic of growing concern and research. A summary of the two sources I mentioned follows. As always, I provide links and encourage your own reading of these documents if the material covers a topic you find of great importance.

According to the Surgeon General’s Report on Social Media up to 95% of youth aged 13-17 report using a social media platform. The influence of social media on youth mental health is shaped by complex factors, including the amount of time spent on platforms, the type of content consumed, and the degree to which it disrupts essential activities like sleep and physical activity.

While social media can provide benefits by fostering positive community and connection, especially for marginalized youth, it also poses significant risks. A longitudinal cohort study found that adolescents who spent more than 3 hours per day on social media faced double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety.

The Atlantic Article on Teens and Social Media further explores this complex relationship. It suggests that social media’s effects depend a lot on the person using it, playing different roles for different demographics and at different stages of life. The article also highlights the need to identify which aspects of social media are riskiest and which adolescents are most susceptible to its harm.

The article also discusses the importance of externalizing our thoughts and feelings, suggesting that those who view social media more positively and feel in control of their use report better outcomes. This highlights the potential for social media to be a tool for expression and connection when used mindfully and responsibly.

However, the relationship between social media and youth mental health remains complex and potentially bidirectional. It’s crucial to continue researching and understanding this relationship to develop effective strategies for mitigating potential harms and promoting positive online behavior.

The Surgeon General’s Report includes specific recommendations for policy makers, companies, parents, and young people.

Is the online revenue model shifting?

I was listening to a recent podcast episode (This week in tech) that featured an interview with Reddit app Apollo developer Christian Selig (this is the first portion of the podcast should you want to listen) and he described his decision to abandon his popular app for using Reddit because of soon to be imposed cost increases to developers whose software makes use of the Reddit API. The rebellion of multiple Reddit subreddits has been in the news and this interview helped me understand what is going on. The interview also made me think about the issue of revenue generation and those who are users and also content generators in the social media environment. Selig offers a realistic and appreciative interpretation of the rate increase imposed by Reddit, but in describing his decision to shut down his own participation he offers insights into a system that is failing. The “free to use” mentality appears to be breaking potentially with a decline in ad revenue. It is a complicated situation – companies provide the tools which costs for personnel, hardware, and bandwidth. Some have responsibilities to stockholders to generate profits and offer a return to investors. Most depend on content creators who receive little or nothing for their contributions.

The value I found in the podcast interview was the specific descriptions of some of the financial variables associated with a service such as Reddit and importantly in this case the smaller supporting companies that depend on the infrastructure, members, and content creators provided by Reddit.

Content creators can make money on platforms such as Reddit, YouTube, and Medium. However, services such as these tend to have minimums that must be met before a content creator makes anything. For example, to receive a cut of ad revenue from YouTube a partner must accumulate 1000 subscribers and 4000 public watch hours in the last 12 months. So, if you can meet such levels YouTube will split the revenue generated with you.

Personal note – I was once eligible when YouTube had a lower hour total and no user requirement. I don’t generate many videos anymore and am nowhere close to what would be required.

I began cross-posting some of my blog posts to Medium which has a 100 user follower requirement. Again, have not qualified for the follower minimum. My posts receive attention at about the same level as the original blog posts, but these views do not translate into followers. I admit I use Medium in kind of the same way. I read a few things that are relevant to me and come to my attention, but I don’t follow many individuals. I subscribed to the service for a bit, but eventually decided to invest my subscription money in other services.

To be fair, if you are interested in your content being viewed and read, you can make free use of these platforms. You just have no hope of generating income if that is your main motivation.

The system I continue to support is that provided by Brave. Brave is a chromium browser (very similar to Chrome) that will show consenting users ads without relying on personal information and that allows those browsing to share some of the revenue generated through these ads with content creators who register with Brave. I have been a Brave user for 6 years now and as a content creator and micropayment supporter of other content creators, I pretty much break even on my costs and income. I originally invested $50 in the cryptocurrency used to anonymously connect producers and consumers and the value of this initial contribution was inflated by the whims of the crypto market. I am slowly depleting this investment as the inflated value of crypto has come down and my micropayments for viewing narrowly exceed what I take in as a content creator. This system seems fair to me. A piece of the pie for the service provider (Brave), content consumers, and content creators.

I am reluctant to abandon the blogs which I post through a paid provider (BlueHost). I have maintained a blog for more than 20 years and the accumulation of thousands of posts has value to me if for no other reason than it is such an integrated history of my thinking on so many issues. There are ads on my blog posts (you are reading such a post at this point) and I pay approximately $150-200 a year for the services I use. My income is probably $15-25. It is a hobby, but I do value the content I have created. Aside from the value of reading to write in order to generate posts, participation in the online world as a creator has always allowed me to gain insights into the workings of this environment.

My prediction is that the present model is going to change and I think the Reddit situation is a harbinger. As services move from ad-supported models to subscriptions, I anticipate content creators will respond by seeking situations in which their content has value as well.

How will AI tutoring change

With the recent attention paid to AI because of large language tools such as ChatGPT, my title’s promise to describe change my surprise most educators. Tools for AI tutoring have been deployed and evaluated for some time. I provide a citation in support of this claim at the conclusion of this post. This paper is worth exploring because it offers insights into what has been meant by AI when applied to tutoring and even some insights into human tutoring. For example, I have often quoted the work of Bloom who argued that human tutors probably represented the ideal in teaching and suggested that dedicated intensive tutoring provided a two-standard deviation advantage to those tutored and this advantage represented the best educational interventions could accomplish. I have read the papers in which Bloom made this claim. Kulik and Fletcher offer a different interpretation explaining that Bloom’s data actually involved a combination of tutoring and a mastery approach and the mastery approach may have accounted for at least half of the benefit in this research. That aside, tutoring still offers learners a significant advantage.

