Tag: layering

Content focused AI for tutoring

My explorations of AI use to this point have resulted in a focus on two applications – AI as tutor and AI as tool for note exploration. Both uses are based on the ability to focus on information sources I designate rather than allowing the AI service to rely on its own body of information. I see the use of AI to interact with the body of notes I have created as a way to inform my writing. My interest in AI tutoring is more related to imagining how AI could be useful to individual students as they study assigned content.

I have found that I must use different AI services for these different interests. The reason for this differentiation is that two of the most popular services (NotebookLM and OpenAI’s Custom GPTs) limit the number of inputs that can be accessed. I had hoped that I could point these services at a folder of notes (e.g., Obsidian files) and then interact with this body of content. However, both services presently allow only a small number of individual files (10 and perhaps 20) can be designed as source material. This is not about the amount of content as the focus of this post involves using these two services to interact with a single file of 27,000 words. I assume in a year the number of files will be less of an issue.

So, this post will explore the use of AI as a tutor applied to assigned content as a secondary or higher ed student might want to do. In practice, what I describe here would require that a student would have access to a digital version of assigned content not protected in some way. For my explorations, I am using the manuscript of a Kindle book I wrote before the material was converted to a Kindle book. I wanted to work with a multi-chapter source of a length students might be assigned.

NotebookLM

NotebookLM is a newly released AI service from Google. The AI prompts can be focused on content that is available in Google drive or uploaded to the service. This service is available at no cost, but it should be understood that this is likely to change when Google is ready to offer a more mature service. Investing time in this service rather than others allows the development of skills and the exploration of potential, but in the long run some costs will be involved.

Once a user opens NotebookLM and creates a notebook (see red box surrounding new notebook), external content to be the focus of user prompts can be added (second image). I linked Notebook to the file I used in preparation for creating a Kindle book. Educators could create a notebook on unprotected content they wanted students to study.

The following image summarizes many essential features used when using NotebookLM. Starting with the right-hand column, the textbox near the bottom (enclosed in a red box) is where prompts are entered. The area above (another red box) provides access to content used by the service in generating the response to a prompt. The large area on the left-hand side displays the context associated with one of the areas referenced with the specific content used highlighted. 

Access to a notebook can be shared and this would be the way an educator would provide students access to a notebook prepared for their use. In the image below, you will note the icon (at the top) used to share content, and when this icon is selected, a textbox for entering emails for individuals (or for a class if already prepared) appears.

Custom GPTs (OpenAI)

Once you have subscribed to the monthly payment plan for ChatGPT – 4, accessing the service will bring up a page with the display shown below. The page allows access to ChatGPT and to any custom GPTs you have created. To create a Custom GPT you select Explore and then select Create a GPT. Describing the process of creating a GPT would require more space than I want to use in this post, but the process might best be described as conversational. You basically interact by describing what you are trying to create and you upload external resources if you want prompts to be focused on specific content. Book Mentor is the custom GPT I created for this demonstration.

Once created, a GPT is used very much in the same way a NotebookLM notebook is used. You use the prompt box to interact with the content associated with that GPT.

What follows are some samples of my interactions with the content. You should be able to see the prompt (Why is the word layering used to describe what the designer does to add value to an information source?)

Prompts can generate all kinds of ways of interaction (see a section below that describes what some of these interactions might be). One type I think has value in using AI as a tutor is to have the service ask you a question. An example of this approach is what is displayed in the following two images. The first image describes a request for the service to generate a multiple-choice question about generative activity which I then respond (correctly) and receive feedback. The second image shows the flexibility of the AI. When responding to the question, I thought a couple of the responses could be correct. After I answered the question and received feedback, I then asked about an answer I did not select wondering why this option could not also be considered correct. As you see in the AI reply, the system understands my issue and acknowledges how it might be correct. This seems very impressive to me and demonstrates that the interaction with the AI system allows opportunities that go beyond self-questioning.

Using AI as tutor

I have written previously about the potential of AI services to interact with learners to mimic some of the ways a tutor might work with a learner. I make no claims of equivalence here. I am proposing only that tutors are often not available and an AI system can challenge a learner in many ways that are similar to what a human tutor would do. 

Here are some specific suggestions for how AI can be used in the role of tutor. 

Summary

This post describes two systems now available that allow learners to work with assigned content that mimics how a tutor might work with a student. Both systems would allow a designer to create a tool focused on specific content that can be shared. ChatGPT custom GPTs require that those using a shared GPT have an active $20 per month account which probably means this approach would not presently be feasible for common application. Google’s Notebooks can be created at no cost to the designer or user, but this will likely change when Google decides the service is beyond the experimental stage. Perhaps the capability will be included in present services designed for educational situations.

