pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.03920 · v1 · pith:T5JRRL2Wnew · submitted 2024-03-06 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CL· cs.HC

Enhancing Instructional Quality: Leveraging Computer-Assisted Textual Analysis to Generate In-Depth Insights from Educational Artifacts

Zewei Tian , Min Sun , Alex Liu , Shawon Sarkar , Jing Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 03:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CLcs.HC
keywords artificial intelligence in educationtextual analysisinstructional core frameworkpersonalized learningnatural language processingeducational technologyteacher coaching
0
0 comments X

The pith

Integrating AI textual analysis with the Instructional Core Framework identifies advantages for personalized learning in education.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reviews how computer-assisted textual analysis using AI and machine learning can generate insights from educational artifacts like teacher discourse and student responses. It integrates Richard Elmore's Instructional Core Framework to pinpoint areas such as teacher coaching, student support, and content development where AI offers benefits. The review and case studies reveal patterns suggesting AI introduces new ways for personalized learning while streamlining tasks. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to practical ways to improve instruction with technology balanced by human oversight and ethics.

Core claim

Through a comprehensive review and case studies within the Instructional Core Framework, AI/ML methods, particularly NLP, can analyze educational content to foster instructional improvement, offering significant advantages in teacher coaching, student support, and content development, and unveiling patterns that indicate novel pathways for personalized learning.

What carries the argument

The Instructional Core Framework, which focuses on the relationships among teachers, students, and content, combined with natural language processing techniques for analyzing textual educational data.

If this is right

  • AI/ML integration streamlines administrative tasks in education.
  • AI provides actionable feedback for educators.
  • AI contributes to a richer understanding of instructional dynamics.
  • AI introduces novel pathways for personalized learning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Real-world deployment of these AI tools in classrooms could test their impact on actual learning outcomes.
  • Future work might explore how to develop ethical guidelines specific to AI use in analyzing student responses.
  • Connecting this to other educational frameworks could broaden the applicability of the insights.

Load-bearing premise

The patterns identified through the review and case studies will translate into realizable advantages when AI/ML technologies are aligned with pedagogical goals while accounting for ethical considerations, data quality, and human expertise.

What would settle it

A study showing that implementing AI textual analysis tools in schools fails to improve instructional quality or student personalization due to practical misalignments with pedagogy or ethics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.03920 by Alex Liu, Jing Liu, Min Sun, Shawon Sarkar, Zewei Tian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Instructional Core Framework by Elmore [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper explores the transformative potential of computer-assisted textual analysis in enhancing instructional quality through in-depth insights from educational artifacts. We integrate Richard Elmore's Instructional Core Framework to examine how artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods, particularly natural language processing (NLP), can analyze educational content, teacher discourse, and student responses to foster instructional improvement. Through a comprehensive review and case studies within the Instructional Core Framework, we identify key areas where AI/ML integration offers significant advantages, including teacher coaching, student support, and content development. We unveil patterns that indicate AI/ML not only streamlines administrative tasks but also introduces novel pathways for personalized learning, providing actionable feedback for educators and contributing to a richer understanding of instructional dynamics. This paper emphasizes the importance of aligning AI/ML technologies with pedagogical goals to realize their full potential in educational settings, advocating for a balanced approach that considers ethical considerations, data quality, and the integration of human expertise.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews the integration of AI/ML methods, especially NLP-based textual analysis, with Richard Elmore's Instructional Core Framework to derive insights from educational artifacts such as teacher discourse and student responses. Through a literature review and unspecified case studies, it claims to identify significant advantages for teacher coaching, student support, and content development, while unveiling patterns that enable novel personalized learning pathways; it concludes by stressing alignment with pedagogical goals, ethics, data quality, and human expertise.

