第85期：与纳塔莉亚·库奇尔科娃谈数字素养

欢迎收听《学习科学家》播客，这是一档面向教师、学生和家长的播客，内容围绕基于证据的教学与学习实践。

Welcome to The Learning Scientist Podcast, a podcast for teachers, students, and parents about evidence based practice and learning.

你好。

Hi.

欢迎收听学习科学家播客。

Welcome to the learning scientist podcast.

我是梅根·苏马拉基，罗德岛学院的教授。

This is Megan Summaraki, professor at Rhode Island College.

今天，我邀请到了娜塔莉亚·库奇尔科娃，我敢肯定我把她的名字念错了。

And today, I am joined by Natalia Kucirkova, and I am sure that I botched the pronunciation of her name.

我还会让她再念一遍自己的名字。

I'm going to have her say it again as well.

她是斯塔万格大学幼儿发展与教育专业的教授。

She is a professor of early childhood and development at University of Stavanger.

我的发音太糟糕了，所以还是让她自己来复述一遍吧。

I'm horrific with pronunciation, so I'm I'm going to let her say all of that again.

然后，她将向我们介绍她所运营的一个网络，以及与人工智能相关的研究——已经做了什么、尚未做什么，以及我们能就学生学习和进步说些什么。

And then, she is going to tell us about, a network that she runs and research related to artificial intelligence, what has been done, what has not been done, what we can say in terms of student learning and improvements.

这些都是当今人们最关注的非常有趣的话题。

A lot of really interesting things that are on the very top of people's minds these days.

所以，纳塔莉亚，你能介绍一下自己，并像我们开始录音前那样，优雅地把所有内容都念出来吗？

So, Natalia, could you please introduce yourself and and pronounce everything beautifully as you as you did before we started recording?

当然可以。

Oh, sure.

是的。

Yes.

非常感谢你邀请我参加。

And thanks so much for having me on.

我的名字是纳塔莉亚·因格韦岑·库奇尔科娃。

So my name is Natalia Ingevetsen Kucirkova.

我在挪威的斯塔万格大学工作，也在英国的开放大学任职。

I work at the University of Stavanger here in Norway and also in The UK at The Open University.

我还在美国和其他国家开展大量工作，关注基于科学依据的识读材料，并确保教室中使用的教育技术（EdTech）基于最新研究。

And I also work a lot actually in The US and in other countries looking at the importance of science based literacy materials and making sure that the educational technologies at EdTech that are used in classrooms are based on latest research.

因此，正如你开头所说，这就是我在讨论网络时希望重点强调的主题。

So that's the topic that I'm keen to highlight when we discuss networks, as you said at the beginning.

是的，跟我们讲讲这个网络吧。

Yeah, so tell us a little bit about this network.

我的理解是，它以你的大学为基础，但具有国际性，对吗？

My understanding is it's based at your university, but it's international, is that correct?

是的，它实际上起源于国际儿童数字图书联盟。

Yeah, well, it actually started with the International Collective of Children's Digital Books.

我的背景是数字识读。

So my background is in digital literacy.

作为一名教授，我一直在研究各种旨在提升儿童阅读理解、词汇学习和其他识读技能的应用程序和平台。

As a professor, I've been looking at various apps and platforms that are designed to increase children's reading comprehension, vocabulary learning, and other literacy skills.

在这一工作中，我们发现有必要与行业合作伙伴紧密合作。

And as part of that work, we have seen this need for working very closely with the industry partners.

所以那些实际开发早期阅读应用、自然拼读应用和数字故事的人。

So people who actually develop these early reading apps, phonics apps, digital stories.

我们建立了一个由研究人员、开发者和教师组成的网络，共同合作提升儿童的数字图书和数字识字资源。

We set up this network of researchers, developers and teachers who work together to enhance children's digital books and digital literacy resources.

我们称之为国际儿童数字图书联盟。

We call it the International Collective of Children's Digital Books.

因此，如果有人对这个感兴趣，这是一个免费加入的思维共享网络。

So if people are interested in this, this is a free think time network to join.

它位于 childrensdigitalbooks.com 网站上。

It's on the childrensdigitalbooks.com website.

但在这个网络的基础上，我们进一步扩展成了一个网络的网络，不仅涵盖儿童数字图书，还包括其他类型的教育科技资源。

But from that network, we have grown it into a network of networks, if you like, where we get not only children's digital books, but also other types of EdTech resources.