While I recognize that cost is a significant issue, my intent here is to propose services that can be explored as proof of concept and those educators interested in AI opportunities might explore future productive classroom applications of AI. 

Loading

Design learning experiences using generative activities – Layering

I have written multiple posts explaining generative activities and how such external activities encourage productive cognitive behaviors. Some of these posts describe specific classroom applications of individual generative tasks. In this post, I intend to describe how educators can apply some of these generative activities when they assign web content (pages or videos).

In many cases, online content assigned in K12 classrooms was not prepared as instructional content. For example, an article from Scientific American might offer information relevant to a specific standard addressed in sophomore biology. What activities might an instructor add to help learners understand, remember, and possibly apply concepts within this article. For example, a textbook would likely have activities inserted at the end of a chapter, added as boxes within content, or recommended in a teacher’s manual. Instructors often make additions as class assignments. What I am supporting here is similar to what educational researchers have described as adjunct questions. These were originally questions added within instructional texts or attached at the end of such texts. Embedded activities play different roles than even the same activities might play when delayed and isolated from the informative content. At the time of initial exposure, my argument is that there is a difference between information and instructional content and the connection of generative learning activities is a way to make this transition. 

A couple of years ago I became interested in a group of online services that were developed to improve the educational value of online content (web pages and videos). I developed my own way of describing what these services were developed to accomplish. Layering seemed a reasonable description because these services could not actually modify the content originally shared by content creators for ethical and legal reasons. What a layering service could do was take the feed from the creator’s service and add elements on top of that content. Elements were additions that could encourage important cognitive behaviors in a learner.

With a layering service, the content a learner encounters is a combination of the content from the content creator and additions layered on this content. Two sources and servers are involved. From the perspective of a designer, a layering service works by accepting the URL for a web page or video from the designer and then allows the designer to add elements that appear within or on top of the content from the designated source. The layering service sends this combination to the learner and this does not change the original document and still downloads the original from the server each time the combination of original and layered content is requested by a user. Ads still appear and the content server still records the download to give the creator credit. The layering service generates a link provided to learners and recreates the composite of content and designer additions each time a learner uses that link. 

Questions are my favorite example of an external activity that can be added to encourage a variety of important thinking (internal) behaviors. For example, if you want a learner to link a new concept to everyday experiences the concept is useful in understanding, you might ask the learner to provide examples that show the application of the concept. Many learners may do this without the question, but the question increases the likelihood more learners will work to identify such connections with their existing experiences. Those who think about instruction in this way may describe what they are doing as designing instruction. I offer an extended description of generative activity in a previous post. 

Depending on the specific service, the elements that layering services I am aware of include annotations, highlighting, questions, and discussion prompts. Annotations could include additional material such as examples, translations, or instructions. Questions could be open-ended or multiple-choice. A few of these elements could also be added by the learner (highlights and annotations) so elements provided to the designer could be used to encourage specific use of the elements available to students.

My personal interest in promoting layering services is intended to encourage the use of services that allow educators, educational content designers, and learners to work with this content to provide more effective learning resources and more generative learning experiences. In addition, content creators have a right to assume the server used by the content creator will be contacted each time content is requested and inclusions such as ads are included. The expectations of the content creator are not ignored when using a layering service.

I have identified several services that meet my definition of a layering service. Here, I will describe one service focused on web pages and one that focused on video. Other examples can be explored from the page linked above and I assume others exist that I have not identified. Services are constantly being updated, but I have just worked with the two examples I describe here and this information should be current as of the uploading of this post.

Insert Learning

Insert Learning is my best example of the services promoted here. I say this because it offers the most generative options and the generative options are part of an environment allowing an educator to both create multiple lessons, assign these lessons to members of multiple classes, and record data on student completion of some of the types of activity involved in individual lessons. 

The following image should give you some idea how this works. Down the left border of the image, you see a menu of icons allowing the designer to select highlight, note, question, and discussion. Highlight and note work as one probably expects. When the icon is selected text can be highlighted by the designer or learner. The note icon adds what appear as Postit notes allowing the inclusion of text, links, images, video, and whatever else works as an embed. The question icon adds questions either multiple choice as appears in the image or open-ended. The discussion icon appears very much like an open-ended question but accumulates and displays responses from multiple learners to a prompt. 

As I said, Insert Learning differentiates itself from many of the other services because the layering component is part of a system that allows the assignment of lessons to individual students organized as classes and also collects responses to questions by lesson and student. The following image shows a couple of responses to an open-ended question. I used Insert Learning in a graduate course I taught in Instructional Design. I made use of several of the tools I presented to students even when the most common use would be in K-12. This image shows how responses to questions would appear in the Grade Book. I could assign a score to a response and this score would then be visible to the student submitting a given response. 

