Search

Teachers routinely observe and interpret student behavior to make judgements about whether and how to support their students' learning. Simulated cases can help pre-service teachers to gain this skill of diagnostic reasoning. With 118 pre-service teachers, we tested whether participants rate simulated cases presented in a serial-cue case format as more authentic and become more involved with the materials compared to cases presented in a whole case format. We further investigated whether participants with varying prior conceptual knowledge (what are symptoms of ADHD and dyslexia) gain more strategic knowledge (how to detect ADHD and dyslexia) with a serial-cue versus whole case format. We found that the case format did not impact authenticity ratings but that learners reported higher involvement in the serial-cue case format condition. Bayes factors provide moderate evidence for the absence of a case format effect on strategic knowledge and strong evidence for the absence of an interaction of case format and prior knowledge. We recommend using serial-cue case formats in simulations as they are a more authentic representation of the diagnostic reasoning process and cognitively involve learners. We call for replications to gather more evidence for the impact of case format on knowledge acquisition. We suggest a further inquiry into the relationship of case format, involvement, and authenticity but think that a productive way forward for designing authentic simulations is attention to aspects that make serial-cue cases effective for diverse learners. For example, adaptive feedback or targeted practice of specific parts of diagnostic reasoning such as weighing evidence.

This perspective piece explores the transformative potential and associated challenges of large language models (LLMs) in education and how those challenges might be addressed utilizing playful and game-based learning. While providing many opportunities, the stochastic elements incorporated in how present LLMs process text, requires domain expertise for a critical evaluation and responsible use of the generated output. Yet, due to their low opportunity cost, LLMs in education may pose some risk of over-reliance, potentially and unintendedly limiting the development of such expertise. Education is thus faced with the challenge of preserving reliable expertise development while not losing out on emergent opportunities. To address this challenge, we first propose a playful approach focusing on skill practice and human judgment. Drawing from game-based learning research, we then go beyond this playful account by reflecting on the potential of well-designed games to foster a willingness to practice, and thus nurturing domain-specific expertise. We finally give some perspective on how a new pedagogy of learning with AI might utilize LLMs for learning by generating games and gamifying learning materials, leveraging the full potential of human-AI interaction in education.

Previous research has focused on self-assessments rather than objective assessments for assessing teachers' technological knowledge (TK). Notwithstanding, empirical studies have failed to show stable relationships between self-assessments and objective assessments. In this study, we investigate the extent to which scenario-based self-assessments of (student) teachers' (N = 75) TK can serve as anchors by helping them to identify the relevant skills that are required in concrete and authentic situations and might be therefore effective to bring the results of objective and subjective measures closer together using a path analytical model. Overall, the results suggest that scenario-based self-assessment is promising for the approximation of the results of objective assessment measures, especially for operational technical skills.