因此，我们遵循同样的模式，希望在为幼儿开发各种数字工具时，充分纳入教师、研究人员以及创始人或开发者的见解。

So following the same model that we really want to include both the teachers' voices, the researchers' voices and the founders' or the developers' insights when creating various digital tools for young children.

因此，我在这里描述的第二个网络叫做 WiKIT，旨在应对当前教育科技领域中存在的复杂问题，这些问题往往缺乏研究或实证基础。

So the second network I'm describing here is called WiKIT, as in the WiKIT complex problem of EdTech solutions that are out there and not necessarily based on research or evidence.

因此，我们希望通过这些网络将人们聚集在一起，以解决或至少应对这一问题。

So we want to solve or at least address this problem by bringing people together through these networks.

非常好。

Excellent.

这太有趣了，你把这么多研究人员和不同视角聚集在一起，试图解决这些问题，因为我们经常谈到，单一的专业领域是不够的。

That's so I it's so interesting the way that you've brought a lot of researchers together and a lot of these different perspectives together to try to solve these problems because we talk all the time about how one particular ex focus of expertise isn't going to be enough.

我们需要研究人员、教育工作者、管理者以及所有这些人的参与，共同解决问题。

We need researchers and educators and administrators and all of these people to come together to solve problems.

在教育科技领域，将开发者以及熟悉技术的人士纳入进来也非常合理。

And in the EdTech space, it makes great sense to also bring in the developers and the the people that are creating and knowledgeable about the technology.

是的。

Yeah.

你说得太对了。

I mean, you're so right.

我的意思是，要打造高质量的数字资源，确实需要汇聚许多人的专业知识。

I mean, it really takes many people, many people's expertise to capitalise upon when we are thinking about how to make a high quality digital resource.

所以，网络的美妙之处在于你可以利用这种集体经验和专业知识。

So the beauty of a network is that you can draw on this collective experience and expertise.

我的意思是，真正要包括多个教室、多位教师，这样我们才能带来多样化的经验，同时在研究方面也要涵盖不同学科，对吧？

So I do mean really including several classrooms, several teachers, so that we have diverse experiences to bring to the table, and also including different disciplines when it comes to the research side, right?

我的意思是，如果你想想一个简单的应用程序，要设计出既能尊重儿童权利、确保所有伦理因素到位，又能融入发展心理学、认知科学的见解，并体现教育价值的方案，实际上是非常复杂的。

I mean, if you think about a simple app, it's actually quite complicated to design it, you know, in a way that it respects children's rights and all the ethical aspects are in place, as well as including insights from developmental psychology, cognitive sciences, and think about the educational values.

那么，你如何确保孩子们不仅参与其中，还能实现某些学习目标呢？

So how do you make sure that children are not only engaged, but that you also hit some learning outcomes.

而且这些学习目标还应该与社会情感目标相联系。

And those learning outcomes should be linked also to socio emotional outcomes.

我的意思是，如果把学习科学也纳入进来，事情会很快变得非常复杂。

I mean, it can quickly get very complicated if you include learning sciences into this.

因此，采用这种集体方式来处理这个问题，我认为是以前从未尝试过的。

So, to have that kind of collective approach to this is, I think, something that hasn't been tried before.

所以，我们正在边做边探索。

So we are, you know, experimenting here as we go.

但希望通过这种融合多种视角和多元观点的对话，我们能够创造出一种更符合集体需求、而非少数个体需求的下一代教育技术。

But hopefully through this kind of dialogue that draws on multiple perspectives and diverse perspectives, we can create a new generation of EdTech that is more aligned with the collective needs rather than the needs of a few individuals.

这太棒了。

That's amazing.

我非常喜欢这种做法。

I I love this approach.

作为一名研究者和教师，我有太多问题了，也在思考聆听这个播客的广大教育工作者们。

So I I have so many questions as a researcher and as an instructor myself and thinking about the broad range of educators who listen to this podcast.

我应该聚焦于那些我认为对聆听本节的教师和教育工作者最有帮助的问题。

And I should I should focus on the questions that I think, will will help the most educators and and teachers listening to this.

所以我想知道，您能否分享一下关于人工智能的研究？目前在AI如何提升学生学习方面有哪些成果？又有哪些研究是缺失或尚未开展的？

And so I'm I'm wondering if you could share a little bit about AI, artificial intelligence, and what research has been done on AI and how it how it might improve student learning, or what research is is missing and has has not been done.

