research article on teaching method

• Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
• Research Methods
• Research Topics

Tools, Frameworks, and Approaches for Enhancing Research Methods Teaching

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Teaching research methods courses to undergraduates and postgraduate students across a range of disciplinary and pedagogic contexts highlights the importance of improving the quality of teaching the subject. Such pedagogic enhancements are expected to facilitate a richer student research experience by ...

Keywords : Research methods teaching, research methodology

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines, participating journals.

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Education research to the rescue

The new faculty workshop, today’s faculty are different, how do we teach teachers, introducing the faculty teaching institute.

• FTI long-term goals

Our hopes for physics faculty

Embracing interactive teaching methods.

• Open the PDF for in another window
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Stephanie Chasteen , Edward Prather , Rachel Scherr; Embracing interactive teaching methods. Physics Today 1 April 2024; 77 (4): 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.bsuj.pghf

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

If you teach, you may remember your first time in front of a classroom. You were probably nervous, wondering whether you had planned a good lesson and the students would like both it and you. You may have been excited to light up a set of fresh faces with your favorite topics or demonstrations. Whether that first day was yesterday or 20 years ago, you probably thought deeply about what to teach and how best to convey it to your students. But teaching physics now is not the same as it was 20 years ago.

Lecturing has been the predominant mode of instruction since the birth of universities, but those norms have changed. Modern physics classes often use methods that more actively engage learners. For example, to give students the opportunity to work through the meaning of physical ideas, an instructor might ask them to predict the outcome of a demonstration and talk through their reasoning with a neighbor, all before doing the demonstration itself.

JASON KEISLING

Such beneficial teaching changes are largely due to the efforts of physics and astronomy education research (PAER) and the professional societies that have helped spread PAER-inspired instructional strategies and curricula. In addition to improving student education, the increased use of active learning in the classroom has also created a need for faculty to develop their knowledge and skills. The three of us and a collaborative team of PAER experts over several decades have been putting together professional development workshops for college faculty, which have helped to drive the increased use of active teaching and learning in higher education.

Luckily for today’s new (and not so new) faculty, we know how to teach physics and astronomy more effectively than we used to. A broad set of research has demonstrated the value of active learning and interactive engagement—educational techniques that go beyond lectures.

Active learning can narrow achievement gaps. For example, a meta-analysis of 225 studies found that students in traditional lecture classes were 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in active-learning classes. 1 The researchers also found that student learning, as measured by conceptual assessments, increased by half of a standard deviation in active-learning classes, and those results held across all STEM disciplines and all class sizes. Another meta-analysis of 15 studies found that a high use of active learning significantly reduced gaps between students from underrepresented and overrepresented groups (as determined by using race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as a proxy for underrepresentation). Active learning also reduced gaps in examination scores by 33% and in passing rates by 45%. 2  

A wellspring of results from PAER has informed our understanding of effective teaching and learning of physics and astronomy since the 1980s. 3 That work has also given rise to many PAER-informed instructional methods and curricula that can be used to teach physics concepts and skills: tutorials, ranking tasks, tasks inspired by physics education research, peer instruction, interactive lecture demonstrations, and investigative science learning environments. Details about those and other teaching methods can be found at PhysPort ( https://www.physport.org ).

In addition to improved comprehension, increased engagement in the classroom has also been shown to increase equity in physics. For example, Joshua Von Korff and coauthors reviewed the results of two common force-and-motion conceptual assessments taken between 1995 and 2014. They found that across 72 studies covering 600 classes, active-learning methods were significantly more likely to show high learning gains than lecture-based ones. 4 Moreover, those results held across two-year colleges, liberal arts colleges, research universities, and different class sizes. Active learning also led to greater learning for students at varying levels of incoming preparation, measured by either SAT scores or precourse conceptual-understanding assessments.

How can physics faculty get up to speed on implementing active-learning techniques? Most new physics faculty need explicit instruction on how to teach effectively. Some have never seen active learning in practice. Creating a productive class, especially an active-learning one, is not trivial. We also know that many student populations, such as first-generation students and historically underrepresented groups, too often leave STEM because of the negative experiences they have in their introductory classes. 5 To intentionally design college physics and astronomy classes that maximize student learning and promote a sense of belonging, we need professional development experiences that can help physics faculty evolve their teaching.

Our professional societies have long sought to support faculty as effective teachers to help the physics and astronomy disciplines thrive. Since 1996 the flagship program to introduce new physics faculty to research-based teaching has been the annual Workshop for New Physics and Astronomy Faculty, affectionately known as the New Faculty Workshop, or the NFW. Three societies—the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Physical Society, and the American Astronomical Society—partnered to offer the four-day workshop.

From 1996 through 2022, the NFW introduced participants to the primary findings of PAER and various PAER-based instructional materials and strategies. PAER curriculum developers and researchers presented sessions on their instructional methods at each NFW. The workshop’s primary goal was to reach a significant fraction of the physics and astronomy tenure-track faculty, thus broadening the use and uptake of PAER techniques.

Faculty Teaching Institute workshop participants share their hopes and plans for teaching improvement over the next year. The look-forward exercise occurs on the final day. Check-ins with the participants will continue over the next year to support implementation of their plans.

HALEIGH MACHOST

The NFW boasts 2900 alumni from 85% of all physics-degree-granting institutions and about 40% of physics and astronomy new faculty hires in the US. The endorsement of the NFW—and the current Faculty Teaching Institute—by professional societies conveys that our physics community encourages thinking about teaching as a scholarly activity and promotes the use of active-learning techniques. The explicit focus on physics and astronomy teaching ensures that we provide applicable advice and examples that respond to the needs of physics and astronomy teachers, which increases the likelihood that they bring innovations to their classes.

The goal of the early NFW events was to persuade faculty to try active learning in their classroom. When community leaders first developed the NFW, PAER was a relatively new field. Academia changes slowly because of the decentralized nature of higher learning and because new scholarship takes a long time to establish and gain broad credibility. Therefore, more physics faculty were unfamiliar with or skeptical of research-based teaching approaches. Part of the job of the NFW was to establish the value and credibility of PAER-developed instructional strategies and materials, including the benefits to students.

To achieve that goal, organizers arranged the NFW as a series of approximately 25 presentations, each led by an expert in a particular instructional method. The presenters spent significant time sharing evidence of improved student learning, explaining how their instructional methods intellectually engaged students and improved their learning, and modeling best practices for use in the classroom. The featured methods had well-established instructor materials and clear guidelines on implementation. Because the presentations were standalone, the parade of presenters gave participants a broad view of key developments in physics teaching.

The workshops were eye-opening for many faculty, a majority of whom then experimented with the methods in their classes. Participants reported increased knowledge of and motivation to use active learning. 6 , 7  

One year after the workshop, almost all participants surveyed across multiple years reported using more active learning than before the workshop, and 87% said they used at least one published PAER technique. Additionally, 96% reported changing their teaching after the NFW and attributed at least some of that to their workshop attendance. 6 Even more compelling, a large regression study found that attendance at the NFW was the best predictor of whether a faculty member would try a published PAER teaching practice. 8 Thus the NFW has been crucial in setting teaching norms and establishing a common knowledge base among physics faculty.

The NFW did have shortcomings, however, and attendance didn’t necessarily lead to long-term use of its promoted strategies. 8 Alumni often reported feeling unable to use the strategies well. 7 And, troublingly, some participants reported feeling disempowered by the NFW, as though the organizers were explicitly telling them how to teach. 9 We’ve since realized that trying to persuade faculty to use active learning isn’t what they actually need. Professional development must be faculty centered, attending to and informed by educators’ existing knowledge and interests.