Significance. If the case studies were to supply concrete, reproducible evidence of the claimed patterns and advantages, the work could usefully connect an established educational theory to contemporary NLP tools and highlight actionable feedback mechanisms for educators. The explicit attention to ethical and human-in-the-loop considerations is a constructive framing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Case Studies] Abstract and Case Studies section: the central claims of 'significant advantages' and 'unveiled patterns' for personalized learning are asserted on the basis of 'comprehensive review and case studies' yet no selection criteria, data sources (specific educational artifacts), NLP techniques, quantitative metrics, or extracted patterns are described or tabulated. Without these, the assertions cannot be evaluated and reduce to qualitative assertion.
  2. [Framework Integration] Instructional Core Framework integration: the manuscript states that the framework is used to 'examine how AI/ML can analyze educational content' but supplies no mapping of framework components (task, student, teacher) to specific textual-analysis outputs or any falsifiable predictions that would allow assessment of whether the integration yields the claimed improvements.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is unusually long and contains the primary claims; a shorter abstract focused on methods and results would improve clarity.
  2. [Literature Review] No references to prior NLP work in education (e.g., automated essay scoring, discourse analysis tools) are visible in the provided text; adding a targeted related-work subsection would situate the contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript requires greater specificity and rigor. We agree that the current version relies on high-level assertions without sufficient detail and will revise to address both points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Case Studies] Abstract and Case Studies section: the central claims of 'significant advantages' and 'unveiled patterns' for personalized learning are asserted on the basis of 'comprehensive review and case studies' yet no selection criteria, data sources (specific educational artifacts), NLP techniques, quantitative metrics, or extracted patterns are described or tabulated. Without these, the assertions cannot be evaluated and reduce to qualitative assertion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript as submitted presents the case studies at a conceptual level without the requested specifics on selection criteria, data sources, NLP techniques, metrics, or tabulated patterns. This stems from the paper's primary focus as a review integrating the Instructional Core Framework with NLP methods rather than an empirical study. In revision we will expand the case studies section to include concrete examples drawn from the literature (e.g., specific teacher discourse transcripts or student response corpora), detail the NLP methods applied, report any available quantitative metrics or observed patterns, and either provide a table of results or explicitly qualify the examples as illustrative while moderating claims from 'significant advantages' to 'potential advantages supported by existing literature'. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Framework Integration] Instructional Core Framework integration: the manuscript states that the framework is used to 'examine how AI/ML can analyze educational content' but supplies no mapping of framework components (task, student, teacher) to specific textual-analysis outputs or any falsifiable predictions that would allow assessment of whether the integration yields the claimed improvements.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit mapping between the Instructional Core Framework components and textual-analysis outputs is missing. The revision will add a new subsection and accompanying table that directly maps each framework element (task, student, teacher) to example NLP outputs (e.g., topic modeling for task complexity, sentiment or discourse analysis for student responses, coherence metrics for teacher discourse) and the resulting insights. Because the work is conceptual rather than hypothesis-testing, we will not claim falsifiable predictions from the current analysis but will include example testable hypotheses that future empirical studies could evaluate to assess improvements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative review with no derivations or fitted parameters

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative review and discussion of AI/ML applications in education using the Instructional Core Framework. It contains no equations, parameters, predictions derived from fits, or self-citations that serve as load-bearing premises for any claimed result. The central claims rest on an undescribed review and case studies, but these are presented as narrative synthesis rather than any mathematical or definitional reduction to the authors' own inputs. No step matches the enumerated circularity patterns; the work is self-contained as a perspective piece without internal derivation chains that collapse by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review that relies on an established educational framework and standard AI methods without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond domain assumptions, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Richard Elmore's Instructional Core Framework provides a valid and useful structure for examining instructional quality and dynamics.
    Invoked as the organizing lens for the entire review and case studies in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 1435 out tokens · 52536 ms · 2026-05-24T03:04:49.287115+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Should Teachers Control AI Generation for Mathematics Visuals?

    cs.HC 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Post-generation control in AI-assisted math visual creation yields higher teacher ratings for predictability and correctness than pre- or mid-generation control, with qualitative trade-offs in agency and effort.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dor Abrahamson and Raúl Sánchez-García. 2016. Learning Is Moving in New Ways: The Ecological Dynamics of Mathematics Education. Journal of the Learning Sciences 25, 2 (April 2016), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370

    work page doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370 2016

  2. [2]

    Ashraf Alam. 2023. Harnessing the Power of AI to Create Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Enhanced Classroom Experience and Improved Learning Outcomes. In Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks (Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies), G. Rajakumar, Ke-Lin Du, and Álvaro Rocha (Eds.). Springer Nature, ...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-99-1767-9_42 2023