因为目前关于AI的讨论很多，有人说AI能极大帮助教师工作，也有人说AI可能严重损害学生学习，甚至造成干扰。

Because I think there's a lot of discussions about how AI can be so great and can, you know, help help teachers with their work and how AI might be so awful and and can really harm student learning or get in the way.

我想到的主要是论文撰写和作弊这类问题。

I'm sort of thinking about paper developing and and cheating, so to speak.

但我很好奇，是否有研究证明AI能够帮助学生学习并促进学生学习，以及这些研究的质量究竟如何。

But I'm wondering if there's research showing that it can help student learning and can foster student learning and what the quality of that research really is.

非常好的问题。

Oh, great questions.

我可以从我所代表的学科角度告诉你，我自己也做过一些相关研究，并且看到过这些研究成果被应用到实践中，这对那些可能正在考虑使用生成式AI阅读应用或其他嵌入了生成式AI的识字工具的教师来说可能很有参考价值。

Well, I can tell you from the perspective of the discipline that I represent and where I have done some work myself and I have seen some application of that research into practice, because this may be relevant for teachers who are perhaps considering the use of generative AI reading apps or various literacy tools that have Gen AI embedded in them and perhaps wonder whether this is a good idea.

因此，我们与同事们开展的研究主要关注了两个方面。

So the work that we have done with colleagues has looked at two things.

第一，简单来说，就是基于模板的AI，即研究那些为儿童和学习者预设了模板的故事。

One is, put very simply, template based AI, so looking at stories that come with some templates pre designed for children and learners to use.

你可以想象，当一个孩子被提供几个虚拟形象，以及一些可以输入系统的提示建议时，系统会生成一个独特且个性化的故事情节。

So you can imagine that as a child you're given a few avatars, perhaps some prompts as a suggestion that you can put into the system and the system generates a story that is unique and personalised to the child.

当然，AI的一大优势在于，它生成的故事是独一无二、原创的，而且孩子输入的提示越多，他们就能获得越个性化的版本。

That is, of course, a big benefit that we get with AI in the sense that the stories that it can generate will be unique, they will be original, and the children, the more they add their own prompts to it, the more the children will be getting personalised versions of these stories.

当然，正如我们在许多媒体报道中所听到的，这里存在严重的个人数据保护问题，尤其是一些未经审查隐私、算法公平性和安全性的商业应用。

The drawback here, of course, as we have heard in many media, the personal data protection issues are very prevalent here, especially with some commercial applications that haven't been checked for the privacy and algorithmic fairness and security aspects.

因此，我会对使用这些工具持谨慎态度，因为这可能导致儿童的数据得不到充分保护，而看到这些精美生成故事的益处，未必能抵消儿童数据被不当处理的弊端。

So I would be a bit cautious about experimenting with these tools because it may mean that, you know, children's data are not necessarily protected and the benefit of seeing these many nice generated stories is not necessarily going to outweigh the drawbacks of mishandling children's data.

另一种被用于中小学识字材料的生成式人工智能是所谓的开放式故事生成器。

The other kind of generative AI, the other kind of generative AI that's seen being used for K-twelve literacy materials are the so called open ended story generators.

这有点像睡前AI以及各种允许家庭基于非常开放的提示创作故事的应用程序。

A bit like the bedtime AI and these various applications out there where families can create stories based on really open ended suggestions.

它们也越来越多地进入学校，因为它们可用于个性化教育，能够激发儿童的幻想和想象力。

They are increasingly coming to schools too because they can be used for personalised education, they can allow children's fantasy and imagination to flourish.

这正是提供商们会告诉你的。

This is what the providers will tell you.

因此，对于教师来说，我想问题在于：我该如何在符合我的教学实践和所遵循的课程的前提下，利用这项技术？

So for the teachers, I guess the question is, okay, how can I harness this technology in alignment with my pedagogical practice and in alignment with the curriculum that I am following?

如今，学校中使用的应用程序越来越多地将设计与具体的课程目标相匹配。

So increasingly the applications that are being used in schools are actually matching the design with the specific curriculum objective.

于是，你就可以为特定学生生成符合特定课程目标的故事。

And what then happens is that you might be able to generate a story for a specific student in alignment with a specific curricular goal.