New physics faculty are coming into the profession with markedly different beliefs and experiences than 20 years ago, and we realized that the NFW was no longer well aligned with the needs and expectations of that population. Evaluation results from 442 participants who attended a workshop between 2015 and 2018 showed that only 18% were unaware of the teaching methods presented in the NFW, and 80% had already tried at least one PAER teaching technique. 7 Such increased awareness holds true beyond the NFW: A 2019 survey of new and experienced physics faculty found that 87% reported using at least one published PAER technique, and most spend at least 30% of class time on active learning. 10  

New physics and astronomy faculty today have come of age in a different culture of teaching. Research-based instructional strategies are a more accepted part of the academic lexicon than they used to be. Terms like “physics education research,” “active learning,” and “learner-centered instruction” are no longer unfamiliar to faculty. The favorable climate for using learner-centered teaching has helped new faculty take up—and continue to use—PAER teaching techniques. In the past, 30% of faculty who tried published PAER methods stopped using them; now only 5% stop. 10  

Active learning at work. Physics and astronomy educators collaborate on a small-group activity during the June 2023 Faculty Teaching Institute workshop. They then consider how they can use the same technique with their students.

MARILYNE STAINS

In light of that, it’s no longer appropriate to view new faculty as skeptical novices. They aren’t starting from scratch. They have existing experiences and beliefs that can be built on in a professional development learning environment—just like the one we are teaching them to create for their physics classes. As one faculty participant told us on a postworkshop survey, “We get it, we want it, so GIVE IT TO US.”

What faculty need is to engage in experiences that help them develop their confidence and skills as educators. While new physics faculty are generally eager to use active learning, they are still in the first few years of their career. As such, they have little experience with what it takes to create an efficient and effective class. Professional development workshops are one tool for faculty support, and we now know more about how to set up faculty for success. We know that professional development can be powerful if it is discipline specific and of sufficient duration. We also know more about how to design the workshop experience.

First, faculty need (and want) good knowledge about teaching. They need an organized mental framework to guide their teaching decisions—just as our students need an organized set of ideas about physics. Faculty also need to know that all students can learn physics; they need to understand issues of equity and inclusion in the classroom.

But people need more than motivation and knowledge to adopt a new behavior—they need to feel empowered to act. People are much more likely to take up behaviors that they choose and that they feel are achievable. Therefore, the workshop needs to help faculty cultivate a sense of ownership and autonomy over their teaching, make sense of their class outcomes, and still maintain their creative control. We need to set up new physics faculty as lifelong learners.

A key part of that is supporting faculty as reflective practitioners. All learning—academic, professional, and personal—is supported best by reflecting on one’s progress and improving for the future. Faculty are learners engaged in a continuous cycle of teaching development: trying something, gathering feedback, reflecting on their experience, seeking input and knowledge, and deciding on future changes that better meet their goals and address students’ needs. It is, after all, the same process as developing scientific knowledge through research. Thus helping faculty learn to perceive and respond to student learning needs, including equity issues in teaching, is a vital goal.

Another important goal is to instill faculty with a growth mindset around teaching and a willingness to learn. When educators see teaching as a continuous journey of learning and growth, they can become resilient in the face of inevitable challenges.

Additionally, new faculty are in the early stages of professional careers. Teaching support should occur in the context of the larger faculty role: It should address the whole faculty member, help them navigate common issues, connect with other faculty and professional societies, and develop resilience. Now that we are equipped with that new knowledge, we are reenvisioning physics and astronomy faculty development to better meet the current moment.

To meet the changing norms of the physics community, in 2022 the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Physical Society, and the American Astronomical Society, with generous support from NSF, have engaged in a strategic redesign of the NFW that is focused on the needs of today’s faculty. We have rebranded the workshop as the Physics and Astronomy Faculty Teaching Institute (FTI; www.physport.org/FTI ). The new name better represents the comprehensive nature of the workshop and professional development experience while allowing room for the project to expand beyond tenure-track, early-career faculty.

The workshop experience of the FTI is collaboratively developed and led by the three of us and facilitated by a set of roughly five diverse and experienced physics and astronomy education practitioners and researchers. The team approach offers a more coherent experience than was possible in the old parade-of-presenters model. We developed the FTI around a set of design principles, which can be found at PhysPort ( https://www.physport.org/FTI/About.cfm ). One such principle is that “workshop delivery is respectful and participant-centered.” The FTI instruction emphasizes that learners, including faculty, construct their knowledge based on their existing needs.

Different assessment techniques to evaluate student progress can be used inside or outside the classroom. Faculty are challenged to sort the techniques (displayed on pieces of paper) by where best to use them.

In the current design, the FTI offers a four-day, coherent interactive workshop focused on learner-centered education in an equity, diversity, and inclusion framework. Rather than persuading faculty to use student-centered instruction, the FTI aims to build faculty’s agency to make their own well-informed teaching changes. It does that by providing them with a firm grounding in the principles of teaching and learning, engaging them in transformative experiences that offer deep insight into real-world student experiences, and encouraging reflection on their teaching. The FTI’s long-term goals for physics and astronomy faculty are summarized in box 1 .

As a result of our Faculty Teaching Institute workshops, physics and astronomy faculty will

Value and use student-centered and reflective practices , and consider excellent teaching and learning to be a shared responsibility within departments.

Demonstrate awareness and practices that support diversity, equity, and inclusion , with particular attention to marginalized groups.

Connect to a supportive disciplinary community that is engaged in helping and empowering one another to evolve their approach to student-centered teaching as lifelong learners.

Be empowered to navigate a fulfilling academic career , achieving a rewarding balance among teaching, service, and research commitments.

https://www.physport.org/FTI/About.cfm

Participants at the FTI are introduced to a wide array of effective teaching methods and assessment. That coherent “big tent” approach is a significant shift away from the previous model of featuring siloed sessions narrowly focused on specific PAER methods. Those specific methods, however, still appear as exemplars of generalized strategies.

The FTI also offers extensive postworkshop opportunities, including a newsletter, virtual office hours, and a yearlong faculty learning community.

Being a faculty member involves more than just teaching. The FTI aims to discuss how teaching is evaluated, how the tenure process works, what learning to prioritize, and how faculty members identify themselves. For example, we urge participants not to overprepare for teaching and to say no to requests that don’t meet their career goals. The FTI workshop treats faculty as people with multiple responsibilities rather than focusing on teaching as yet another task to do perfectly. As our collaborator Laurie McNeil urges our faculty, they should “do their very goodest.”

To help faculty engage all of their students, the FTI addresses equity and inclusion throughout the workshop. Faculty begin by reflecting on how their identities and lived experiences shape their teaching interactions. Those reflections are greatly enriched by the diversity of the FTI participants. Students with a wide range of lived experiences engage in courses differently, so specific teaching practices and structures can be used to support them. The workshop helps faculty adjust their teaching for students at risk of feeling disconnected and educates them on historic harms from schooling or science that students may have experienced.

The workshop content is tied together through a set of principles of teaching and learning that aid faculty in selecting thoughtful strategies and using them well. Those principles give a shorthand for understanding why different teaching techniques are effective and help educators make informed choices for their classroom. The principles, along with some example prompts, are presented in box 2 .

To further support faculty adaptation, the FTI offers multiple options for achieving any particular goal, such as supporting students’ sense of belonging. The workshop emphasizes practical tips and dedicates time for working in small collaborative groups, engaging in deep discussions, journaling, and developing a sense of community with their fellow participants. Those discussions and writings culminate in each participant developing a concrete action plan to guide their learner-centered teaching experiment over the next year. Participants are regularly reminded of their action plan during the subsequent year and supported in achieving it through postworkshop engagement opportunities that are organized by the FTI.

