Teaching Method for Non-technical Adult Learners to Gain an Authentic Understanding of AI Within a Day
Abstract
This study proposes and evaluates an effective teaching method for non-technical adults who want to gain an authentic understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) within a short time budget. Recent studies have revealed the existence of non-technical business professionals who want to improve their participation in technical discussions and identified their needs for learning technologies effectively using real programming tools. The proposed teaching method utilizes the story aligned with the history of AI, visual feedback, and agile practices to overcome the challenges the non-technical adults face. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the proposed teaching method by the open coding method and by the paired t-test over the responses to the questions based on the expectancy-value theory before and after the lecture. We found that this teaching method effectively supported the learners to understand the core technical concepts of AI using authentic tools within a day. We also confirmed that the non-technical adult learners had significantly changed their attitude from initially negative to positive in terms of expected success and value in understanding AI, which is one of the essential outcomes for the learners as they predict the learner’s performance on understanding AI in the future.
References
P. K. Chilana et al., “Perceptions of non-CS majors in intro programming: The rise of the conversational programmer,” in 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and HumanCentric Computing (VL/HCC), Atlanta, GA, 2015, pp. 251–259, doi: 10.1109/VLHCC.2015.7357224.
P. K. Chilana, R. Singh, and P. J. Guo, “Understanding Conversational Programmers: A Perspective from the Software Industry,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems -CHI ’16, Santa Clara, California, USA, 2016, pp. 1462–1472, doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858323.
A. Y. Wang, R. Mitts, P. J. Guo, and P. K. Chilana, “Mismatch of Expectations: How Modern Learning Resources Fail Conversational Programmers,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 511:1–511:13, doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174085.
Y. Bosse and M. A. Gerosa, “Why is Programming So Difficult to Learn?: Patterns of Difficulties Related to Programming Learning Mid-Stage,” SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1–6, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1145/3011286.3011301.
M. Butler and M. Morgan, “Learning challenges faced by novice programming students studying high level and low feedback concepts,” p. 9, 2007.
A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles, “Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68–81, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
B. & Noble, “Computers and the World of the Future,” Barnes & Noble. [Online]. Available: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/computers-and-the-world-of-the-future-martin-greenberger/1100660865. [Accessed: 11-Mar-2019].
P.-H. Tan, C.-Y. Ting, and S.-W. Ling, “Learning Difficulties in Programming Courses: Undergraduates’ Perspective and Perception,” in 2009 International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 2009, pp. 42–46, doi: 10.1109/ICCTD.2009.188.
R. D. Pea and D. M. Kurland, “On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming,” New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 137–168, Jan. 1984, doi: 10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7.
D. B. Palumbo, “Programming Language/Problem-Solving Research: A Review of Relevant Issues - David B. Palumbo, 1990,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 65–89, Mar. 1990.
U. Wilensky, C. E. Brady, and M. S. Horn, “Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 24–28, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1145/2633031.
E. Schanzer, K. Fisler, S. Krishnamurthi, and M. Felleisen, “Transferring Skills at Solving Word Problems from Computing to Algebra Through Bootstrap,” in Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’15, Kansas City, Missouri, USA, 2015, pp. 616–621, doi: 10.1145/2676723.2677238.
B. L. Sherin, “A Comparison of Programming Languages and Algebraic Notation as Expressive Languages for Physics,” International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–61, Jun. 2001.
N. Kobayashi, A. Nakamoto, M. Kawase, F. Sussan, and S. Shirasaka, “What Model(s) of Assurance Cases Will Increase the Feasibility of Accomplishing Both Vision and Strategy?,” Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2018.
J. Spriggs, GSN - The Goal Structuring Notation: A Structured Approach to Presenting Arguments. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
M. Fowler and J. Highsmith, “The agile manifesto. Software Development,” Software Development, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 28–35, 2001.
K. Seya, N. Kobayashi, and S. Shirasaka, “Method of Creating Story-based Lectures from a Past-to-present Perspective that Helps Non- Technical Adult Learners Understand AI,” Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 16–45, 2019.
“Project Jupyter.” [Online]. Available: https://www.jupyter.org. [Accessed: 13-Mar-2019].
Ichihara M. and Arai K., “Moderator effects of meta-cognition: A test in math of a motivational model,” Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 199–210, 2006, doi: 10.5926/jjep1953.54.2_199.
N. Kobayashi, A. Nakamoto, and S. Shirasaka, “What is it to structuralize with multiple viewpoints by using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN)?,” Int J Jpn Assoc Mgt Sys, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 125–130, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.14790/ijams.10.125.
N. Golafshani, “Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research,” The Qualitative Report, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 597–607, 2003.
G. Manning, “Self-Directed Learning: A Key Component of Adult Learning Theory,” Business and Public Administration Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 104, 2007.