例如，如果你想教语音知识，就可以通过调整生成器中的某些提示，生成一个针对这个特定孩子的语音技能训练故事。

For example, you want to teach phonics, so you'll be able to generate a story that targets phonics skills for this specific child, you know, by essentially adjusting some prompts in the generator.

所以确实有一些有趣的使用场景，但研究人员要真正弄清楚什么方法对谁在什么条件下有效以及为什么，我们需要一些时间。

So there are some interesting use cases, but the difficulty for researchers, you would know, so that we can really establish what works for whom, under which conditions and why, we need some time.

这项技术的发展速度以及它被引入各种课程和课堂教学的速度，远远超过了研究进展，我们目前只是在努力跟上，以确定这究竟对儿童识字能力有何实际增益，或对阅读理解有何实际价值。

And the pace of developing this technology and inserting it into various sessions and classroom instruction is so much more advanced than the pace of research that we are just catching up in terms of being able to say, Okay, this is the actual added value for children's literacy, or this is what will be the added value for reading comprehension.

因此，现阶段我们作为研究人员，只能回顾一些扎实的理论和已有的元分析研究，它们告诉我们儿童数字阅读中哪些方法有效，并将这些见解应用到这些新的生成式AI工具中，从而提出一些建议：哪些方法可能有效，哪些则绝对不可取。

So all we can do at this stage is, as researchers, looking back at some solid theories, some established meta analysis that are telling us what works in children's digital reading and applying those insights to these new generative AI tools, so that we can provide some recommendations in terms of this may work and this is really not a good idea.

在我看来，这些工具能提升学生想象力、有助于某某方面的说法，似乎都基于某些理论或其他已有的研究。

It just it seems to me like the claims that this this should help with students' imagination, and this this should help with with this, that, or the other, are based on maybe theory or, you know, other research that has been done.

当然，我认为这些具体工具尚未经过实验验证。

Certainly, I don't think these specific tools have been experimentally tested.

我刚刚为我们的Patreon支持者制作了一段视频，我们首先会向他们发布。

And I just did a a an a video for, the the videos that we release for our Patreon supporters first.

然后在年底，我们会把所有视频对所有人开放。

And then at the end of the year, we make them all available, to to everybody.

我在梳理和思考基于证据的建议之间的区别——或者说不是区别，而是当我们测试某样非常具体的事物时，基于证据的建议所形成的连续统一体

Kind of talking through and thinking about the difference between evidence based recommendations and or not the difference, but sort of the continuum of evidence based recommendations when we test something very specific

嗯哼。

Mhmm.

而非单纯说，它在这个场景下管用，那在另一个场景里肯定也能用

Versus saying, well, you know, it worked in this context, so it also ought to work in in this other context.

而且我认为这个连续统一体正变得越来越重要

And I I think that that that continuum is becoming more and more important.

我觉得我们未必需要对每一款开发出来的AI应用都做实验测试，才能断言这类AI在这些场景下表现不错，那类AI不行，或者说某个AI的应用效果不大之类的结论。

I'm not sure we necessarily need to test every single AI app that ever is created experimentally in order to be able to say, you know, this type of AI works well in these scenarios and this this type doesn't or, you know, this doesn't have a very large effect or what have you.

我们不需要挨个测试所有应用，但肯定得用某种方式对这项技术展开检验。

We don't need to test every single one, but but certainly we ought to test the technology in some way.

对吧？

Right?

所以这里面需要找到一个平衡点，从研究的角度来说，就是要平衡好外部效度、生态效度，和保持内部效度的能力。

So it there's a balance between sort of the in in research terms, the external and ecological validity and, the ability to maintain internal validity.

对吧？

Right?

当然。

Absolutely.

我想补充一下你刚才说的，关于不同提供商在声称其应用或平台具有循证基础时，所依据或声称依据的研究的特异性非常重要。

And I would add to what you said, the importance of specificity of the research that different providers draw on or claim to draw on when they are saying that their app or platform is evidence based.

正如你所说，这个连续体确实存在，如果有人声称他们的工具基于某些证据，那么这些证据必须由公司外部的研究人员验证，也就是一些能够详细审查该应用具体功能并思考这些功能如何与已发表研究相关联的第三方研究人员。

Because as you say, this continuum is out there and it's extremely important that if someone claims that their tool is based on some evidence, that it has been verified by researchers who are not internal to the company but are some, you know, third party researchers who can really look in detail at the specific features of this app and think about how these features link to published studies.

