online course designers

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for learning, raising a key question: can learners remain epistemically proactive, retaining responsibility for the cognitive and regulatory activities through which learning is produced while working with AI? Because this responsibility may change as interactions unfold, we examine epistemic proactivity as a developing process. We conceptualize epistemic proactivity through self-regulated learning (SRL) moves, complemented by help-seeking strategies and manifestations of epistemic vigilance. We analyzed these behaviors in 880 substantive turns from 112 secondary-school students completing open-ended mathematical-modeling practice with a general-purpose LLM (Mistral). Overall, students showed limited observable epistemic proactivity: their interactions were strongly request-dominated, with planning, monitoring, and evaluation relatively rare, although low-quality AI responses elicited more explicit evaluation. Temporal analyses qualified this picture: explicit SRL-related moves increased modestly over the chat, but help-seeking strategies became less understanding-oriented. Crucially, these temporal trajectories in help-seeking strategies predicted their post-test performance without AI beyond pre-test and aggregate patterns: students whose requests became more understanding-oriented performed better once AI assistance was removed. Thus, while students had a limited epistemic proactivity overall, its temporal development still was a critical predictor of post-test performance without AI. These results underscore the importance of examining the temporal organization of epistemic proactivity, rather than isolated prompt types, for understanding AI-supported learning. We release our fully-anonymized dataset publicly in an OSF repository.

Abstract: The increasing availability of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools, such as ChatGPT and code-completion assistants, raises questions about how learners integrate these tools into learning activities, particularly in MOOCs that attract diverse participant populations. This study examines the use of GenAI in two programming MOOCs taught in Estonian that differ in duration, workload, topic complexity, and assignment volume: About Programming (4 weeks, 26 expected hours, n = 187) and Introduction to Programming (8 weeks, 78 expected hours, n = 182). Post-course questionnaire data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical methods to examine self-reported adoption, usage frequency, and purposes of GenAI use across courses and learner backgrounds. The results show that GenAI adoption was widespread in both MOOCs, with no statistically significant differences by gender, age, education level, or prior programming experience. However, participants in the longer, more extensive MOOC reported significantly higher usage frequency and were more likely to use GenAI for debugging and idea generation. Reported usage frequency for code explanation and debugging was also higher in the longer course. Exploratory analyses found limited relationships between GenAI use and learning-related outcomes. The findings suggest that course context may play a greater role than learner characteristics in shaping how GenAI tools are used. These results provide implications for instructional design and guidance in programming education.

Abstract: Asynchronous online learning offers temporal flexibility at a structural cost: learning communities tend to fragment rather than cohere. $β_0$, the number of disconnected behavioral clusters from Zigzag Persistent Homology, serves as a cohort-level indicator of this structure. Two questions remained unverified at scale: (1) does apparent $β_0$ convergence reflect genuine behavioral alignment or learner dropout? and (2) do assessment deadlines produce reproducible fragmentation-convergence cycles? We address both across all 22 OULAD courses (N > 22,000; 857 week-pairs). Changes in $β_0$ strongly co-vary with active learner changes (pooled r = 0.387; median per-course r_delta = 0.459, 20/22 courses), identifying $β_0$ as a participation-sensitive indicator: $β_0$ and active learner counts co-respond to deadline events rather than one causing the other. Deadlines produced fragmentation in 82.6% of assessments and the full Fragment First, Converge Later (FFCL) cycle in 60.2%. 3-phase analysis confirmed structural fragmentation as the dominant long-term trajectory (90.9% of courses), moderated by curriculum structure. These findings establish $β_0$ as a participation-sensitive structural indicator with direct implications for AI-augmented learning analytics design.