  3. [3]

    Robin Alexander. 2008. Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Exploring talk in school 2008 (2008), 91–114. https: //www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=4911977&publisher=FZ7200#page=110

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Bain and G

    A. Bain and G. Swan. 2011. Technology enhanced feedback tools as a knowledge management mechanism for supporting professional growth and school reform. Educational Technology Research and Development 59 (2011), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-011-9201-X

    work page doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9201-x 2011

  5. [5]

    Matthew Berland, Ryan Baker, and Paulo Blikstein. 2014. Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: Applications to Constructionist Research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 19 (July 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7 2014

  6. [6]

    Ali Borji. 2023. A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.03494 arXiv:2302.03494 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.03494 2023

  7. [7]

    Fabio Botelho, Jean Marie Tshimula, and Dan Poenaru. 2023. Leveraging ChatGPT to Democratize and Decolonize Global Surgery: Large Language Models for Small Healthcare Budgets. World Journal of Surgery 47, 11 (Nov. 2023), 2626–2627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07167-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00268-023-07167-2 2023

  8. [8]

    Cardona, Roberto J

    Miguel A. Cardona, Roberto J. Rodríguez, and Kristina Ishmael. 2023. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations. (2023). https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3854312/ai-report/4660267/

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Úlfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. 2021. Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models. 2633–2650. https://www.usenix.org/ conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/carlini-extracting

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Huanyi Chen. 2018. Predicting Student Performance Using Data from an Auto-Grading System . Master’s thesis. University of Waterloo. https: //uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/13435 Accepted: 2018-06-25T18:49:07Z

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Chowdhury

    Gobinda G. Chowdhury. 2003. Natural Language Processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 37 (2003), 51–89. ERIC Number: EJ659664

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    City, Richard F

    Elizabeth A. City, Richard F. Elmore, Sarah E. Fiarman, and Lee Teitel. 2009. Instructional rounds in education . Vol. 30. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. https://www.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Instructional-Rounds-in-Education-Elmores-Instructional-Core.pdf

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Keith Cochran, Clayton Cohn, Jean Francois Rouet, and Peter Hastings. 2023. Improving Automated Evaluation of Student Text Responses Using GPT-3.5 for Text Data Augmentation. InArtificial Intelligence in Education (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ning Wang, Genaro Rebolledo-Mendez, Noboru Matsuda, Olga C. Santos, and Vania Dimitrova (Eds.). Springer N...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2023

  14. [14]

    Corbett, Kenneth R

    Albert T. Corbett, Kenneth R. Koedinger, and John R. Anderson. 1997. Chapter 37 - Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Handbook of Human- Computer Interaction (Second Edition) , Marting G. Helander, Thomas K. Landauer, and Prasad V. Prabhu (Eds.). North-Holland, Amsterdam, 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50103-5

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-044481862-1.50103-5 1997

  15. [15]

    Charlotte Danielson. 2013. EVALUATION INSTRUMENT. (2013)

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Dorottya Demszky and Heather Hill. 2023. The NCTE Transcripts: A Dataset of Elementary Math Classroom Transcripts. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2211.11772 arXiv:2211.11772 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Hill, Dan Jurafsky, and Chris Piech

    Dorottya Demszky, Jing Liu, Heather C. Hill, Dan Jurafsky, and Chris Piech. 2023. Can Automated Feedback Improve Teachers’ Uptake of Student Ideas? Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial in a Large-Scale Online Course. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (May 2023), 01623737231169270. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231169270 Publisher: Americ...

    work page doi:10.3102/01623737231169270 2023

  18. [18]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805 arXiv:1810.04805 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 2019

  19. [19]

    Doabler, Mike Stoolmiller, Patrick C

    Christian T. Doabler, Mike Stoolmiller, Patrick C. Kennedy, Nancy J. Nelson, Ben Clarke, Brian Gearin, Hank Fien, Keith Smolkowski, and Scott K. Baker. 2019. Do Components of Explicit Instruction Explain the Differential Effectiveness of a Core Mathematics Program for Kindergarten Students With Mathematics Difficulties? A Mediated Moderation Analysis. Ass...