比如，当我们的研究人员进行这类工作时，我们称之为基于研究的变革理论，即考察在一段时间内实现某些成果的可能性。

You know, like, when our researchers do these, we call it like research based theory of change, Like looking at what is the possibility here in terms of reaching certain outcomes over time.

因此，我们通常的做法是审查该应用，不仅要思考哪些证据应支持其功能，更要关注反面证据，对吧？

So what we often do there is to do a review of the app and think about not only the evidence that sort of should support the features, but really the counter evidence, right?

比如，实际上这个可能行不通。

Like, actually this may not work.

如果存在大量已被证明不利于学习的功能，那么将这类反馈意见融入产品中就显得尤为重要。

And if there is a prevalence of features that have been shown of not being conducive to learning, Then these kinds of feedbacks are really important to embed back into the product.

所以我认为，教师的角色在这里也变得非常重要。

So I guess this is where the teacher's role also becomes very important.

因为为了改进市场上这些工具，我们需要动员这种协作，不仅由研究人员来考察具体功能，还要获取课堂中实际发生的情况和观察结果。

Because so that we can improve these tools out there in the market, we need to mobilise this kind of collaboration of testing and evaluating not only by the researchers, you know, looking at specific features, but also getting the actual insights of what is happening in the classroom and observations.

但我要补充一点，正如你一开始所说的，我们并不想测试每一个市面上的App。

But I would caveat that with what you said at the beginning in terms of we don't want to be testing every single app that is out there.

我的意思是，市面上有成千上万个这样的应用，对吧？

I mean, there are thousands of them out there, right?

我们一直在网络中倡导的是，这些应用进入课堂之前，需要有一些最低标准和基本的质量要求，对吧？

What we've been sort of trying to advocate for within the network is that we need to have some minimal standards, minimal quality standards, before these apps come to classrooms, right?

这样就不会出现任何人随便敲门，就用宝贵的课堂教学时间来测试他们的应用，而没有经过任何初步审查。

So that it is not the case that anyone can just knock on the door and use the very precious instruction time to be testing their app without having gone through some preliminary checks.

你明白我的意思吗？

You see what I mean?

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

Absolutely.

我认为，对于正在考虑将这些技术引入学校系统或教师在课堂中使用的教育工作者或管理人员来说，这一点也很重要。

I I think it's also important for educators or administrators who are considering putting the these technologies into their school systems or teachers using them in their classrooms.

当有人说某项技术是‘基于证据的’时，它的对照组是什么？

When when someone says something is evidence based, what is the comparison group too?

对。

Right.

因为，你知道，一种鼓励学生阅读的技术可以说成是‘基于证据的’，而证据可能是阅读能提高识字能力。

Because, you know, a a technology that encourages students to read can be said to be evidence based, and the evidence could be that reading improves literacy.

这里隐含的对照组是，使用这种技术比传统的阅读教学更能促进学习。

The comparison group that is implied there is that somehow using this technology is better, produces more learning than standard reading instruction.

但你可以说，任何促进阅读的应用程序都应该像阅读本身一样提升识字能力。

But you you can say that any app that promotes reading should promote literacy just like reading would.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，显然那里可能存在差异。

I mean, obviously, there can be differences there.

它可能更好或更差，但对照组真的很重要。

It could be better or worse, but the comparison group really matters.

对。

Right.

我认为在美国，ESSR标准在促进对证据的集体理解方面取得了一些进展。

And I think in US, the ESR standards have done some good in the sense that there has been a progress in a collective understanding of evidence.

但我想，如果你考虑《每个学生都成功法案》（ESSA），那么对‘基于证据的教育技术’的理解是非常具体的，对吧？

But I suppose it's a very specific understanding of what it means to have an evidence based EdTech if you think about ESSA, right?

所以，教育技术办公室在其网站上很好地解释了这一点：在ESSA的第四级证据中，这意味着某个特定的教育技术解决方案具有逻辑模型、变革理论，并且有计划进行实证测试，已经过研究人员审核，并获得了认证标识，以便学校能更有信心地认为该解决方案基于某些研究，对吧？

So the Office of Educational Technology explains it very nicely on their website that, okay, in ESSA Tier four evidence means that, you know, this specific EdTech solution has a logic model, they have a theory of change, they have some kind of plan to be testing empirically, they have been checked by researchers, they have a badge so that the schools can be more confident that the solution is based on some research, right?

因此，它已经得到了公司外部研究团队的验证。

So it has been verified by some research groups that are external to the company.