Before AI was based on large language models, the AI involved in tutoring was based in a technology-supported system based on a model of what was to be learned, a model of the individual learner, a model of effective instructional strategies, and an interface allowing communication with the system. I had AI generate a description of what the researchers explained these three models involved.

Learner Model: This model represents the student’s knowledge, skills, and learning preferences. It helps the ITS to adapt its teaching strategies to the individual needs of the student.
Teacher Model: This model represents the teaching strategies and pedagogical knowledge used by the ITS to guide the student’s learning process. It helps the ITS to provide appropriate feedback, hints, and explanations.
Content Model: This model represents the subject matter being taught by the ITS. It includes the concepts, relationships, and problem-solving procedures relevant to the domain.

The Kulik review found generally positive benefits for the AI studies, but indicated impact was smaller when the dependent measure was a standardized test rather than local tests, the sample size was small, learners were from the lower grades, the subject was math, MC tests were used as the dependent variable, and the tool studied was Cognitive tutor. For those interested in this type of approach, the review identifies a number of the systems available for use.

My interest in the potential application of the AI tools now available takes a somewhat different approach and suggests that educators and researchers begin with an analysis of the techniques used in successful studying and tutoring and attempt to translate these techniques into tasks that students or educators can apply using AI. I purposefully focus on the research on studying as a general way to think about the cognitive activities of learners following initial experiences which could involve lectures, readings, or any observation of what happens in the world. Simply put, learning requires the processing of external experiences for understanding, retention, and application whether entirely internally and unaided or encouraged by additional external activities (e.g., taking notes, answering questions, discussions with a partner). The natural language capabilities of large language AI allow approximation of these external activities. I have attempted to demonstrate what some of the activities might look like in an earlier post.

My prediction is that companies serving the education market will quickly combine the type of AI approaches I have described here (the multi-model approach with the more flexible capabilities of large language models) because of the resources required to do so. You may already see the direction in which this is going be taking note of the efforts of the Kahn Academy (Kahnmigo).

I do think there are immediate opportunities to take advantage of the tools now available. One distinction that I think educators should consider involves whether activities are applied to the knowledge base used to train the models or applied to designated content. For example, you have ChatGPT ask you multiple choice questions about mitosis or you can ask some AI tools to ask you questions about a pdf or designated content about mitosis. My prediction about commercial ventures will likely be more like this second option as a textbook company would like to focus an AI tutoring approach focused on individual textbooks. There is nothing inherently wrong with either system. I do believe there are more errors when using the more general knowledge base. I also see advantages in controlling the scope of experiences to a designated body of content as a way to control the depth of the experiences. What I mean the discussion of mitosis in a sophomore biology class will be different than in a graduate class because the knowledge base would be different.

I have explored the use of ChatPDF (not ChatGPT) in engaging with the content of a pdf in a previous post. I have been exploring Mem.AI as a way to engage in similar interactions with notes I have taken within this service (you do need the $8 a month version). What I like about this system is that it allows a user to focus the AI prompts on specific material. For example, I could use the service to take class notes on a given day, tag these individual notes or a large page of notes with the date, and then write a prompt to engage with the content identified by this tag. I could also tag notes with a class identifier (PSY101) and then write prompts focused on this tag to review for exams covering more material. I have included several different types of interaction in the material that follows. This material includes my prompts and the AI responses.

***********************

Me: Using only my knowledge base with tag generative, write a summary of the activities that are classified as generative. Include a list of notes providing this information.

Generative learning activities involve actively engaging with the material to create new knowledge and connections. Some key strategies that promote generative learning include summarization, teaching, self-testing, self-explaining, and notetaking with revision and elaboration. These strategies require learners to select and organize relevant information, elaborate on the material based on personal knowledge, and integrate new information with existing knowledge.

Here are the notes from your knowledge base with the tag “generative”:

These notes provide valuable insights into generative learning strategies and their effectiveness across different age groups, as well as the cognitive processes involved in these activities.

Me: Using only my knowledge base with tag june9, write a summary of the models the author described

Based on your knowledge base with the “june9” tag, here’s a summary of the models described by the author:

In the review by AlShaikh and Hewahi (2021), the authors discuss the development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) and their use of multiple models. These models include:

Learner Model: This model represents the student’s knowledge, skills, and learning preferences. It helps the ITS to adapt its teaching strategies to the individual needs of the student.
Teacher Model: This model represents the teaching strategies and pedagogical knowledge used by the ITS to guide the student’s learning process. It helps the ITS to provide appropriate feedback, hints, and explanations.
Content Model: This model represents the subject matter being taught by the ITS. It includes the concepts, relationships, and problem-solving procedures relevant to the domain.

These models work together to create a personalized learning experience for the student. However, the authors note that recent large language models and conversational approaches offer new possibilities for influencing learning without built-in strategies, which could be an important difference in the application of newer general tools.

Me: Using only my knowledge base with tag june9, write a multiple choice questions for me to answer.

Based on your knowledge base with the “june9” tag, here’s a multiple-choice question for you to answer:

In the context of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) described by AlShaikh and Hewahi (2021), which of the following models is responsible for representing the student’s knowledge, skills, and learning preferences?

A. Learner Model B. Teacher Model C. Content Model D. Language Model

Me: A

That’s correct! The Learner Model in Intelligent Tutoring Systems is responsible for representing the student’s knowledge, skills, and learning preferences. Great job! If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask.

References:

Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a meta-analytic review. Review of educational research, 86(1), 42-78.