    work page doi:10.1177/1534508418758364 2019

  20. [20]

    Richard Elmore. 2008. Improving the instructional core. Draft manuscript (2008). https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Improving%20The% 20Instructional%20Core_Elmore%20Article.pdf

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    Richard Elmore. 2010. Leading the instructional core. Conversation, 11 (3) (2010), 1–12

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Robyn M. Gillies. 2015. Enhancing Classroom-based Talk: Blending practice, research and theory . Routledge. Google-Books-ID: McQ0CwAAQBAJ

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Gozalo-Brizuela, E

    Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela and Eduardo C. Garrido-Merchan. 2023. ChatGPT is not all you need. A State of the Art Review of large Generative AI models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.04655 arXiv:2301.04655 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.04655 2023

  24. [24]

    J. Hardman. 2016. Opening-up Classroom Discourse to Promote and Enhance Active, Collaborative and Cognitively-Engaging Student Learning Experiences. (2016). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.000400

    work page doi:10.14705/rpnet.2016.000400 2016

  25. [25]

    Harris, William R

    Christopher J. Harris, William R. Penuel, Cynthia M. D’Angelo, Angela Haydel DeBarger, Lawrence P. Gallagher, Cathleen A. Kennedy, Britte Haugen Cheng, and Joseph S. Krajcik. 2015. Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52, 10 (2015), 13...

    work page doi:10.1002/tea.21263 2015

  26. [26]

    Sara Hennessy, Elisa Calcagni, Alvin Leung, and Neil Mercer. 2023. An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning. Language and Education 37, 2 (March 2023), 186–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943

    work page doi:10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943 2023

  27. [27]

    Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Jack W. Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.15556 2022

  28. [28]

    Jennifer Jacobs, Karla Scornavacco, Charis Harty, Abhijit Suresh, Vivian Lai, and Tamara Sumner. 2022. Promoting rich discussions in mathematics classrooms: Using personalized, automated feedback to support reflection and instructional change. Teaching and Teacher Education 112 (2022), 103631. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X220...

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Donnelly, Cathlyn Stone, Sean Kelly, Amanda Godley, and Sidney K

    Emily Jensen, Meghan Dale, Patrick J. Donnelly, Cathlyn Stone, Sean Kelly, Amanda Godley, and Sidney K. D’Mello. 2020. Toward Automated Feedback on Teacher Discourse to Enhance Teacher Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://d...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376418 2020

  30. [30]

    Jaeho Jeon and Seongyong Lee. 2023. Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies 28, 12 (Dec. 2023), 15873–15892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1 2023

  31. [31]

    Juzwik, Carlin Borsheim-Black, Samantha Caughlan, and Anne Heintz

    Mary M. Juzwik, Carlin Borsheim-Black, Samantha Caughlan, and Anne Heintz. 2015. Inspiring dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom . Teachers College Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yqdDAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Juzwik+et+al.,+2013+classroom& ots=NBZk7y27MS&sig=0FvRibIh0Sf2oeeOEywS879rWb8

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Kakkonen and E

    T. Kakkonen and E. Sutinen. 2004. Automatic assessment of the content of essays based on course materials. In ITRE 2004. 2nd International Conference Information Technology: Research and Education . IEEE, London, England, UK, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITRE.2004.1393660

    work page doi:10.1109/itre.2004.1393660 2004

  33. [33]

    Sean Kelly, Robert Bringe, Esteban Aucejo, and Jane Cooley Fruehwirth. 2020. Using global observation protocols to inform research on teaching effectiveness and school improvement: Strengths and emerging limitations. Education Policy Analysis Archives 28 (April 2020), 62–62. https: //doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5012

    work page doi:10.14507/epaa.28.5012 2020

  34. [34]

    Olney, Patrick Donnelly, Martin Nystrand, and Sidney K

    Sean Kelly, Andrew M. Olney, Patrick Donnelly, Martin Nystrand, and Sidney K. D’Mello. 2018. Automatically Measuring Question Authenticity in Real-World Classrooms. Educational Researcher 47, 7 (Oct. 2018), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18785613 Publisher: American Educational Research Association

    work page doi:10.3102/0013189x18785613 2018

  35. [35]