随着公司不断推进研究，他们会开展更多研究，有些包含对照组，有些则没有，根据证据的权重或研究的严谨性，他们可以提升这些ESSR标准的级别。

And as the company is then growing their research, they will be conducting more studies, some with control groups, some without control groups, and depending on the weight of the evidence or the rigour of the study, they can be increasing the level of these ESR standards.

而且这在很大程度上是一个有争议的话题，即在教育科技领域，随机对照试验是否就是我们追求的最高黄金标准。

And as it is very much a bit of a controversial, I guess, topic in terms of is the top evidence here in RCT, is that what is the top golden standard that we aim for with EdTech technologies.

当然，根据ESSA标准，拥有经过适当随机化和高度严谨研究的随机对照试验，在美国ESSA标准下被视为最高级别的证据。

Certainly according to the ESSA standards, having an RCT with proper randomisation and a highly rigorous study, that would be considered in US standards with ESSA as the sort of top evidence.

但作为一位在不同国家工作的从业者，我可以告诉你，随机对照试验作为教育科技证据的黄金标准，并不被国际社会普遍接受。

But I can tell you, as someone who works across the different countries, the RCT notion of sort of the golden standard in EdTech evidence is not accepted across internationally.

因此，对于许多在美国以外的教室工作的教师，或者即使在美国但不遵循这种随机对照试验黄金标准模式的教师来说，他们可能更倾向于考虑效果研究、行动研究，以及更多本地化的定性证据融入模型。

So for many teachers who might be working in classrooms outside of The US, or maybe also in The US but perhaps not necessarily following this model of golden standard in terms of RCT, they may be thinking more along the lines of effectiveness studies, you know, action research, more local qualitative evidence feeding into the model.

就我个人而言，我认为这两种方式都没有错。

And personally, I don't think one or the other is wrong.

我认为，针对某一特定解决方案所做的证据越多、实证研究越多，我们对它何时有效、如何有效，以及哪些是促进因素、哪些是阻碍因素的了解就越多。

Feel that the more evidence there is, the more empirical studies have been done with a specific solution, the more knowledge we have about, you know, when it works and how it works and what are the enabling and what are the inhibiting factors.

因此，我认为各种类型的研究都应该有其空间。

So I feel there should be space for various kinds of research.

但我不确定你怎么看？

But I don't know what what do you think?

你带着自己学科背景来到这里。

You come to this with your own disciplinary background.

我同意。

I agree.

我的意思是，随机对照试验确实有很多优势。

I mean, I I certainly randomized controlled trials have a lot of benefits.

但从某些方面来说，它们也有局限性；理论上，你可以用随机对照试验研究任何问题，但实际中你做不到。

They also are restrictive in some senses about the I mean, in theory, you can ask any question with many questions with a randomized controlled trial, but in practice, you you can't.

因此，我确实认为，如果可能的话，随机对照试验能给我们通常想要知道的答案，也就是影响是否具有因果性。

And so I I definitely think that when possible, the randomized control trial is going to give us what it is that we often want to know, which is what is, you know, is is the effect causal.

但如果这意味着研究减少，它就未必总是最好的方法。

But it's not always the best if it means that there's less research.

我们必须非常谨慎，对所研究的研究类型进行批判性思考。

We just have to be really careful and, think really critically about the type of research that we're looking at.

这一点同样适用于随机对照试验。

And that goes for a randomized control trial as well.

定然有空间留给定性研究，去提出问题并获得更丰富的回答，这些回答可以用多种方式分析，同时思考每种研究方法的优缺点，并将它们结合起来，我认为这才是最佳方法。

There's definitely a place for qualitative work and asking questions and and getting more rich answers that can be analyzed in different ways and thinking about the the the benefits and the downsides of each research method and pulling those together, I think, is is the best approach.

我完全同意。

I couldn't agree more.

而这正是学习科学所关注的。

And, you know, this is what learning sciences are about.

对吧？

Right?

这种方法论多元化的理念，即我们需要为不同的研究问题采用不同的方法。

This notion of methodological plurality, that we do need to have different methods for different research questions.

而这些不同的研究问题将受到教师们不同实践的启发。

And these different research questions will be then informed by different types of practice that are coming from teachers.

因此，为我们要提出的问题选择合适的方法，这才是产生高质量研究的关键，对吧？

So selecting the right method for the question we are asking, that is what leads to a high quality study, right?