Overall, we intend for the FTI to support participants in becoming thoughtful, effective teachers who feel empowered to select and use techniques to create learner-centered classrooms and have a fulfilling teaching career. The redesigned workshop was offered twice in 2023 with positive results. Postworkshop evaluations showed that participants reported gains in knowledge, skill, and motivation to use student-centered practices, and 92% would recommend the workshop to a colleague.

Participants appreciated the practical and relevant content, the deliberate modeling of the teaching techniques, and the extensive collection of resources. As one participant shared, “I thought it was a great experience …. It was helpful to see what others were doing and to feel like I was part of a larger community who had the same struggles as me.” Another said, “I knew there were better ways to teach before the FTI, so [I]had good motivation but little idea on where to start. The FTI provided that, and gives me much more confidence that I can improve my teaching using the tools provided.”

Participants also appreciated the use of action planning, and all intended to carry out their action plan. “I appreciated having plenty of time to work on [my action plan] each day, which encouraged me to take it more seriously,” one participant said. “I think there was sufficient time and structure to make use of it, and I appreciated how the facilitators emphasized keeping plans small and manageable.”

As reflective teachers ourselves, we also learned many ways to better attend to the needs of our new faculty learners, such as improving pacing, ensuring that journal prompts are meaningful, and carefully building the action plan throughout the workshop.

Teaching physics and astronomy matters. It matters for us, for our students, and for our institutions. It has ramifications beyond what we directly influence. That is partly why new professors are nervous: They are educating the next generation about how physicists and astronomers think about the world. The FTI and the professional societies that support us are committed to helping all physics and astronomy teachers flourish. We want faculty members to experience the joy of being a great teacher and reaching students. Our hope is that by equipping them with foundational knowledge, skills, and mindsets, they will be empowered to go back to their home institutions and create effective and inclusive classrooms that are welcoming and intellectually stimulating.

Stephanie Chasteen runs Chasteen Educational Consulting. She worked on the New Faculty Workshop (NFW) programs as an evaluator from 2015 to 2022 and then on the Faculty Teaching Institute (FTI) as colead designer with Edward Prather . In 2006 Prather began leading the NFW, and he has been coleading the FTI with Chasteen since its inception in 2022. He is also an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson. In 2020 Rachel Scherr , an assistant professor of physics at the University of Washington Bothell, was an NFW facilitator from 2020 to 2022 and in 2022 became the newest FTI colead designer.

Citing articles via

• Online ISSN 1945-0699
• Print ISSN 0031-9228
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

A shift towards oration: teaching philosophy in the age of large language models

• Original Research
• Published: 08 April 2024

Cite this article

• Ryan Lemasters   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7698-9319 1 &
• Clint Hurshman 1  

This paper proposes a reevaluation of assessment methods in philosophy higher education, advocating for a shift away from traditional written assessments towards oral evaluation. Drawing attention to the rising ethical concerns surrounding large language models (LLMs), we argue that a renewed focus on oral skills within philosophical pedagogy is both imperative and underexplored. This paper offers a case for redirecting attention to the neglected realm of oral evaluation, asserting that it holds significant promise for fostering students with some of our traditional academic values that we want to maintain. We identify implications of this shift in emphasis which situates our discipline to contribute positively to solving some of the most pressing socio-political issues. Additionally, our proposal aims to demonstrate how philosophy can solidify its relevancy to the twenty-first century student and academy more broadly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Critics have pointed out that writing produced by LLMs is often shallow, and that it struggles to produce sustained chains of reasoning without repeating or contradicting itself; as a result, one might worry that these concerns of educators overestimate their abilities. However, LLMs can be a crutch for students, particularly in introductory courses, without producing particular “good” writing or argumentation; it’s sufficient that the outputs of LLMs are often difficult to distinguish from B- or even C-level writing. This much is demonstrated by the fact that 43% of college students say they have used LLMs like ChatGPT, and 22% admit to having used them on assignments [ 35 ].

For example, Julia Staffel [ 31 ] suggests that there may be some value to incorporating LLMs (such as ChatGPT) into the classroom. Teaching Philosophy in a World with ChatGPT—Daily Nous. In addition, see. Additionally, see Cassie Finley [ 10 ] “Incorporating ChatGPT in Philosophy Classes.”.

While our primary emphasis is on philosophy, we assert that our arguments are relevant to a wider range of humanities instruction.

See Plato’s Protagoras. In this dialogue, the methodological differences between a philosopher and a sophist are apparent.

At least, for certain types of thinking. Other modalities include thinking via images, which, as Alshanetsky points out, may be more predominant for neurodivergent people. The point is that much of our thought depends on language in this way.

For our purposes, it’s not necessary that this be an occurrent conscious state, but if one understands an object, she should be capable of becoming consciously aware of the object and its connection to other objects of understanding. One can understand the causes of the American Revolution even when she’s not thinking about it, if the information is somewhere “in her head.” However, as we argue below, it’s less plausible that she understands the American Revolution if all the relevant information is stored in a scaffold, even if she can easily access it. In this sense, understanding resists offloading onto scaffolds.

Fyfe [ 14 ] presents the results of an experiment in which he asked students to write with GPT-2. Some of his students reported that the LLM helped them to articulate thoughts that they already but were struggling to express. As Fyfe points out, this suggests a question: “But how can a student recognize the untrained outputs from a language model as their own ideas?” (6). While Fyfe argues that writing with LLMs may have other forms of pedagogical value, he doesn’t directly answer this question. Given the constitutive role that language plays in (some types of) thought, as pointed out by Alshanetsky, we are skeptical that ideas articulated by LLMs can generally be called the user’s own.

Insofar as conversation is an essentially cooperative activity, it follows that one cannot have a genuine conversation with an LLM, since (we assume) it lacks agency. An LLM can simulate a conversation, but a proper conversation requires agency on both sides.

This is currently the standard view. However, some may disagree, but we argue that this stance is susceptible to the Eliza effect.

Other examples can be found in Carr 2014. Carr elucidates the implications of automation, focusing on computers and software, as well as the human ramifications stemming from these technologies. Put simply, Carr shows why we should be worried about overusing technology.

We are greatly indebted to Damian Fisher for helping us with the content in the next few paragraphs.

An additional problem concerns”hallucinations” which refers to the false information generated by LLMs.

Julia Staffel [ 31 ] claims that LLM’s are currently bad at counter factual reasoning and justifying its output, among other things.

We doubt that LLMs will completely replace writing. At the most extreme, writing could be comparable to music. For example, if an AI can play the guitar better than a human, a human will still find the merits of playing the guitar because it’s the act of playing in and of itself that makes the act worthwhile, not necessarily the outcome. So, if an LLM can produce better writing, there will still be people that write for the act itself.

This is not always the case; for example, if one’s speech is recorded, then it may be heard by an indeterminate audience. We ignore such cases for the present paper.

For an informative paper on AI and practical wisdom see Ruth Groff and John Symons’ “Is AI Capable of Aristotelian Full Moral Virtue? The Rational Power of phronesis, Machine Learning and Regularity” in Artificial Dispositions: Investigating Ethical and Metaphysical Issues, William A. Bauer and Anna Marmodoro (Editors) Bloomsbury Press. See also John P. Sullins [ 32 ]”Artificial Phronesis” in Science , Technology, and Virtues: Contemporary Perspectives for an alternative interpretation.

The primary goal of outreach in philosophy, from the perspective of the discipline's relevance, should include acquiring more students. However, it's important to note that this isn't the sole aim. The goals of outreach may vary from the perspectives of both professors and students, leaving room for additional objectives beyond student acquisition.

