Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articoli/Articles

V. 15 N. 2 (2024): Intelligenza Artificiale nella scuola e nella formazione universitaria. Rischi e opportunità

Evolving Educational Horizons: Integrating AI with Innovative Teaching and Assessment Strategies

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess2-2024oa18462
Inviata
10 settembre 2024
Pubblicato
31-01-2025

Abstract

This systematic review examines 39 studies to identify Teaching and Learning Activities (TLAs) and Assessment Tasks (ATs) aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy, highlighting their role in fostering critical thinking and creativity. TLAs such as simulations, problem-solving, and gamification, combined with peer assessments and formative feedback, support higher-order cognitive skills. However, the review reveals a critical gap in integrating AI into these frameworks, despite AI’s potential to personalize learning and enhance assessments. This absence limits the development of adaptive learning environments that meet individual needs. Future research should prioritize AI-driven tools to create flexible and personalized educational pathways. Integrating AI into education is essential to promote higher-order thinking, improve instructional design, and address contemporary learning demands. By leveraging data-driven insights, AI could transform teaching practices and enhance student outcomes.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Anitha D., Kavitha D. (2022). Improving problem-solving skills through technology-assisted collaborative learning in a first-year engineering mathematics course. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.
  2. Angelo T., Cross K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Barrows H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem‐based learning methods. Medical education, 20(6): 481-486.
  4. Bergmann J., Sams A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
  5. Bitzer D. L., Braunfeld P., and Lichtenberger W. (1961). PLATO: An automatic teaching device. IRE Transactions on Education, 4(4): 157-161.
  6. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomies of educational objectives. Handbook 1. Cognitive Domain. NY: McKay.
  7. Boehman J., Eynon B., de Goeas-Malone M., Goodman E., and Rogers-Cooper J. (2021). Making Learning Matter: Building Guided Learning Pathways at LaGuardia Community College. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(1): 89-99.
  8. Brent R., Felder R. M. (1992). Writing assignments ‒ Pathways to connections, clarity, creativity. College teaching, 40(2): 43-47.
  9. Bryfonski L. (2024). From task-based training to task-based instruction: Novice language teachers’ experiences and perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 28(3): 1255-1279.
  10. Burch C., Vare P. (2020). Stepping up in modern foreign languages: professional development across the primary to secondary school transition. The Language Learning Journal, 48(5): 613-627.
  11. Calderón A., MacPhail A. (2023). Seizing the opportunity to redesign physical education teacher education: blending paradigms to create transformative experiences in teacher education. Sport, Education and Society, 28(2): 159-172.
  12. Calderón A., Scanlon D., MacPhail A., and Moody B. (2021). An integrated blended learning approach for physical education teacher education programmes: teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(6): 562-577.
  13. Calavia M. B., Blanco T., Casas R., and Dieste B. (2023). Making design thinking for education sustainable: Training preservice teachers to address practice challenges. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101199.
  14. Campbell A. (2022). Preparing International Scholarship Students for Graduate Education: The Case of the Open Society Foundations’ Pre-Academic Summer Program. Philanthropy & education, 5(2): 10-30. doi: 10.2979/phileduc.5.2.02.
  15. Chard S. C. (2000). The Challenges and the Rewards: A Study of Teachers Undertaking Their First Projects.
  16. Chiew F. H., Noh N., Oh C. L., Noor N. A. M., and Isa C. M. M. (2022). Teaching, Learning and Assessments (TLA) in Civil Engineering Laboratory Courses in Open Distance Learning (ODL) during COVID-19 Pandemic. Asian Journal of University Education, 18(3): 818-829.
  17. Christensen C. R. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School.
  18. Church F. C., Cooper S. T., Fortenberry Y. M., Glasscock L. N., and Hite R. (2021). Useful teaching strategies in STEMM (Science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine) Education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(11), 752.
  19. de Chantal J. (2021). Digital Storytelling: A Beneficial Tool for Large Survey Courses in History. The History Teacher, 54(4): 709-724.
  20. Dekhici L., Maroc S. (2023). Developing Digital Accessibility and Inclusion Skills: A Gamification and Flipped Learning Approach. International Society for Technology, Education, and Science.