    Ehsan Latif and Xiaoming Zhai. 2023. Fine-tuning ChatGPT for Automatic Scoring. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10072 arXiv:2310.10072 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Jing Liu and Julie Cohen. 2021. Measuring Teaching Practices at Scale: A Novel Application of Text-as-Data Methods. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43, 4 (Dec. 2021), 587–614. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211009267 Publisher: American Educational Research Association

    work page doi:10.3102/01623737211009267 2021

  37. [37]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.11692 arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 2019

  38. [38]

    Li Lucy, Dorottya Demszky, Patricia Bromley, and Dan Jurafsky. 2020. Content Analysis of Textbooks via Natural Language Processing: Findings on Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Texas U.S. History Textbooks.AERA Open 6, 3 (July 2020), 233285842094031. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420940312

    work page doi:10.1177/2332858420940312 2020

  39. [39]

    Setareh Maghsudi, Andrew Lan, Jie Xu, and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2021. Personalized Education in the Artificial Intelligence Era: What to Expect Next. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 38, 3 (May 2021), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2021.3055032

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2021.3055032 2021

  40. [40]

    Naomichi Makinae. 2019. The Origin and Development of Lesson Study in Japan. In Theory and Practice of Lesson Study in Mathematics: An International Perspective, Rongjin Huang, Akihiko Takahashi, and João Pedro da Ponte (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_9 2019

  41. [41]

    Christopher Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Finkel, Steven Bethard, and David McClosky. 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations , Kalina Bontcheva and Jingbo Zhu (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    work page doi:10.3115/v1/p14-5010 2014

  42. [42]

    Nesrine Mansouri, Makram Soui, and Mourad Abed. 2023. Full Personalized Learning Path Recommendation: A Literature Review. In International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics . Springer, 185–195. Manuscript 18 Tian et al

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Felipe Martinez, Sandy Taut, and Kevin Schaaf. 2016. Classroom observation for evaluating and improving teaching: An international perspec- tive. Studies in Educational Evaluation 49 (2016), 15–29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X15300389?casa_token=- EeNa0Imb78AAAAA:Fpx63O_R4rMzlGPjn6Fm1gL9ZL8fl-lTvvOQFdBF6e9MCQ-TY9f8m8DaW27tXX...

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Sarah Michaels, Catherine O’Connor, and Lauren B. Resnick. 2008. Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education 27, 4 (July 2008), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1 2008

  45. [45]

    Niakan Kalhori, Mahnaz Rakhshan, Leila Keikha, and Marjan Ghazi Saeedi

    Elham Mousavinasab, Nahid Zarifsanaiey, Sharareh R. Niakan Kalhori, Mahnaz Rakhshan, Leila Keikha, and Marjan Ghazi Saeedi. 2021. Intelligent tutoring systems: a systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods. Interactive Learning Environments 29, 1 (Jan. 2021), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257 Publisher: ...

    work page doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257 2021

  46. [46]

    Newmann, Anthony S

    Fred M. Newmann, Anthony S. Bryk, and Jenny K. Nagaoka. 2001. Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: Conflict or Coexistence? Improving Chicago’s Schools. (2001). Publisher: ERIC

    work page 2001

  47. [47]

    Hyacinth S. Nwana. 1990. Intelligent tutoring systems: an overview. Artificial Intelligence Review 4, 4 (Dec. 1990), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00168958

    work page 1990

  48. [48]

    Hongchao Peng, Shanshan Ma, and Jonathan Michael Spector. 2019. Personalized adaptive learning: an emerging pedagogical approach enabled by a smart learning environment. Smart Learning Environments 6, 1 (Sept. 2019), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0089-y

    work page doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0089-y 2019

  49. [49]

    Tony Read. 2015. Where Have All the Textbooks Gone?: Toward Sustainable Provision of Teaching and Learning Materials in Sub-Saharan Africa . World Bank Publications. Google-Books-ID: CwQ7CgAAQBAJ

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Thomas Richter and Maggie McPherson. 2012. Open educational resources: education for the world? Distance Education 33, 2 (Aug. 2012), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.692068

    work page doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.692068 2012

  51. [51]