While we touch on certain avenues for philosophical outreach, the matter is multifaceted and exceeds the scope of this paper. Explicitly delineating and integrating this territory into pedagogy holds merit. However, one may question whether a focus on practicality risks sacrificing essential philosophical depth. Given the sustained threat of philosophy departments being cut in higher education, the benefits likely outweigh the risks. The familiar concerns about the dangers of seeking "relevance" obtain here. (We thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to this latter point).

See the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics: About Ethics Bowl/APPE IEB®—Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (appe-ethics.org).

See the following three websites for a more elaborate description of the fishbowl technique: Fishbowl Discussion Teaching Strategy | Facing History & Ourselves; How to Implement the Fishbowl Teaching Strategy in Your Classroom—The Edvocate (theedadvocate.org); Fishbowl Discussion (classroom) (wisc.edu).

See [ 14 ]. Although the primary focus of this article is on the ways that LLMs trouble our concept of’cheating’ or’plagiarism’, the article addresses many of the themes in our paper, including authenticity and creativity.

Alshanetsky (2019) https://global.oup.com/academic/product/articulating-a-thought-9780198785880?cc=us&lang=en

Alshanetsky (2020) https://aeon.co/essays/what-comes-first-ideas-or-words-the-paradox-of-articulation

Aristotle. Trans by Irwin, T. Nicomachean ethics (2 nd edition). Hacket Publishing Company.

Carr N (2015) The glass cage: how our computers are changing us . W. W, Norton and Company.

Clark, A., Chalmers, D.: The extended mind. analysis 58 (1), 7–19 (1998)

Google Scholar  

Coeckelbergh, M., & Gunkel, D. (2023). ChatGPT: deconstructing the debate and moving it forward. AI & Society .

Cooper, Z. [@ZaneGTCooper]. (2023, January 18). Yes, this is very historically accurate and useful and should definitely be used in classrooms. This is my convo with [Image attached]

Timmo, D.. “Fishbowl Discussion (Classroom).” Fishbowl discussion (classroom). Accessed October 4, 2023. https://kb.wisc.edu/instructional-resources/page.php?id=104085 .

[Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/ZaneGTCooper/status/1615577714836275200?s=20

Finley, C. (2023). Incorporating ChatGPT in Philosophy Classes. PLATO . https://www.plato-philosophy.org/incorporating-chatgpt-in-philosophy-classes/

“Fishbowl.” Facing History & Ourselves. Accessed October 4, 2023. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/fishbowl .

Floridi, L.: AI as Agency Without Intelligence: On ChatGPT, Large Language Models, and Other Generative Models. Philosophy & Technology (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4358789

Article   Google Scholar  

Forster, E. M. (2023). Aspects of the Novel . Project Gutenberg. (Original work published 1927). https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70492/pg70492-images.html

Fyfe, P. (2022). How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & Society .

Grayling, A.C. (2019). A history of philosophy . Penguin Press.

Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Davidson, D., Harman, G. (eds.) The Logic of Grammar, pp. 64–75. Dickenson (1975)

Grimm, S. (2021). Understanding. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/understanding/

Griswold, C. (2020). Plato on rhetoric and poetry. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/plato-rhetoric/

Groff, R. & Symons, J. (Forthcoming). “Is AI Capable of Aristotelian Full Moral Virtue? The Rational Power of phronesis, Machine Learning and Regularity” in Artificial Dispositions: Investigating Ethical and Metaphysical Issues. William A. Bauer and Anna Marmodoro (Editors). Bloomsbury.

Guerrero, A. (2023b, June 27). The Fourth Branch (guest post) - Daily Nous. Daily Nous - news for & about the philosophy profession . https://dailynous.com/2023/06/27/the-fourth-branch-guest-post/

Heersmink, R. (2016). The internet, cognitive enhancement, and the values of cognition.  Minds and Machines ,  26 , 389–407.Kasirzadeh, A., & Gabriel, I. (2023). In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human values.  Philosophy & Technology ,  36 (2), 1–24.

Lynch, B. (Host). (2023). ChatGPT didn’t write this podcast (No. 44) [Audio podcast episode]. In When Experts Attack . Kansas Public Radio. https://kansaspublicradio.org/podcast/when-experts-attack/2023-04-05/when-experts-attack-44-chatgpt-didnt-write-this-podcast

Lynch, M. “How to Implement the Fishbowl Teaching Strategy in Your Classroom.” The Edvocate, January 4, 2022. https://www.theedadvocate.org/how-to-implement-the-fishbowl-teaching-strategy-in-your-classroom/ .

Mercier, H., Sperber, D.: Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences 34 (2), 57–74 (2011)

Mercier, H., Sperber, D.: The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press (2017)

Book   Google Scholar  

Nyholm, S. (2023): This is technology ethics: An Introduction . Wiley-Blackwell.

Plato. (1986). Phaedrus (Rowe, C. J., trans). Aris and Phillips.

Plato. (2013). Protagoras (Jowett, B. trans). Retrieved from Project Gutenberg.

Rapp, B., Fischer-Baum, S., Miozzo, M.: Modality and Morphology: What We Write May Not Be What We Say. Psychol. Sci. 26 (6), 892–902 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615573520

Saul, J.: Dogwhistles, political manipulation, and philosophy of language. New work on speech acts 360 , 84 (2018)

Staffel, J. (2023). ChatGPT and its impact on teaching philosophy and other subjects . [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkjVkfU9Gro .

Sullins, S. (2021). Artificial phronesis: What ir is and what it is not*”. In Science, Technology, & Virtues: Contemporary Perspectives by Emanuele, R. and Stapleford, T.A. (ed). Oxford University Press.

Vallor, S. (2016).  Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting . Oxford University Press.

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30.

Welding, L. (2023, March 17). Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism . BestColleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/

Winner, L. (1983). Technologies as forms of life. In Cohen, R. S., Wartofsky, M. W. (Eds.), Epistemology, methodology, and the social sciences . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1458-7_10

Zagzebski, L.: Recovering understanding. In: Steup, M. (ed.) Knowledge, truth, and duty: Essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue, pp. 235–256. Oxford University Press (2001)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy, University of Kansas, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

Ryan Lemasters & Clint Hurshman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Lemasters .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lemasters, R., Hurshman, C. A shift towards oration: teaching philosophy in the age of large language models. AI Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00455-0

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2023

Accepted : 29 February 2024

Published : 08 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00455-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Large language models
• Teaching philosophy
• Philosophy of technology
• Ethics of technology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Our Mission

Creating Cohesion Among Teaching Teams

Administrators can rely on research-based methods to better understand educators who are resistant to change.

For teaching teams to be effective in their instructional innovation , they must strive to be cohesive . This includes learning to engage with colleagues who have differing perspectives. The term cohesive is derived from “cohesion,” which means to stick or hold together firmly. In this context, cohesive teaching teams unite to collaborate effectively on their school’s instructional goals and objectives.

Team cohesion is difficult to achieve in schools where some colleagues resist or oppose all proposed changes. Lack of consensus among colleagues can disrupt the organizational culture and climate and seriously impede instructional innovation efforts. When coaching teams, many ask if getting everyone to embrace change and the discomfort required for instructional innovation is genuinely possible.

Research indicates that achieving group consensus is possible but requires a nuanced understanding of intrinsic motivation and what influences it, such as collective teacher efficacy and cultural dynamics.

Fostering Collective Teacher Efficacy

Here’s why I believe team cohesion is possible. Good practice has been studied enough for educators to seek out the practices with the most promise in their school context. Researcher John Hattie’s work shows that collective teacher efficacy (CTE) has a substantial impact on student success and positive school culture.