It has been a few years since I used Insert Learning. When I did, I paid $8 a month. I see the price has now increased to $20 a month or $100 for the year. 

EdPuzzle 

EdPuzzle is a service for adding questions and notes to videos. It includes a system for adding these elements, assigning these videos to students, and saving student responses to questions. The following images are small to allow them to be inserted in this post. In the following image, the red box on the right allows the selection of the element to be added – MC question, open-ended question, and note. The timeline underneath the video (middle) is also enclosed in a red box. As the designer watches the video, clicking one of these buttons stops the video and allows the selected addition to be included. A dot appears below the timeline to indicate where an element has been added. A learner can either play the video which will stop for a response when one of these inclusions is reached or select one of the dots to respond. The second image shows the dialog box used to add an open-ended question. 

In the video I used in this example, I created a demonstration using Python to run LOGO commands and saved the video to YouTube. Again, this was a demonstration used in a graduate edtech course. Early in the video, I showed and explained the LOGO code. The video then showed the result of running this program.

When using EdPuzzle with this video, I inserted a note asking students to take a pencil and sheet of paper to draw what the LOGO program would create. Near the end of the video, I inserted an open-ended question asking that students explain how Papert’s notion of computational understanding would provide a different way of thinking about the traditional definition of circle (i.e., a plane closed figure with points equidistant from a point). 

I used the free version of EdPuzzle because I only assigned students to a few examples to experience what the service provided. You can do a lot with this service at no cost. The pro-level price is $13.50 per month. EdPuzzle Pricing 

Summary – these two examples demonstrate the use of layering services to add generative activities to a web page and a web video. There are similar services available from other companies that generate similar student experiences. The value in such services is the opportunity to design learning experiences containing activities likely to improve understanding and retention.

Loading

The advantages of digital reading

In the past year or so, I am guessing educators have become aware of a controversy related to whether learners are best able to learn from content presented on paper or a screen.  I am certain some researchers will continue to compare the comprehension of content appearing in a book versus on a screen, but whether or not such research reaches a conclusion one way or the other (see reference from recent meta-analysis), we have already switched to heavily relying on information we can access from our devices. It makes more sense to accept that learning with a phone, tablet, or computer will be involved in a significant proportion of our learning experience and consider how best to use the unique capabilities of these devices. What does digital reading look like and what presently neglected skills are being ignored that educators can help learners acquire? 

I do many different kinds of reading and I think this is true of many learners. I read for pleasure and I read to learn. Those who study reading probably can come up with many more meaningful categories, but these two are sufficient for my argument. I like to describe these reading activities as associated with shallow and deep goals. Some who study different reading activities seem to describe deep reading a little differently than I do. My use of the term implies the intent to learn, retain, and apply information gleaned from reading. I also see an opportunity for digital reading when retention and application follow initial exposure to text by longer periods of time than would be involved in the delay until the next examination. A unique advantage of digital reading is the opportunity to externalize immediate insights and personal interpretations in ways that take advantage of storage, organization, and search capabilities of technology. Some describe this as using technology as a second brain. Accept that human memory is far from perfect. If we think about reading a little differently and consider that reading could also involve efforts at external storage, the time invested in reading to learn may have a bigger return on investment in the future.

What follows are four books (linked to the Kindle version from Amazon) that take on the notion of digital reading. Yes, I have included one of my books among them although this book is focused more on how educators can take advantage of technology to facilitate how students learn when they read. All of these sources explain what I mean by the externalization opportunities technology make available. If you want a single recommendation, it would be “How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking”. I find the title a bit misleading as the text is concerned with far more than taking notes. The author considers learning from reading and learning more generally. I make this recommendation because offers both solid theory and concrete suggestions for practice. 

Grabe – Designing Instruction Using Layering Services: Educators and students guiding learning

Cohn – Skim, Dive, Surface: Teaching Digital Reading

Kalir & Garcia – Annotation

Ahrens – How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking – for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers

My Diigo account should provide me notes on all of these books.

Reference:

Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 0034654321998074.

Loading

Annotation examples

I have not written about layering in some time. I encountered something I was unfamiliar with when reading about how to help students to learn to read with technology. The content I was reading was discussing how to help students understand what the annotation of a digital text might look like and suggested that students be shown examples. One source for such examples was the annotated articles from the Washington Post.

I was unfamiliar with this service, but a search revealed information about the explorations they have conducted and are being conducted by the Post. My example (see below) is from a speech by President Obama because more recent examples (e.g., a piece about Fauci) were not available as I have exceeded my free views. If you have a subscription, search “washington post annotated articles” to find other material. If you explore the linked example, click on highlighted material to view associated comments.