Abstract: This innovative practice full paper examines a structured Virtual Global Collaboration (VGC) activity between undergraduate computing courses in the United States and Pakistan. The project was designed to support technical and intercultural skill development through asynchronous international teamwork in data analytics and introductory machine learning. Students worked in mixed-institution teams through a six-phase project including cultural orientation, dataset selection, data cleaning, analysis, introductory machine learning, and structured reporting. Using shared computational tools, teams coordinated across time zones to complete a joint data-driven project. Survey and qualitative reflection data were analyzed to examine collaborative experience, communication and cultural dynamics, learning outcomes, perceived value, and global readiness. Results show consistently positive student experiences across both cohorts, with collaborative processes strongly associated with learning and perceived value, and cross-cultural communication emerging as the primary driver of global readiness. These findings demonstrate how short-term, structured VGC can be effectively integrated into computing courses to support both technical learning and global competence.

Abstract: Real-time classroom polling is now routine, yet the data it produces is usually read narrowly, as a correctness score or a headcount. Such readings say little about what a poll is doing within a lecture or how it shapes engagement. This is particularly relevant for short-response formats such as True/False, where the same question format can be used to test recall, check comprehension, or direct students' attention to a deliberately misleading statement. This study asks whether a poll's answer and instructional function can be determined by reading it against its lecture transcript, what cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy and instructional-function clusters the corpus contains, and how student engagement relates to answering correctly. We analyse a naturalistic corpus of 47 live sessions over 39 days, comprising 604 poll questions and 340,668 responses from 2,807 learners, most items True/False, read against time-aligned lecture transcripts and attendance. Reading each poll in context proves essential: the answer to 89% of polls is locatable in the lecture, and a recurring attention-checking device is visible only through context. Questioning is overwhelmingly lower-order and falls into seven instructional functions, and a poll's response follows its function rather than its wording. Engagement is broad but concentrated, and the class majority answers correctly 88.5% of the time, though a small set of high-consensus yet incorrect answers cannot be detected by agreement alone. An independent survey of 579 students agrees on what the polls are and on their participation, but reveals a gap between perception and reality: students cannot judge their own correctness, and the polls they find hardest are not those they answer worst.

Abstract: The public visibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is growing rapidly, driven by the positive impact of its applications across diverse fields of knowledge. In this new chapter, courses that cover the foundations of AI and machine learning become essential for understanding their role and potential in contemporary society. Therefore, understanding fundamental concepts and elementary algorithms through the close integration of theory with practice is essential in AI courses. In this essay, we report our experience designing machine learning exercises for automated assessment tools in programming. It is worth mentioning that we are not developing a novel form of automated grading system. Instead, we propose a perspective that frames machine learning problems as input-output assessment tasks. From this perspective, each exercise admits a unique and deterministic answer and enables automated programming assessment tools (e.g., VPL for Moodle, Codeforces, and MOJ) to effectively support AI education. We believe this essay can encourage instructors to foster educational innovation by adopting more dynamic and interactive approaches to AI courses that integrate theory and practice. Importantly, this essay does not introduce an innovation in the use of AI for education; rather, it introduces an innovative approach to improving the learning of AI, particularly, machine learning.

Abstract: Generative AI can improve students' programming performance, but successful task completion may not reflect what they retain. We examined performance, retention, cognitive load, and ownership in a controlled between-subjects experiment with 59 undergraduate computer science students, 55 were retained for analysis. Participants completed three introductory C programming tasks with access to ChatGPT-4.5 or conventional web search without generative AI. We measured task performance, self-reported mental effort and difficulty, pupillary responses, heart rate variability, and ownership, and assessed cued recall immediately and 48 hours later. ChatGPT-assisted students achieved higher coding scores (89% vs. 69%) but lower recall scores immediately (41% vs. 53%) and after 48 hours (39% vs. 52%). There was no significant difference in the loss of recall information over 48 hours between the groups. Self-reported mental effort increased less across tasks in the ChatGPT condition (Holm-adjusted p = .047), and students attributed less of the submitted code to themselves (45% vs. 81%). Confirmatory physiological tests did not detect significant differences in trajectories between conditions; substantial data loss limits their interpretation. These findings reveal a gap between assisted task performance and subsequent recall and sense of ownership in this setting. They motivate the need for assessment practices and AI learning tools that require students to explain, retrieve, and contribute to the work they submit as active participants in their education.