Efficacy is both the drive, and the belief in one’s ability, to produce a desired effect. If the collective desired effect became creating strong team cohesion to ensure their students’ success, teaching teams could eventually achieve it with time and adherence to sound practice.

Based on the strong effects of CTE, it can be a critical step in building a cohesive team. The same could be said about the effect of CTE on other desired team objectives—such as improving access to opportunities for needy students and improving reading comprehension in specific grade levels.

Fostering a Supportive Environment

Supporting cohesive teaching teams requires a deep understanding of organizational culture. Professor Kent D. Peterson asserts that school culture pertains to shared values, agreements, and beliefs along with everyday norms and behaviors that make up the school’s persona.

A school’s informal culture is another critical component to consider. In Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division , Anthony Muhammad discusses how ”fundamentalists” are colleagues who resist and oppose change initiatives in the informal school culture, thereby undermining the formal school culture.

Organizational theorists agree that every organization has both a formal and informal structure. The formal organization consists of the organization’s official arms. The informal organization consists of all covert alliances that develop as a result of interaction in the formal organization. These alliances are not officially sanctioned, and their members create their goals, so they are only governed by those who participate. They have no formal rules. An informal alliance’s goals are generally not in alignment with those of the formal organization, which often makes the informal organization a threat to the formal organization’s productivity and longevity (Pyöriä, 2007). Fundamentalists work very effectively in the informal organization.

Many resistant colleagues hold organizational power and, if left unchecked, are a significant roadblock to meaningful transformation in schools. It’s therefore important to understand the underlying causes of their intrinsic motivations.

Understanding Resistant Colleagues

To gain deeper insight into why some of our colleagues resist transformation efforts, school teams can delve into the role that perceptions and self-efficacy play in shaping intrinsic motivation. Understanding the underlying factors causing their behaviors lays the groundwork for fostering team cohesion and developing meaningful working agreements around collaboration and navigating conflict.

Exploring connections: Perceptions and self-efficacy. Intrinsic motivation drives individuals to engage in activities for satisfaction and enjoyment rather than external rewards. Perceptions refer to teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about their students, teaching practices, and school environment. They are the lens through which teachers find meaning and navigate their teaching role—impacting their instructional decisions and the dynamics of their classroom environment.

For example, your school’s teaching team begins an initiative to implement instructional rounds and wants to build trust and cohesiveness with the teaching staff. Here are two sample survey questions that teaching teams can adapt to gain perspective on perceptions.

• I perceive instructional rounds as a supportive process rather than an evaluative one.
• I believe instructional rounds can be a valuable addition to our school’s efforts to improve learning outcomes.

Psychologist Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory suggests that people’s confidence in their abilities can significantly impact their internal motivation and good decision-making skills. Individuals with higher self-efficacy levels tend to experience less stress and learn to cultivate a positive outlook.

Here are two sample survey questions that teaching teams can adapt to gain perspective on self-efficacy beliefs.

• I feel confident in my ability to participate effectively in instructional rounds.
• I am open to participating in instructional rounds as a means of professional development.

Using ChatGPT, I developed a sample Instructional Rounds Beliefs Survey . (To the best of my ability, I edited the items to remove inaccurate material.) Teams can adapt it for specific professional development (PD) interventions.

Since both perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs significantly impact motivation and how people behave, researchers survey both aspects to better understand study participants’ actions and behaviors. In the context of instructional innovation, teaching teams act as both practitioners and researchers driven to understand and enhance behavior and team collaboration.

Through this dual lens, teaching teams can unpack how the resisters to the transformation required for instructional innovation perceive their school environment, colleagues, and PD interventions’ effectiveness.

Doing so can help teaching teams gain insight into how those resistant to change perceive their teaching roles and capabilities, providing the underlying causes of their resistance. This insight is paramount to promoting team cohesion, empathetic responses, and targeted approaches to overcoming resistance and becoming collaborative in order to nurture transformation within schools.

I sincerely thank my dissertation chair, Mickey Kosloski, for helping me understand the role of perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs in determining the effectiveness of professional development treatments. I also want to give special thanks to Anthony Muhammad for his transformational scholarship.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Medicine (Baltimore)
• v.99(40); 2020 Oct 2

The effectiveness of different teaching methods on medical or nursing students

a School of nursing, Lanzhou University

b Department of nursing, Gansu Provincial Hospital, China.

Yi-Tong Cai

Chao-ran qu, background:.

One of the major challenges in nursing and medical education is to foster the critical thinking ability and autonomous learning ability for students. But the effect of different teaching methods on these abilities of nursing or medical students has not been conclusive, and few studies have directly compared the differences in the effects of different teaching methods. As a result, it is necessary for students to evaluate the impact of different teaching methods on critical thinking ability and autonomous learning ability.

A systematic search will be performed using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data (Chinese database), VIP Information (Chinese database), Chinese Biomedical Literature, and English language databases, including PubMed and Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO0, Cochrane library to identify relevant studies from inception to July 10, 2020. We will include random controlled trials that evaluated the different teaching methods. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 quality assessment tool will be used to assess the risk of bias in each study. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.12.0, MetaDiSc 1.40, and R 3.4.1 software to compare the diagnostic efficacy of different hormonal biomarkers.

The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusion:

This study will summarize the direct and indirect evidence to determine the effectiveness of different teaching methods for medical or nursing students and attempt to find the most effective teaching method.

Ethics and dissemination:

Ethics approval and patient consent are not required, because this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies.

INPLASY registration number:

INPLASY202070017

1. Introduction

The ability of critical thinking is to be deliberate about thinking and actively assess and regulate one's cognition,[ 1 , 2 ] which is vital for nursing students and medical students which prepare them for clinical practice, [3] because critical thinking makes them respond quickly to patients’ urgent problems, make a best clinical decision, and provide safe and quality care. [4] And then, students with clinical thinking skills have capabilities such as information seeking, data analysis, decision making, and feedback. [5] However, Absent critical thinking, 1 typically relies on heuristics, a quick method or shortcut for problem-solving, and can fall victim to cognitive biases. [6] Cognitive biases can lead to diagnostic errors, which result in increased patient morbidity and mortality, and the adverse event of nursing. [7] Therefore, critical thinking and experience with technology have been noted as important qualities for graduates transitioning into professional roles [8]

The representative of Social Cognitive School, American psychologist Bandura [9] believes that autonomous learning is that learners constantly monitor and adjust their cognitive and emotional states, observe and apply various learning strategies, adjust learning behaviors, and strive to create and use the process of using material and social resources that contribute to learning. Autonomous learning is defined as a process where the learner is motivationally, behaviourally and meta-cognitively proactive in the learning process. [10] Besides, in the clinical environment, autonomous learning has been linked with academic achievement,[ 11 , 12 , 13 ] success in clinical skills, [14] and emotional health. [15] However, 1 of the major challenges in nursing and medical education is to develop an effective teaching method to foster critical thinking and autonomous learning ability for students.

In medical education, different teaching methods have different effects on nursing or medical students’ critical thinking and autonomous learning ability. In addition, more and more medical educators have recognized the shortcomings of traditional teaching methods, so they try to use a variety of teaching methods to enhance students’ critical thinking and autonomous learning ability, for example, case-based learning, problem-based learning, simulation-based learning. Compared with traditional teaching methods, these teaching methods reflect their own advantages. At present, the effect of different teaching methods on the critical thinking and autonomous learning ability of nursing or medical students has not been conclusive, and few studies have directly compared the differences in the effects of different teaching methods. Consequently, it is necessary and practical to evaluate the impact of different teaching methods on the critical thinking ability and autonomous learning ability of nursing or medical students

A network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted to test the differences of different teaching methods. We have registered the protocol on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY), [16] and the registration number was INPLASY202070017. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements [17] to report our NMA.