The Washington Post annotates with Genius. The idea is to have a commentator familiar with the issues add these annotations.

Loading

Question stems

Question stems offer guidance educators and learners can use to guide thinking about content. Becoming aware of prepared question stems can diversify the types of questions teachers ask of students and guide students in asking questions of themselves. Questions offer an external mechanism to encourage productive thinking.

Here are several links related to this video.

Learn more about the online service Insert Learning

Online lists of question stems – Question stems for critical thinking; Question stems organized according to the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy

Loading

Annotation and Layering

I have generated multiple posts explaining and offering examples of the online services I describe as allowing educators to design educational resources by layering elements on top of existing online web pages and online videos. This interest also generated a short book on the same topic. A book (Annotation) by Remi Kalir and Antero Garcia has recently been made available and offers a related, but more general perspective and may be of interest to those who have read my content on layering. Both make useful contributions (my opinion) for anyone interested in this topic with my book better suited to K12 educators and Annotations for researchers and anyone wanted a more comprehensive view of the history and potential application of annotation.

As someone who writes about this relatively novel topic, I find it interesting how different individuals came to explore and write about this topic. One immediate commonality is obvious – we both explored the same tool for annotating and sharing comments on online text – Hypothes.is. My own perspective stems from a career long interest in highlighting, notetaking, and adjunct (inserted) questions in assisting students of all ages in learning from text. A second, but indirect, perspective emerged from my reaction to how research on learning from text read from the screen and a traditional book was being presented to educators. I have relied almost exclusively on digital content for many years now and was troubled by the argument that comprehension was superior from traditional books. As I considered the research, I decided both sides may have a valid perspective. I would describe my interest as studying rather than reading (any extended use of text content after the initial reading) and reading on a device offered obvious advantages (storage, search, efficient review, etc.) for anything beyond the initial exposure to content.

I have been thinking about annotation and my perspective of layering and how best to explain these differences. While it seems possible to reach the same end from either perspective, here are some thoughts on efficiency.

  1. The authors of Annotation do mention the potential uses of what they describe as “multimodality”, but seem strongly influenced by hypothes.is and the focus of this tool on text. What can be done with a text-first tool limits perspective – text first heavily focused on the annotation of text with text. Tools that allow layering on video or audio may end up being more important with increasing interest in presenting in this fashion saving class time for other activities.
  2. Layering emphasizes the clarity of a physical separation between content creator and secondary contributors and also the control of visibility of multiple sources. The opportunity of an end user to turn on and off the added elements can be important in satisfying individual differences and in allowing strategic roles that may differ over time.
  3. A focus on hypothes.is limits the clarity in understanding that multiple tools that can be applied by the one adding elements and the intended person targeted for these additions. Depending on service, multiple tools may be available – e.g., text, highlighting, questions, discussion, audio/video. My own writing is focused on the use of such elements to encourage productive processing of the information (text or video) to which the elements have attached. A perspective I like is that existing online content has not necessarily been created as what an educator might describe as a learning resource.

Loading

Layering from the perspectives of research and practice

I have been writing about online services that allow content elements (e.g., highlighting, notes) to be layered on existing online pages and videos without modifying the content as intended by the original author. The options for both layering web pages and online videos have grown since I began commenting on this type of service. Because I mostly write for educators, there comes a point at which it might be useful to rank or at least differentiate these services. For example, what is the best free service? What is the best service no matter the cost? 

My early interest in this category of tools was encouraged by an exploration of Hypothes.is. I think I remember the origins of this service promoting “annotate the web” with a general emphasis on general interaction focused on the content the web made available. Fair or not, I think companies, even open source efforts, can become limited by their early vision. At this point, this service seems a general application with relevance to education, but not necessarily designed specifically for education. The tool options – highlight and annotate – seem limited in comparison say to the tool set available from a similar service – Insert Learning. So, for example, while Hypothes.is.’s annotate function could be used to ask questions or encourage discussion, Insert Learning has tools specific to annotation, questions, and discussion. The Insert Learning tools are flexible (e.g., a multiple choice tool) and can send the responses from individual students back to a dashboard from which the educator can see who has responded and who has not and assign grades or easily keep track of participation. This differentiation of tools and integrated data collection system is educationally very useful. Of course, Insert Learning is a paid service. 

In some ways, I still see Hypothes.is as driving developments in this field. It is a service with roots in a research community and I think this base is important for productive developments. These roots come with what might seem limitations to some as a noncommercial approach has limits on the resources necessary for rapid innovation. For example, the Hypothes.is blog describes the Indiana University social annotation project and interest in using learning analytics to investigate annotation.

I find myself working and writing at the intersection of research and practice and I can appreciate both of the services I have described here from these perspectives.

Loading