Die Folge haben wir am 29.01.2025 aufgenommen.
News+Alt+Entf
News+O
Ruhe des NordensH5P-FeuerwehrH5P CaretakerUpdate für H5P GameMap kommt (oder ist schon da, wenn Ihr das hört)News+A
Buchungs-Tool im DLC integriert (Screencast für Interessierte)KI-Workshop-ReiheLecture as Code von Nane Kratzke (Aufzeichnung, gezeigtes Video)Bias in KI-Tools von A (Blogbeitrag dazu)KI-generierte Zusammenfassungen und Analysen bei Veranstaltungen mit Andreas Sexauer (Aufzeichnung, Blogbeitrag dazu)Paper+Alt+Entf
Paper+A: Rotstift in Rente
Pölert, Hauke
Stoppt den Korrekturwahnsinn! oder: Warum wir spätestens 2025 unsere Korrekturpraxis überdenken sollten (De-Implementierung nach Benedikt Wisniewski) Sonstige
Blogbeitrag, 2025.
Links | BibTeX
@misc{Pölert2025,
title = {Stoppt den Korrekturwahnsinn! oder: Warum wir spätestens 2025 unsere Korrekturpraxis überdenken sollten (De-Implementierung nach Benedikt Wisniewski)},
author = {Hauke Pölert},
url = {https://unterrichten.digital/2025/01/06/korrekturen-feedback-de-implementierung-wisniewski/},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-06},
urldate = {2025-01-06},
howpublished = {Blogbeitrag},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Schließen
- https://unterrichten.digital/2025/01/06/korrekturen-feedback-de-implementierung-[...]
Schließen
Truscott, John
The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately Artikel
In: Journal of Second Language Writing, Bd. 16, Ausg. 4, S. 255–272, 2007, ISBN: 1873-1422.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX
@article{Truscott2007,
title = {The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately},
author = {John Truscott},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003},
doi = {10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003},
isbn = {1873-1422},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-12-01},
journal = {Journal of Second Language Writing},
volume = {16},
issue = {4},
pages = {255–272},
abstract = {The paper evaluates and synthesizes research on the question of how error correction affects learners’ ability to write accurately, combining qualitative analysis of the relevant studies with quantitative meta-analysis of their findings. The conclusions are that, based on existing research: (a) the best estimate is that correction has a small negative effect on learners’ ability to write accurately, and (b) we can be 95% confident that if it has any actual benefits, they are very small. This analysis is followed by discussion of factors that have probably biased the findings in favor of correction groups, the implication being that the conclusions of the meta-analysis probably underestimate the failure of correction.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Schließen
The paper evaluates and synthesizes research on the question of how error correction affects learners’ ability to write accurately, combining qualitative analysis of the relevant studies with quantitative meta-analysis of their findings. The conclusions are that, based on existing research: (a) the best estimate is that correction has a small negative effect on learners’ ability to write accurately, and (b) we can be 95% confident that if it has any actual benefits, they are very small. This analysis is followed by discussion of factors that have probably biased the findings in favor of correction groups, the implication being that the conclusions of the meta-analysis probably underestimate the failure of correction.
Schließen
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
- doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Schließen
Kluger, Avraham N.; DeNisi, Angelo
The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory Artikel
In: Psychological Bulletin, Bd. 119, Ausg. 2, S. 254–284, 1996.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX
@article{nokey,
title = {The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory},
author = {Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi},
url = {https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-02773-003},
doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254},
year = {1996},
date = {1996-01-01},
journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
volume = {119},
issue = {2},
pages = {254–284},
abstract = {Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced negative--but largely ignored--effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average ( d = .41) but that over one-third of the FIs decreased performance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Schließen
Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced negative--but largely ignored--effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average ( d = .41) but that over one-third of the FIs decreased performance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
Schließen
- https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
- https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-02773-003
- doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Schließen
Es gibt den Aufsatz zurück und alles ist rot. Für Lernende oft demotivierend und für Lehrende viel Arbeit – ist das überhaupt nötig?
Paper+O: Ein Traum für Textlehrende
Muehlhoff, Rainer; Henningsen, Marte
Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben Unveröffentlicht
Preprint auf arXiv:2412.06651, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX
@unpublished{Muehlhoff2024,
title = {Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben},
author = {Rainer Muehlhoff and Marte Henningsen},
url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.06651
https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-chatbots-im-schulunterricht},
doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2412.06651},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-09},
urldate = {2024-12-09},
issue = {arXiv:2412.06651},
abstract = {This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz, designed to support teachers in evaluating and providing feedback on student assignments. Against the societal backdrop of an overburdened education system and rising expectations for artificial intelligence as a solution to these challenges, the investigation evaluates the tool's functional suitability through two test series. The results reveal significant shortcomings: The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated. The highest ratings are achievable only with texts generated by ChatGPT. False claims and nonsensical submissions frequently go undetected, while the implementation of some grading criteria is unreliable and opaque. Since these deficiencies stem from the inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs), fundamental improvements to this or similar tools are not immediately foreseeable. The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education, concluding that Fobizz's marketing of the tool as an objective and time-saving solution is misleading and irresponsible. Finally, the study calls for systematic evaluation and subject-specific pedagogical scrutiny of the use of AI tools in educational contexts.},
howpublished = {Preprint auf arXiv:2412.06651},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {unpublished}
}
Schließen
This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz, designed to support teachers in evaluating and providing feedback on student assignments. Against the societal backdrop of an overburdened education system and rising expectations for artificial intelligence as a solution to these challenges, the investigation evaluates the tool's functional suitability through two test series. The results reveal significant shortcomings: The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated. The highest ratings are achievable only with texts generated by ChatGPT. False claims and nonsensical submissions frequently go undetected, while the implementation of some grading criteria is unreliable and opaque. Since these deficiencies stem from the inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs), fundamental improvements to this or similar tools are not immediately foreseeable. The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education, concluding that Fobizz's marketing of the tool as an objective and time-saving solution is misleading and irresponsible. Finally, the study calls for systematic evaluation and subject-specific pedagogical scrutiny of the use of AI tools in educational contexts.
Schließen
- https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.06651
- https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-chatbots-im-schulunterricht
- doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.06651
Schließen
Was taugen LLMs aktuell in der Bewertungspraxis von Schulhausaufgaben? Nachlesen oder Nachsehen (Talk auf dem 38c3)!
Fundgrube+Alt+Entf
Projekte, Tools, Apps… das sind doch bürgerliche Kategorien. Wir packen einfach alles in die Fundgrube:
Politik+Alt+Entf
Was wollen die Parteien in Sachen „digital“? Kurzer Blick in die Parteiprogramme.
Veranstaltungstipps
23. Februar 2025: Bundestagswahl
Geht wählen!
21. bis 23. März 2025: EduCamp in Essen (#ecruhr25)
Jetzt (kostenlos) anmelden!
28. bis 30. März 2025: Edunautika in Hamburg
Fürs Bildungs-BarCamp-Hopping!
Weltverbesserung+Alt+Entf
Das Netzwerk Polylux unterstützt Initiativen gegen den Rechtsruck im Osten. Hier kann man eine Fördermitgliedschaft abschließen oder einmalig spenden.
Diese und andere Weltverbesserungsideen findet man auch gesammelt hier.