所以我完全同意你的观点。

So I totally agree with you.

比如，RCT研究是有空间的，但具体方案必须足够成熟，才能准备好接受大规模、高成本的RCT试验。

Like, there is space for RCTs, and the specific solution needs to be mature enough so that it's ready to be tested in a big, expensive RCT trial.

同时，也有必要进行其他类型的研究，以帮助我们更深入地了解这些背景因素，比如它在哪些地方有效、为什么有效等等。

And there is also space for other types of studies that can tell us more about perhaps these contextual factors, right, like where does it work and why and so on.

所以，不，我认为我们需要两者兼顾，疗效和实效共同构建出真正有效的东西。

So, no, I do think that we need a bit of both, sort of the both the efficacy and the effectiveness are together constructing what works.

如果我们能拥有更广阔的证据认知视角，我认为在不同教师群体的学校中开展测试，以及让教育科技公司重视研究，都会变得更加可行。

And the more we can have this broader vision of understanding evidence, I think the more it becomes attainable in terms of both testing in schools with various teachers groups and for the EdTech providers to care about research.

因为如果他们听说必须做大型RCT，这可能会让许多公司望而却步。

Because it can be a bit off putting, you know, if they hear that they need to do a big RCT, that might be unattainable for many of the providers out there.

我非常希望看到与产业界合作开发这些工具，而不是将它们与课堂教学的实际情境割裂开来。

And I would really like to have the notion of collaboration with the industry in developing these tools rather than separating them from what is happening in the classrooms.

我非常希望教师的声音能更深入地融入教育科技的设计与评估过程中。

I would love teachers' voices to be much more embedded in the design and in the evaluation process of EdTech.

完全同意。

Absolutely.

对于正在聆听的教师们，或者那些正在考虑多个教室或多个学区的教育管理者来说，关于人工智能，您最推荐的一条建议或首要建议是什么？

So for the teachers listening, teachers or or administrators who are thinking about multiple classrooms or maybe multiple school districts, What is your sort of best piece of advice or or top recommendation when thinking about AI?

这是一个非常宽泛的问题。

And that's a a very broad question.

它可能朝很多不同的方向展开。

It could go in lots of different directions.

但鉴于目前的研究状况和人工智能的现状，您会对那些希望利用人工智能的人，以及那些对人工智能持怀疑态度或不愿过多整合的人提出什么建议？

But given the state of the the research right now and the the state of AI right now, what what would you recommend for those who are interested in utilizing AI and maybe also for those who are skeptical about it or or or don't want to integrate it as much.

您会推荐什么？

What what would you recommend?

哇。

Wow.

这是个大问题。

That's a big question.

如果要

If it's

如果这个问题太大了，你可以只挑选其中一部分来谈。

too big of a if it's too big of a question, feel free to just take take a piece of it and go.

我一直在思考人工智能与能动性的问题。

I've been thinking a lot about AI and agency.

比如儿童的能动性、教师的能动性，以及生成式人工智能如何影响它们。

You know, like, children's agency, teachers' agency, and how is that being impacted by generative AI.

这是一个非常庞大的话题。

That is such a big topic.

我想试着把它梳理成听众能理解的内容，而不是我脑子里一团乱的想法。

I guess to sort of digest it into something that makes sense to the listeners and is not this sort of jumble of thoughts that I have in my head.

能动性是人类尊严的核心。

You know, agency is at the core of human dignity.

能动性正是让我们成为人类的东西。

Agency is what makes us humans.

但它是一把双刃剑。

And it is a two edged sword.

你可以从自我决定的角度来思考能动性，也就是意愿、选择的可能性与能力。

You can be thinking about agency in terms of self determination, you know, so the volition, the possibility and ability to make choices.

而在光谱的另一端，则是归属感与共同体。

And on the other side of the spectrum, you have belonging and togetherness.

这也属于能动性的一部分。

That too is part of agency.

生成式人工智能由于赋能了众多原本属于人类思维的过程，因此同时触及了能动性的两个方面：自我决定与归属感。

And generative AI, because it is empowering so many processes that are human thinking processes, It cuts across these two, both the self determination and the belonging part of agency.

因此，对我们所有人——不仅是教育者，还包括研究者、开发者、父母和家庭——在面对生成式人工智能技术时，非常重要的一点是：这个工具对我的能动性产生了什么影响？

So I guess what is very important for us all, not only for educators but also for researchers and developers and parents and families to consider with Gen AI technologies is: What does the tool do to my agency?