  21. Dewey J. (2013). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press.
  22. Donnelly P., Frawley T. (2020). Active learning in Mental Health Nursing-use of the Greek Chorus, dialogic knowing and dramatic methods in a university setting. Nurse Education in Practice, 45, 102798.
  23. El Bouhdidi J., Ghailani M., and Fennan A. (2013). An intelligent architecture for generating evolutionary personalized learning paths based on learner profiles. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 57(2).
  24. Elsherbiny N., Edwards S. (2020, November). The value of aligning your course for curricular improvement. In Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 1-9).
  25. Garzón Artacho E., Martínez T. S., Ortega Martin J. L., Marin Marin J. A., and Gomez Garcia G. (2020). Teacher training in lifelong learning ‒ The importance of digital competence in the encouragement of teaching innovation. Sustainability, 12(7), 2852.
  26. Garg M., Dhariwal D., and Newlands C. (2022). Providing national level teaching to OMFS specialty trainees in a virtual classroom setting using learning theories of education. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 60(1): 3-10.
  27. Graham C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems. In The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (Vol. 1, pp. 3-21).
  28. Hendriks M., Cruywagen S. (2024). Mathematics in South Africa’s Intermediate Phase: Music integration for enhanced learning. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 14(1), 1535.
  29. Hu B. Y., Guan L., Ye F., Vitiello V. E., Roberts S. K., Li Y. H., and Wu Q. (2023). Chinese Preschool Teachers’ Use of Concept Development Strategies to Elicit Children’s Higher-Order Thinking During Whole-Group Science Teaching. Early Education and Development, 34(6): 1376-1397.
  30. Huizinga T., Handelzalts A., Nieveen N., and Voogt J. M. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of curriculum studies, 46(1): 33-57.
  31. Itow R. C. (2020). Fostering valuable learning experiences by transforming current teaching practices: practical pedagogical approaches from online practitioners. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6): 443-452.
  32. Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., and Holubec E. J. (1984). I nuovi circoli di apprendimento: cooperazione in classe e a scuola. ASCD.
  33. Johnston E., Burleigh C., Rasmusson X., Turner P., Valentine D., and Bailey L. (2021). Multimedia Open Educational Resource Materials for Teaching-Online Diversity and Leadership: Aligning Bloom’s Taxonomy and Studio Habits of Mind. Higher Learning Research Communications, 11(2): 40-67.
  34. Joseph B., Abraham S. (2023). Identifying slow learners in an e-learning environment using k-means clustering approach. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 15(4): 539-553. Doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2023.15.031.
  35. Kolb D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press.
  36. Kundisch D., Muntermann J., Oberländer A., Rau D., Röglinger M., Schoormann T., and Szopinski D. (2021). An Update for Taxonomy Designers. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64: 421-439. Doi: 10.1007/s12599-021-00723-x.
  37. Lenchuk I., Ahmed A. (2021). Tapping into Bloom Taxonomy’s Higher-Order Cognitive Processes: The Case for Multiple Choice Questions as a Valid Assessment Tool in the ESP Classroom. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on Covid 19 Challenges, (1): 160-171.
  38. Lindgren S., Argullos J. L. P., and Millan J. R. (2024). Assessment of clinical competence of medical students: Future perspectives for Spanish Faculties. Medicina Clinica Practica, 7(2), 100424.
  39. Lombardi D., Maffei A., Traetta L., de Giorgio A., and Ferreira P. (2024a, In press). Empowering Inclusive Education with CONALI & ChatGPT. Paper presented at the ERK 2024 conference, Congress Center Bernardin, Portorož, Slovenia. IEEE Slovenia Section, Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Ljubljana.
  40. Lombardi D., Traetta L., Mo F., and Maffei A. (2024b, In press). Instructional Design and Disability: Empowering Inclusive Education with CONALI & AI. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Higher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies (HELMeTO 2024), Rome.
  41. Lowry J. H., Korson C. (2024). From high school to postgraduate: student perceptions of learning experiences creating ArcGIS StoryMaps. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 48(3): 445-467.
  42. Maffei A., Boffa E., Lupi F., and Lanzetta M. (2022). On the design of constructively aligned educational unit. Education sciences, 12(7), 438.
  43. Maffei A., Daghini L., Archenti A., and Morselli S. (2021). Methodological implications in the deployment of constructively aligned learning units for skill transfer: a didactic experience in manufacturing education. Procedia CIRP, 104: 1584-1589.
