Prompt engineering for knowledge creation: Using chain-of-thought to support students’ improvable ideas
Previous research on providing feedback on public speaking has investigated the effectiveness of feedback sources, namely teacher feedback, peer feedback, and self-feedback, in enhancing public speaking competence, predominantly individually. However, how these sources of feedback can be collectively harnessed to optimize learner engagement and public speaking performance still warrants further investigation. Adopting a pre- and post-test quasi-experimental design, this study randomly assigned four classes to four feedback conditions: Group 1 received teacher feedback, Group 2 self-feedback and teacher feedback, Group 3 peer and teacher feedback, and Group 4 feedback from all three sources. Both student engagement, measured using the Public Speaking Feedback Engagement Scale (PSFES), and their public speaking performance ratings, assessed using the Public Speaking Competency Instrument (PSCI), were validated using Rasch analysis. The inferential statistics revealed that Group 3 showed significant improvements across nearly all three dimensions of engagement, whereas Group 2 experienced significant declines in all dimensions of engagement except behavioral engagement. Group 3 demonstrated significantly greater engagement gain compared to Groups 2 and 4, indicating the synergistic effect of peer and teacher feedback in contrast to the limited impact of self-feedback. Additionally, all groups demonstrated significant improvements except for Group 2, which showed significantly lower improvement compared to Group 4. The following correlation analysis identified a significant correlation between the gain of students’ behavioral engagement and the gain of public speaking performance, whereas such association was absent between cognitive or emotional engagement and public speaking competence. This study suggests that peer feedback should be preceded by group discussion and supplemented with teacher feedback in classes for enhancing the teacher–student dialog, while self-feedback should be conducted after class to improve student engagement and public speaking performance.
Designs and practices using generative AI for sustainable student discourse and knowledge creation
Utilizing generative artificial intelligence, especially the more popularly used Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) architecture, has made it possible to employ AI in ways that were previously not possible with conventional assessment and evaluation technologies for learning. As educational use cases and academic studies become increasingly prevalent, it is critical for education stakeholders to discuss design considerations and ideals that are key in supporting and augmenting learning via quality classroom discourse that sets the climate for student learning and thinking, and teachers’ transmission of expectations. In this paper, we seek to address how emergent technological advancements such as GPT, can be considered and utilized in designs that are consistent with the ideals of sustainable student discourse and knowledge creation. We showcase contemporary exemplars of possible designs and practices that are based on the pedagogy of knowledge building, with recent illustrations of how GPT may be utilized to sustain students’ knowledge building discourse. We also examine the potential effects and repercussions of technological utilization and misuse, along with insights into GPT’s role in supporting and enhancing knowledge building practices. We anticipate that the findings, through our exploration of designs and practices for knowledge creation, will be able to resonate with a broader audience and instigate meaningful change on issues of teaching and learning within smart learning environments.
Beyond tried and true: The challenge of education for innovation
Singapore and Ontario, Canada, have been rated as among the top education systems in the world in terms of both student achievement and progressive management. This symposium brings together leaders and researchers working in these systems to discuss efforts to go beyond present achievements and to address new imperatives to educate for innovation. Both systems are experimenting with Knowledge Building as an approach to meet this need. How they propose to do this while also upholding other educational goals forms one facet of the symposium. The other facet concerns how this work fits into the larger picture of education for innovation as seen from the points of view of research in the learning sciences and OECD’s studies of innovation in education.