2.1. Eligibility criteria

2.1.1. types of patients.

Medical students or nursing students will be included. There will also be no restrictions based on other conditions, such as age, educational attainment, gender, different courses.

2.1.2. Types of studies

We will consider only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of teaching methods for medical or nursing students. We will exclude non-RCTs, quasi-RCTs, uncontrolled trials, and reviews.

2.1.3. Types of interventions

Studies that evaluated any kind of teaching method (case-based learning, problem-based learning, simulation-based learning) will be included. We will exclude trials that teaching methods are not used as a major therapy. The control interventions will include traditional teaching.

2.1.4. Types of outcome measures

2.1.4.1. primary outcomes.

The primary outcomes are critical thinking (CT), autonomous learning ability. And CT was evaluated by the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), [18] and autonomous learning ability was evaluated by the Self-Directed Learning Instrument (SDLI) for Nursing Students. [19]

2.1.4.2. Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcome measures will include:

• 1. student satisfaction: Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale [20]
• 2. score: Self-made scale based on different research content

2.2. Search methods and the identification of studies

2.2.1. electronic searches.

We searched Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data (Chinese database), VIP Information (Chinese database), Chinese Biomedical Literature, and English language databases, including PubMed and Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane library to July 10, 2020, for different teaching methods. The search term will include 3 parts: that is teaching methods (Training Technique∗; Training Technic∗; Problem Based Learning; Problem-Based Curriculum; Problem Based Curriculum; Problem-Based Curricula; Problem Based Curricula; Experiential Learning; Active Learning; Self Directed Learning as Topic; Simulation Training; Interactive Learning; Interactive Learning), critical thinking or autonomous learning ability (Thinking Skill∗, Thought∗, Critical Thinking, Independent learning capability, autonomous learning ability, Self-learning ability, Learner Autonomy, Self-regulated ability), and medical students or nursing students (Medical Student∗ OR Pupil Nurse∗ OR Nursing Student ∗ ). The equivalent search entries will be used while searching in Chinese databases. The fully reproducible search strategy provided in Table ​ Table1 1 is for PubMed. This will be appropriately adapted for search in the other databases. And the flow chart of searching and screening studies is showed at Fig. ​ Fig.1 1

Search strategy used in the PubMed database.

Flow chart of searching and screening studies.

2.2.2. Searching other resources

In addition, we will also search for dissertations and grey literature to identify systematic reviewes or clinical trials related to teaching methods. Besides, related journals and conference processes will be manually searched.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

2.3.1. selection of studies and data extraction.

Initial search records will be imported into ENDNOTE X9 literature management software, then the titles and abstracts of records will be screened to identify potential trials according to eligibility criteria. Next, full-text versions of all potentially relevant trials will be obtained and reviewed to ensure eligibility.

A standard data extraction form will be created using Microsoft Excel 2013 to collect data of interest. Which include eligible studies characteristics (eg, name of the first author, year of publication, the country in which the study was conducted), intervention characteristics (eg, the name of teaching methods, intervention time, time of duration), population characteristics (eg, gender, mean age, sample) and outcome(eg, CT, autonomous learning ability, student satisfaction, score)

Study selection and data extraction will be performed by 1 reviewer (YB), and will be checked by other reviewers (CYT, SQ). Any conflicts will be resolved by discussion.

2.3.2. Assessment of risk of bias

Two reviewers (Y.B. and C.YT.) will independently assess the risk of bias for each study as low, moderate, or high using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. [21] And conflicts will be also resolved by discussion.

2.3.3. Geometry of the network

Using R software V.3.4.1, a network plot will be drawn. In network plots, the size of the nodes is proportional to the number of studies evaluating a test, and the thickness of the lines between the nodes is proportional to the number of direct comparisons between tests. The network is connected because there exists at least 1 study evaluating a given test together with at least 1 of the other remaining tests. [22] A loop connecting 3 tests indicates that there is at least 1 study comparing the 3 targeted tests simultaneously.

2.3.4.1. Pairwise meta-analyses

We will construct forest plots showing estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each index test using STATA V.12.0 (Stata) and MetaDiSc 1.40. Q value and the inconsistency index (I2 test) will estimate the heterogeneity of each study. If the I 2 is ≤50%, it means that statistical heterogeneity could be negligible, and the fixed effects model will be used. If the I 2 is >50%, we will explore sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. If there is no clinical heterogeneity, the random-effects model will be used to perform the meta-analysis. In addition, we will also plot sensitivities and specificities in the summary receiver operating characteristic space, using different symbols for different hormonal biomarkers. Besides, we will use STATA V.12.0 (Stata) and Review Manager 5.30 (RevMan) analysis software to build the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic graphics for each index test.

2.3.4.2. Indirect comparisons between competing diagnostic tests

We could use STATA V.12.0 (Stata) software to calculate relative diagnostic outcomes between index tests, including relative sensitivity, relative specificity, relative diagnostic odds ratio, relative positive likelihood ratio, and relative negative likelihood ratio, and then we could use these outcomes to conduct indirect comparisons.

2.3.4.3. Subgroup analysis

If sufficient studies are available, we will explore meta-regression or subgroup analysis based on the age, intervention time, and duration of intervention; the country in which the study was conducted, and the risk factors of teaching methods.

3. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first NMA protocol comparing different teaching methods for nursing or medical students to foster the critical thinking ability and autonomous learning ability with RCTs. The study will provide a ranking of mesh fixation for teaching methods and we hope the result will provide recommendations for education managers to foster students’ ability. This protocol is designed in adherence to guidelines for NMA protocols and will be conducted and reported strictly according to the PRISMA extension statement for NMA. [23]

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the helpful reviewer comments on this paper.

Author contributions

Bei Yun, Yi-Tong Cai, and QianSu: plan and design the research. BeiYun, Yi-Tong Cai, Qian Su, and Lin Han tested the feasibility of the study. Yi-Tong Cai, Qian Su, Lian Chen, Chao-Ran Qu and Lin Han provided methodological advice, polished, and revised the manuscript. Bei Yun and Qian Su wrote the manuscript; all authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests None declared

Conceptualization: Lin Han.

Investigation: Lin Han.

Methodology: Bei Yun, YiTong Cai, QianSu, LianChen, Chaoran Qu and LinHan

Provenance and peer review

Resources: Bei Yun, YiTong Cai, QianSu.

Software: Bei Yun, YiTong Cai.

Supervision: QianSu, LinHan.

Validation: Lian Chen and ChaoRan Qu

Writing – original draft: Bei Yun,Qian Su.

Writing – review & editing: Bei Yun, Qian Su.

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Abbreviation: NMA = network meta-analysis.

How to cite this article: Yun B, Su Q, Cai YT, Chen L, Qu CR, Han L. The effectiveness of different teaching methods on medical or nursing students: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine . 2020;99:40(e21668).

BY and QS Contributed equally to this work.

This work was supported by the Scientific Research Project of the health industry in Gansu Province (grant number: GSWSKY-2019-41)

Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this is a network meta-analysis based on published studies

The results of this network meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Herbert Chanoch Kelman, 94

Everett irwin mendelsohn, 91.

Anticipate, accommodate, empower

Exploring generative ai at harvard.

Jessica McCann

Harvard Correspondent

Leaders weigh in on where we are and what’s next

The explosion of generative AI technology over the past year and a half is raising big questions about how these tools will impact higher education. Across Harvard, members of the community have been exploring how GenAI will change the ways we teach, learn, research, and work.