进一步说，如果我们是儿童使用这些工具的把关者，那么它对儿童的能动性又意味着什么？

And by extension, if we are the gatekeepers for children's use of these tools, what does it do for the child's agency?

我们需要认真思考自我决定的选择与集体能动性、归属他人与共同体之间的平衡。

And there to be really thinking about this balance between self determination choices versus collective agency, belonging to others togetherness.

因为我觉得，目前当人们与许多生成式人工智能的乐观派交谈时，这种平衡似乎更偏向自我决定这一端——我们正在赋能儿童，拥有高度个性化的教师，能够真正促进每个孩子的教育。

Because I feel that at the moment the balance is a bit tilted towards the self determination part when you speak to many optimists around Gen AI, right, that we are empowering children, that we have these highly personalised teachers who can be really promoting each individual child's education.

但我感觉，我们有点忽略了这个集体的部分。

But we are forgetting a little bit this collective part there, I feel.

我想我就说到这里吧，不然我会一直说个没完，梅根。

And I guess I'll stop there because otherwise, I'll be just talking forever about this, Megan.

我不知道这样说是否足够了。

I don't know whether that's sufficient to say.

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

Absolutely.

而且我猜这和你的书有关。

Well, and I bet that's related to your book.

对吧？

So right?

你写了一本书，叫《自我未来》，阐述了关于个性化学习和人工智能的这些观点。

So you wrote a book, The Future of the Self, describing these these ideas about personalized learning and and AI.

我不确定你是否愿意稍微分享一下你的书。

And I wonder if you maybe want to share a little bit about your book.

哦，是的。

Oh, yeah.

谢谢。

Thanks.

对。

Yeah.

我的观点是，能动性是一个包含自我决定与归属感的两面性谱系，书中我试图总结一些研究，这些研究谈到教育正日益加速，比如对儿童数据的收集越来越多，技术也变得更快更好，而我想提供一种不同的视角，促使我们反思这是否是正确的方向，以及我们该如何在人性的两个方面找到最佳平衡——我们确实希望实现个性化，但同时也要考虑多样性和多元化。

I mean, the idea of agency being this two sided spectrum of self determination and belonging that is described in the book where I was trying to summarise research that talks about this increasing acceleration of education, you know, like this push for more and more data on children, faster and better technologies, and trying to sort of present a different perspective on it, making us reflect on whether this is the right path to follow and what we can do in terms of finding an optimal balance between two sides of humanity, really, you know, that we want to ensure that we personalise, but at the same time we need to think about diversity and pluralisation.

所以我经常谈到个性化与多元化的平衡，因为在当前的教育体系中，往往要么走向标准化，要么走向个性化。

So I talk a lot about this PP balance, personalisation and pluralisation balance, because in the current education systems it tends to go either the standardised way or the personalised way.

而在这两者之间找到平衡，是目前生成式AI尚未做到的。

And finding a balance between the two is something that Gen AI at the moment is not doing.

它更倾向于推动个性化的议程。

It's pushing more the personalised agenda.

所以我非常好奇这一切最终会走向何方。

So I'm very curious to see where this all goes.

是的。

Yeah.

我也是。

Me too.

当然。

Absolutely.

谢谢你。

I thank you.

非常感谢你。

Thank you so much.

你还有什么想聊的或想分享的吗？

Is there is there anything else you'd like to talk about or that you'd like to share?

哦，我觉得我们已经聊得很多了。

Oh, I think we covered so much.

我也这么认为。

I I think so too.

太好了。

Wonderful.

非常感谢。

Thank you so much.

我非常喜欢这次对话。

I've enjoyed I've enjoyed this conversation, so much.

我会在节目笔记中加入你提到的儿童数字书籍的链接。

And I I will put into the show notes the links that you mentioned about, the children's digital books.

我会放上你的书《自我未来》的链接。

I will put a link to your book, The Future of the Self.

你太客气了。

That's very kind.

谢谢。

Thank you.

当然。

Absolutely.

谢谢。

Thank you.

本集由像您这样的听众资助。

This episode is funded by listeners like you.

要支持我们的工作并获取独家内容，请访问我们的Patreon页面：www.patreon.com/learningscientists。

To support our work and gain access to exclusive content, visit our Patreon page at www.patreon.com/learningscientists.