  44. Marques L., Loureiro A. (2021). Cooperative project-based learning in Engineering: A case study in an Industrial Electronics course in Portugal. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 12(1): 144-159.
  45. Martin L., Alvarez Valdivia I. M. (2017). Students’ Feedback Beliefs and Anxiety in Online Foreign Language Oral Tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1): 1-16.
  46. Martinho A., Gomes P., and Santos C. (2021). Design of project-based learning activities: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(4): 715-749.
  47. Mason G., Shuman T. R., and Cook K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4): 430-435.
  48. Mendez J. M., Valero C. C., Fernandez I. F., Parra M. S., and Martin C. R. (2020). Improving Teamwork, Motivation, and Learning through Peer Feedback and Gamification: A Case Study at the University of Cantabria. Sustainability, 12(6), 2367.
  49. Milton O., Alkin M. C. (1972). Measuring college performance. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
  50. Mishra P., Koehler M. J., and Henriksen D. (2021). The seven transdisciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69: 1151-1169.
  51. Morrow T. (2015, March). A context-aware ontology for personalized learning: Pervasive computing for educational technology. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (PerCom Workshops) (pp. 242-244). IEEE.
  52. Nuthall G. A. (2007). The hidden lives of learners. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.
  53. O’Donnell A. M. (2006). The Role of Peers and Group Learning. In Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 781-802). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  54. O’Shea S., Stone C., and Delahunty J. (2015). “I ‘feel’ like I’m at university even though I’m online.” Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 36(1). 41-58.
  55. Owen H. (2022). Innovative Teaching and Learning Approaches and Impacts on International Students’ Sense of Belonging and Engagement. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 10(1): 88-101.
  56. Peters V. L., Vissers G. A. (2004). A Simple Classification Model for Debriefing Simulation Games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1): 70-84.
  57. Pieterse V., Thompson L. (2010). Academic alignment to reduce the presence of ‘social loafers’ and ‘diligent isolates’ in student teams. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(4): 355-367.
  58. Prensky M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Corwin Press.
  59. Rawling P., Loasby I. (2023). An innovative flipped classroom in engineering education using visualisation and feedback tools. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1): 43-60.
  60. Robinson K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. John Wiley & Sons.
  61. Roscoe R. D., Chi M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4): 534-574.
  62. Rushton A. (2005). Formative assessment: A key to deep learning?. Medical Teacher, 27(6): 509-513.
  63. Sala R., Maffei A., Pirola F., Enoksson F., Ljubić S., Skoki A., ... and Pezzotta G. (2024). Blended learning in the engineering field: A systematic literature review. Computer applications in engineering education, 32(3), e22712.
  64. Schoenfeld A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. Journal of education, 196(2): 1-38.
  65. Sijde P. V. D. (1989). Differential effectiveness of feedback on task performance: A dual pathway model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3): 519-532.
  66. Siozos P., Palaigeorgiou G., Triantafyllakos G., and Despotakis T. (2009). Computer based testing using “digital ink”: Participatory design of a Tablet PC based assessment application for secondary education. Computers & Education, 52(4): 811-81.
  67. Sosa A. J., Valenzuela J. L. (2022). Development and Validation of an Instrument for Self-assessment of Competences Based on Rubrics. Education Sciences, 12(2), 79.
  68. Tiwari S., Geoghegan M., and Spiteri R. (2021). Enhancing Student Engagement with Peer Feedback Practices: The Impacts of Students' Feedback Beliefs, Self-efficacy and Attributional Beliefs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2): 251-266.
  69. Tsybulsky D., Muchnik-Rozanov Y., and Gesser-Edelsburg A. (2021). Participation in a Science Teacher Professional Development Program: The Role of Social Capital and Trust. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3): 421-446.
  70. Van Leeuwen A. (2015). Measuring student engagement with learning analytics. Springer.
  71. Villegas-Ch W., García-Ortiz J. (2023). Enhancing learning personalization in educational environments through ontology-based knowledge representation. Computers, 12(10), 199.
  72. Wittwer J., Renkl A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational psychologist, 43(1): 49-64.
  73. Zuber W. J. (2016). The flipped classroom, a review of the literature. Industrial and Commercial Training.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...