As part of this effort, the Office of the Provost has convened three working groups . They will discuss questions, share innovations, and evolve guidance and community resources. They are:

• The Teaching and Learning Group , chaired by Bharat Anand , vice provost for advances in learning and the Henry R. Byers Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. This group seeks to share resources, identify emerging best practices, guide policies, and support the development of tools to address common challenges among faculty and students.
• The Research and Scholarship Group , chaired by John Shaw , vice provost for research, Harry C. Dudley Professor of Structural and Economic Geology in the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, and professor of environmental science and engineering in the Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science. It focuses on how to enable, and support the integrity of, scholarly activities with generative AI tools.
• T he Administration and Operations Group , chaired by Klara Jelinkova , vice president and University chief information officer. It is charged with addressing information security, data privacy, procurement, and administration and organizational efficiencies.

Klara Jelinkova, Bharat Anand, and John Shaw.

Photos by Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer; Evgenia Eliseeva; and courtesy of John Shaw

The Gazette spoke with Anand, Shaw, and Jelinkova to understand more about the work of these groups and what’s next in generative AI at Harvard.

When generative AI tools first emerged, we saw universities respond in a variety of ways — from encouraging experimentation to prohibiting their use. What was Harvard’s overall approach?

Shaw: From the outset, Harvard has embraced the prospective benefits that GenAI offers to teaching, research, and administration across the University, while being mindful of the potential pitfalls. As a University, our mission is to help enable discovery and innovation, so we had a mandate to actively engage. We set some initial, broad policies that helped guide us, and have worked directly with groups across the institution to provide tools and resources to inspire exploration.

Jelinkova: The rapid emergence of these tools meant the University needed to react quickly, to provide both tools for innovation and experimentation and guidelines to ensure their responsible use. We rapidly built an AI Sandbox to enable faculty, students, and staff to experiment with multiple large language models in a secure environment. We also worked with external vendors to acquire enterprise licenses for a variety of tools to meet many different use cases. Through working groups, we were able to learn, aggregate and collate use cases for AI in teaching, learning, administration, and research. This coordinated, collective, and strategic approach has put Harvard ahead of many peers in higher education.

Anand: Teaching and learning are fundamentally decentralized activities. So our approach was to ask: First, how can we ensure that local experimentation by faculty and staff is enabled as much as possible; and second, how can we ensure that it’s consistent with University policies on IP, copyright, and security? We also wanted to ensure that novel emerging practices were shared across Schools, rather than remaining siloed.

What do these tools mean for faculty, in terms of the challenges they pose or the opportunities they offer? Is there anything you’re particularly excited about?

Anand: Let’s start with some salient challenges. How do we first sift through the hype that’s accompanied GenAI? How can we make it easy for faculty to use GenAI tools in their classrooms without overburdening them with yet another technology? How can one address real concerns about GenAI’s impact?

While we’re still early in this journey, many compelling opportunities — and more importantly, some systematic ways of thinking about them — are emerging. Various Harvard faculty have leaned into experimenting with LLMs in their classrooms. Our team has now interviewed over 30 colleagues across Harvard and curated short videos that capture their learnings. I encourage everyone to view these materials on the new GenAI site; they are remarkable in their depth and breadth of insight.

Here’s a sample: While LLMs are commonly used for Q&A, our faculty have creatively used them for a broader variety of tasks, such as simulating tutors that guide learning by asking questions, simulating instructional designers to provide active learning tips, and simulating student voices to predict how a class discussion might flow, thus aiding in lesson preparation. Others demonstrate how more sophisticated prompts or “prompt engineering” are often necessary to yield more sophisticated LLM responses, and how LLMs can extend well beyond text-based responses to visuals, simulations, coding, and games. And several faculty show how LLMs can help overcome subtle yet important learning frictions like skill gaps in coding, language literacy, or math.

Do these tools offer students an opportunity to support or expand upon their learning?

Anand: Yes. GenAI represents a unique area of innovation where students and faculty are working together. Many colleagues are incorporating student feedback into the GenAI portions of their curriculum or making their own GenAI tools available to students. Since GenAI is new, the pedagogical path is not yet well defined; students have an opportunity to make their voices heard, as co-creators, on what they think the future of their learning should look like.

Beyond this, we’re starting to see other learning benefits. Importantly, GenAI can reach beyond a lecture hall. Thoughtful prompt engineering can turn even publicly available GenAI tools into tutorbots that generate interactive practice problems, act as expert conversational aids for material review, or increase TA teams’ capacity. That means both that the classroom is expanding and that more of it is in students’ hands. There’s also evidence that these bots field more questions than teaching teams can normally address and can be more comfortable and accessible for some students.

Of course, we need to identify and counter harmful patterns. There is a risk, in this early and enthusiastic period, of sparking over-reliance on GenAI. Students must critically evaluate how and where they use it, given its possibility of inaccurate or inappropriate responses, and should heed the areas where their style of cognition outperforms AI. One other thing to watch out for is user divide: Some students will graduate with vastly better prompt engineering skills than others, an inequality that will only magnify in the workforce.

What are the main questions your group has been tackling?

Anand: Our group divided its work into three subgroups focused on policy, tools, and resources. We’ve helped guide initial policies to ensure safe and responsible use; begun curating resources for faculty in a One Harvard repository ; and are exploring which tools the University should invest in or develop to ensure that educators and researchers can continue to advance their work.

In the fall, we focused on supporting and guiding HUIT’s development of the AI Sandbox. The Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching’s annual conference , which focused exclusively on GenAI, had its highest participation in 10 years. Recently, we’ve been working with the research group to inform the development of tools that promise broad, generalizable use for faculty (e.g., tutorbots).

What has your group focused on in discussions so far about generative AI tools’ use in research?

Shaw: Our group has some incredible strength in researchers who are at the cutting edge of GenAI development and applications, but also includes voices that help us understand the real barriers to faculty and students starting to use these tools in their own research and scholarship. Working with the other teams, we have focused on supporting development and use of the GenAI sandbox, examining IP and security issues, and learning from different groups across campus how they are using these tools to innovate.

Are there key areas of focus for your group in the coming months?

Shaw: We are focused on establishing programs — such as the new GenAI Milton Fund track — to help support innovation in the application of these tools across the wide range of scholarship on our campus. We are also working with the College to develop new programs to help support students who wish to engage with faculty on GenAI-enabled projects. We aim to find ways to convene students and scholars to share their experiences and build a stronger community of practitioners across campus.

What types of administration and operations questions are your group is exploring, and what type of opportunities do you see in this space?

Jelinkova: By using the group to share learnings from across Schools and units, we can better provide technologies to meet the community’s needs while ensuring the most responsible and sustainable use of the University’s financial resources. The connections within this group also inform the guidelines that we provide; by learning how generative AI is being used in different contexts, we can develop best practices and stay alert to emerging risks. There are new tools becoming available almost every day, and many exciting experiments and pilots happening across Harvard, so it’s important to regularly review and update the guidance we provide to our community.

Can you talk a bit about what has come out of these discussions, or other exciting things to come?

Jelinkova: Because this technology is rapidly evolving, we are continually tracking the release of new tools and working with our vendors as well as open-source efforts to ensure we are best supporting the University’s needs. We’re developing more guidance and hosting information sessions on helping people to understand the AI landscape and how to choose the right tool for their task. Beyond tools, we’re also working to build connections across Harvard to support collaboration, including a recently launched AI community of practice . We are capturing valuable findings from emerging technology pilot programs in HUIT , the EVP area , and across Schools. And we are now thinking about how those findings can inform guiding principles and best practices to better support staff.

While the GenAI groups are investigating these questions, Harvard faculty and scholars are also on the forefront of research in this space. Can you talk a bit about some of the interesting research happening across the University in AI more broadly ?

