Teacher-agent teams have the potential to increase instructional effectiveness in diverse classrooms. The agent can be trained on previous student assessment data to create a model for assessing student performance and provide instructional recommendations. We propose a conceptual model that outlines how assessment agents can be trained for and used in classrooms to create effective teacher-agent teams. Furthermore, we show how teacher-agent teams can assist in the implementation of differentiated instruction, a strategy which allows teachers to effectively instruct students of diverse backgrounds and understandings. Differentiated instruction is further realized by having an assessment agent focus on grading student work, providing feedback to students, categorizing students, and giving recommendations for instruction so that teachers can focus on providing individualized or small group instruction to diverse learners. This model maximizes the strengths of teachers, while minimizing the tedious tasks that teachers routinely perform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottK. H.SchutteP. C. (1989). Human-centered automation and ai-ideas, insights, and issues from the intelligent cockpit aids research effort.
2.
AmorimE.CançadoM.VelosoA. (2018). Automated essay scoring in the presence of biased ratings. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, volume 1 (long papers) (pp. 229–237).
3.
BeckJ.SternM.HaugsjaaE. (1996). Applications of ai in education. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 3(1), 11–15.
4.
BibaultJ.-E.GiraudP.BurgunA. (2016). Big data and machine learning in radiation oncology: state of the art and future prospects. Cancer letters, 382(1), 110–117.
5.
BlackP.WiliamD. (2005). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning.
6.
BostonC. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(1), 9.
7.
BursteinJ.ChodorowM.LeacockC. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The criterion online writing service. Ai Magazine, 25(3), 27–27.
8.
CanonicoL. B.FlathmannC.McNeeseN. (2019). Collectively intelligent teams: Integrating team cognition, collective intelligence, and ai for future teaming. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (vol. 63, pp. 1466–1470).
9.
CouncilN. R., et al. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. National Academies Press.
10.
DaggettL. M. (2008). Ferpa in the twenty-first century: Failure to effectively regulate privacy for all students. Cath. UL Rev., 58, 59.
11.
Diegelman-ParenteA. (2011). The use of mastery learning with competency-based grading in an organic chemistry course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(5).
12.
FlathmannC.McNeeseN.CanonicoL. B. (2019). Using human-agent teams to purposefully design multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (vol. 63, pp. 1425–1429).
13.
ForstenC.GrantJ.HollasB. (2002). Differentiated instruction: Different strategies for different learners. ERIC.
14.
FunkK.LindJ. H. (1992). Agent-based pilot-vehicle interfaces: concept and prototype. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 22(6), 1309–1322.
15.
GeorgeP. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory into practice, 44(3), 185–193.
16.
GraesserA. C.Wiemer-HastingsK.Wiemer-HastingsP.KreuzR.GroupT. R., et al. (1999). Autotutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Cognitive Systems Research, 1(1), 35–51.
17.
HalalW.KolberJ.DaviesO.GlobalT. (2017). Forecasts of ai and future jobs in 2030: Muddling through likely, with two alternative scenarios. Journal of Futures Studies, 21(2), 83–96.
18.
HermanK. C.Hickmon-RosaJ.ReinkeW. M. (2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90–100.
19.
HigginsR.HartleyP.SkeltonA. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in higher education, 27(1), 53–64.
20.
JacksonC. K. (2018). What do test scores miss? the importance of teacher effects on non–test score outcomes. Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 2072–2107.
21.
KapusnickR. A.HausleinC. M. (2001). The ‘silver cup’of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37(4), 156–159.
22.
KonoldK. E.MillerS. P.KonoldK. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64–69.
23.
LeachmanM.AlbaresN.MastersonK.WallaceM. (2016). Most states have cut school funding, and some continue cutting. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4, 1–16.
24.
MartinM. R.PickettM. T. (2013). The effects of differentiated instruction on motivation and engagement in fifth-grade gifted math and music students. Online Submission.
25.
RosenbergL.LungrenM.HalabiS.WillcoxG.BaltaxeD.LyonsM. (2018). Artificial swarm intelligence employed to amplify diagnostic accuracy in radiology. In 2018 ieee 9th annual information technology, electronics and mobile communication conference (iemcon) (pp. 1186–1191).
26.
SchinskeJ.TannerK. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 159–166.
27.
ScottB. E. (2012). The effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the elementary mathematics classroom.
28.
SuprayogiM. N.ValckeM.GodwinR. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291–301.
29.
SutcherL.Darling-HammondL.Carver-ThomasD. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the us. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
30.
SzarvasG.FarkasR.Busa-FeketeR. (2007). State-of-the-art anonymization of medical records using an iterative machine learning framework. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(5), 574–580.
31.
TomlinsonC. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Ascd.
32.
TomlinsonC. A.BrightonC.HertbergH.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.BrimijoinK.. . . ReynoldsT. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119–145.
33.
TuckerB. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education next, 12(1), 82–83.
34.
XinD.MaL.LiuJ.MackeS.SongS.ParameswaranA. (2018). Accelerating human-in-the-loop machine learning: challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the second workshop on data management for end-to-end machine learning (pp. 1–4).