    Pati Ruiz and Judi Fusco. 2023. Glossary of Artificial Intelligence Terms for EducatorsEducator CIRCLS Blog. Retrieved from Glossary of Artificial Intelligence Terms for Educators–CIRCLS (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Lena Ivannova Ruiz-Rojas, Patricia Acosta-Vargas, Javier De-Moreta-Llovet, and Mario Gonzalez-Rodriguez. 2023. Empowering Education with Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools: Approach with an Instructional Design Matrix. Sustainability 15, 15 (Jan. 2023), 11524. https: //doi.org/10.3390/su151511524 Number: 15 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publi...

    work page doi:10.3390/su151511524 2023

  53. [53]

    Eisuke Saito. 2012. Key issues of lesson study in Japan and the United States: a literature review. Professional Development in Education 38, 5 (Nov. 2012), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.668857

    work page doi:10.1080/19415257.2012.668857 2012

  54. [54]

    Donaldson

    Jay Paredes Scribner and Joe F. Donaldson. 2001. The Dynamics of Group Learning in a Cohort: From Nonlearning to Transformative Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 37, 5 (Dec. 2001), 605–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969442 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    work page doi:10.1177/00131610121969442 2001

  55. [55]

    Thanveer Shaik, Xiaohui Tao, Yan Li, Christopher Dann, Jacquie McDonald, Petrea Redmond, and Linda Galligan. 2022. A review of the trends and challenges in adopting natural language processing methods for education feedback analysis. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 56720–56739

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Soter, I

    A. Soter, I. Wilkinson, P. K. Murphy, L. Rudge, Kristin Reninger, and Margaret E. Edwards. 2008. What the Discourse Tells Us: Talk and Indicators of High-Level Comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 47 (2008), 372–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2009.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001 2008

  57. [57]

    Mihai Surdeanu, Tom Hicks, and Marco Antonio Valenzuela-Escárcega. 2015. Two Practical Rhetorical Structure Theory Parsers. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations , Matt Gerber, Catherine Havasi, and Finley Lacatusu (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguisti...

    work page doi:10.3115/v1/n15-3001 2015

  58. [58]

    Martin, and Tamara Sumner

    Abhijit Suresh, Jennifer Jacobs, Charis Harty, Margaret Perkoff, James H. Martin, and Tamara Sumner. 2022. The TalkMoves Dataset: K-12 Mathematics Lesson Transcripts Annotated for Teacher and Student Discursive Moves. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.09652 arXiv:2204.09652 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.09652 2022

  59. [59]

    Ross Taylor, Marcin Kardas, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, Anthony Hartshorn, Elvis Saravia, Andrew Poulton, Viktor Kerkez, and Robert Stojnic. 2022. Galactica: A Large Language Model for Science. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.09085 arXiv:2211.09085 [cs, stat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.09085 2022

  60. [60]

    Judith Torney-Purta, Rainer Lehmann, Hans Oswald, and Wolfram Schulz. 2001. Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen . Technical Report. IEA Secretariat, Herengracht 487, 1017 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https: //eric.ed.gov/?id=ED452116 ISBN: 9789051668346 ERIC Number: ED452116

    work page 2001

  61. [61]

    Paul Tosey and Jane Mathison. 2010. Neuro-linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching. Innovations in Edu- cation and Teaching International 47, 3 (Aug. 2010), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498183 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498183

    work page doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498183 2010

  62. [62]

    Johanna Velander, Mohammed Ahmed Taiye, Nuno Otero, and Marcelo Milrad. 2023. Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education: eliciting and reflecting on Swedish teachers’ understanding of AI and its implications for teaching & learning. Education and Information Technologies (2023), 1–21

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Pablo Villalobos, Jaime Sevilla, Tamay Besiroglu, Lennart Heim, Anson Ho, and Marius Hobbhahn. 2022. Machine Learning Model Sizes and the Parameter Gap. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.02852 arXiv:2207.02852 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.02852 2022

  64. [64]

    Pablo Villalobos, Jaime Sevilla, Lennart Heim, Tamay Besiroglu, Marius Hobbhahn, and Anson Ho. 2022. Will we run out of data? An analysis of the limits of scaling datasets in Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.04325 arXiv:2211.04325 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.04325 2022

  65. [65]

    Walkington

    Candace A. Walkington. 2013. Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 105, 4 (2013), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882

    work page doi:10.1037/a0031882 2013

  66. [66]

    Ning Wang and James Lester. 2023. K-12 Education in the Age of AI: A Call to Action for K-12 AI Literacy. International journal of artificial intelligence in education 33, 2 (2023), 228–232. Manuscript Enhancing Instructional Quality: Leveraging Computer-Assisted Textual Analysis to Generate In-Depth Insights from Educational Artifacts 19

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Wang and Dorottya Demszky

    Rose E. Wang and Dorottya Demszky. 2023. Is ChatGPT a Good Teacher Coach? Measuring Zero-Shot Performance For Scoring and Providing Actionable Insights on Classroom Instruction. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.03090 arXiv:2306.03090 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.03090 2023

  68. [68]

    Yidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Zhengran Zeng, Linyi Yang, Cunxiang Wang, Hao Chen, Chaoya Jiang, Rui Xie, Jindong Wang, Xing Xie, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2023. PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.05087 arXiv:2306.05087 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05087 2023

  69. [69]

    Zining Wang, Jianli Liu, and Ruihai Dong. 2018. Intelligent Auto-grading System. In 2018 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems (CCIS). 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCIS.2018.8691244

    work page doi:10.1109/ccis.2018.8691244 2018

  70. [70]

    Miller, and Kai S

    Zuowei Wang, Xingyu Pan, Kevin F. Miller, and Kai S. Cortina. 2014. Automatic classification of activities in classroom discourse. Computers & Education 78 (Sept. 2014), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.010 2014

  71. [71]

    Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07682 arXiv:2206.07682 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07682 2022

  72. [72]

    Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Zac Kenton, Sasha Brown, Will Hawkins, Tom Stepleton, Courtney Biles, Abeba Birhane, Julia Haas, Laura Rimell, Lisa Anne Hendricks, William Isaac, Sean Legassick, Geoffrey Irving, and Iason Gabriel. 2021. Ethic...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 2021

  73. [73]

    Aiken, Marcos D

    Joseph Wilson, Benjamin Pollard, John M. Aiken, Marcos D. Caballero, and H. J. Lewandowski. 2022. Classification of open-ended responses to a research-based assessment using natural language processing. Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 1 (June 2022), 010141. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010141 Publisher: American Physical Society

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.18.010141 2022

  74. [74]

    Xi Yang, Lishan Zhang, and Shengquan Yu. 2017. Can Short Answers to Open Response Questions Be Auto-Graded Without a Grading Rubric? In Artificial Intelligence in Education, Elisabeth André, Ryan Baker, Xiangen Hu, Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo, and Benedict Du Boulay (Eds.). Vol. 10331. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 594–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_72 2017

  75. [75]

    Zhen Yang, Ming Ding, Qingsong Lv, Zhihuan Jiang, Zehai He, Yuyi Guo, Jinfeng Bai, and Jie Tang. 2023. GPT Can Solve Mathematical Problems Without a Calculator. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.03241 arXiv:2309.03241 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.03241 2023

  76. [76]

    Chaoning Zhang, Chenshuang Zhang, Chenghao Li, Yu Qiao, Sheng Zheng, Sumit Kumar Dam, Mengchun Zhang, Jung Uk Kim, Seong Tae Kim, Jinwoo Choi, Gyeong-Moon Park, Sung-Ho Bae, Lik-Hang Lee, Pan Hui, In So Kweon, and Choong Seon Hong. 2023. One Small Step for Generative AI, One Giant Leap for AGI: A Complete Survey on ChatGPT in AIGC Era. https://doi.org/10....

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06488 2023

  77. [77]

    Siyuan Zhao, Yaqiong Zhang, Xiaolu Xiong, Anthony Botelho, and Neil Heffernan. 2017. A Memory-Augmented Neural Model for Automated Grading. 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3053982

    work page doi:10.1145/3051457.3053982 2017

  78. [78]

    Terry Yue Zhuo, Yujin Huang, Chunyang Chen, and Zhenchang Xing. 2023. Red teaming chatgpt via jailbreaking: Bias, robustness, reliability and toxicity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12867 (2023), 12–2. Publisher: Technical Report

    work page arXiv 2023