Shaw: Harvard has made deep investments in the development and application of AI across our campus, in our Schools, initiatives, and institutes — such as the Kempner Institute and Harvard Data Science Initiative. In addition, there is a critical role for us to play in examining and guiding the ethics of AI applications — and our strengths in the Safra and Berkman Klein centers, as examples, can be leading voices in this area.

What would be your advice for members of our community who are interested in learning more about generative AI tools?

Anand: I’d encourage our community to view the resources available on the new Generative AI @ Harvard website , to better understand how GenAI tools might benefit you.

There’s also no substitute for experimentation with these tools to learn what works, what does not, and how to tailor them for maximal benefit for your particular needs. And of course, please know and respect University policies around copyright and security.

We’re in the early stages of this journey at Harvard, but it’s exciting.

Share this article

You might like.

Memorial Minute — Faculty of Arts and Sciences

How to ensure students with disabilities have an equal chance to succeed?

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

Forget ‘doomers.’ Warming can be stopped, top climate scientist says

Michael Mann points to prehistoric catastrophes, modern environmental victories

Navigating Harvard with a non-apparent disability

4 students with conditions ranging from diabetes to narcolepsy describe daily challenges that may not be obvious to their classmates and professors

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• BOOK REVIEW
• 29 March 2024

The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?

• Candice L. Odgers 0

Candice L. Odgers is the associate dean for research and a professor of psychological science and informatics at the University of California, Irvine. She also co-leads international networks on child development for both the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in Toronto and the Jacobs Foundation based in Zurich, Switzerland.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Social-media platforms aren’t always social. Credit: Getty

The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness Jonathan Haidt Allen Lane (2024)

Two things need to be said after reading The Anxious Generation . First, this book is going to sell a lot of copies, because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe. Second, the book’s repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science. Worse, the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental-health crisis in young people.

Haidt asserts that the great rewiring of children’s brains has taken place by “designing a firehose of addictive content that entered through kids’ eyes and ears”. And that “by displacing physical play and in-person socializing, these companies have rewired childhood and changed human development on an almost unimaginable scale”. Such serious claims require serious evidence.

Collection: Promoting youth mental health

Haidt supplies graphs throughout the book showing that digital-technology use and adolescent mental-health problems are rising together. On the first day of the graduate statistics class I teach, I draw similar lines on a board that seem to connect two disparate phenomena, and ask the students what they think is happening. Within minutes, the students usually begin telling elaborate stories about how the two phenomena are related, even describing how one could cause the other. The plots presented throughout this book will be useful in teaching my students the fundamentals of causal inference, and how to avoid making up stories by simply looking at trend lines.

Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers 1 .

These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message 2 – 5 . An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally 6 . Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use 7 . Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.

Of course, our current understanding is incomplete, and more research is always needed. As a psychologist who has studied children’s and adolescents’ mental health for the past 20 years and tracked their well-being and digital-technology use, I appreciate the frustration and desire for simple answers. As a parent of adolescents, I would also like to identify a simple source for the sadness and pain that this generation is reporting.

A complex problem

There are, unfortunately, no simple answers. The onset and development of mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are driven by a complex set of genetic and environmental factors. Suicide rates among people in most age groups have been increasing steadily for the past 20 years in the United States. Researchers cite access to guns, exposure to violence, structural discrimination and racism, sexism and sexual abuse, the opioid epidemic, economic hardship and social isolation as leading contributors 8 .

How social media affects teen mental health: a missing link

The current generation of adolescents was raised in the aftermath of the great recession of 2008. Haidt suggests that the resulting deprivation cannot be a factor, because unemployment has gone down. But analyses of the differential impacts of economic shocks have shown that families in the bottom 20% of the income distribution continue to experience harm 9 . In the United States, close to one in six children live below the poverty line while also growing up at the time of an opioid crisis, school shootings and increasing unrest because of racial and sexual discrimination and violence.

The good news is that more young people are talking openly about their symptoms and mental-health struggles than ever before. The bad news is that insufficient services are available to address their needs. In the United States, there is, on average, one school psychologist for every 1,119 students 10 .

Haidt’s work on emotion, culture and morality has been influential; and, in fairness, he admits that he is no specialist in clinical psychology, child development or media studies. In previous books, he has used the analogy of an elephant and its rider to argue how our gut reactions (the elephant) can drag along our rational minds (the rider). Subsequent research has shown how easy it is to pick out evidence to support our initial gut reactions to an issue. That we should question assumptions that we think are true carefully is a lesson from Haidt’s own work. Everyone used to ‘know’ that the world was flat. The falsification of previous assumptions by testing them against data can prevent us from being the rider dragged along by the elephant.

A generation in crisis

Two things can be independently true about social media. First, that there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness. Second, that considerable reforms to these platforms are required, given how much time young people spend on them. Many of Haidt’s solutions for parents, adolescents, educators and big technology firms are reasonable, including stricter content-moderation policies and requiring companies to take user age into account when designing platforms and algorithms. Others, such as age-based restrictions and bans on mobile devices, are unlikely to be effective in practice — or worse, could backfire given what we know about adolescent behaviour.

A third truth is that we have a generation in crisis and in desperate need of the best of what science and evidence-based solutions can offer. Unfortunately, our time is being spent telling stories that are unsupported by research and that do little to support young people who need, and deserve, more.

Nature 628 , 29-30 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00902-2

Heffer, T., Good, M., Daly, O., MacDonell, E. & Willoughby, T. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 7 , 462–470 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Hancock, J., Liu, S. X., Luo, M. & Mieczkowski, H. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4053961 (2022).

Odgers, C. L. & Jensen, M. R. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 61 , 336–348 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Orben, A. Soc . Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 55 , 407–414 (2020).

Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A. & Beyens, I. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 44 , 58–68 (2022).

Vuorre, M. & Przybylski, A. K. R. Sci. Open Sci. 10 , 221451 (2023).

Miller, J., Mills, K. L., Vuorre, M., Orben, A. & Przybylski, A. K. Cortex 169 , 290–308 (2023).

Martínez-Alés, G., Jiang, T., Keyes, K. M. & Gradus, J. L. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health 43 , 99–116 (2022).

Danziger, S. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 650 , 6–24 (2013).

US Department of Education. State Nonfiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey 2022–2023 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024).

Google Scholar  

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Public health

Why loneliness is bad for your health

News Feature 03 APR 24

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Allow researchers with caring responsibilities ‘promotion pauses’ to make research more equitable

Circulating myeloid-derived MMP8 in stress susceptibility and depression

Article 07 FEB 24

Only 0.5% of neuroscience studies look at women’s health. Here’s how to change that

World View 21 NOV 23

Sustained antidepressant effect of ketamine through NMDAR trapping in the LHb

Article 18 OCT 23

Abortion-pill challenge provokes doubt from US Supreme Court

News 26 MAR 24

The future of at-home molecular testing

Outlook 21 MAR 24

Assistant Professor in Integrated Photonics

We offer you the chance to design a unique and autonomous research program, networking with specialists, students and entrepreneurs.

Gothenburg (Stad), Västra Götaland (SE)

Chalmers University of Technology

Postdoctoral Fellow (Aging, Metabolic stress, Lipid sensing, Brain Injury)

Seeking a Postdoctoral Fellow to apply advanced knowledge & skills to generate insights into aging, metabolic stress, lipid sensing, & brain Injury.

Dallas, Texas (US)

UT Southwestern Medical Center - Douglas Laboratory

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

POSTDOCTORAL Fellow -- DEPARTMENT OF Surgery – BIDMC, Harvard Medical School

The Division of Urologic Surgery in the Department of Surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School invites applicatio...

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Director of Research

Applications are invited for the post of Director of Research at Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu (IN)

Cancer Institute (W.I.A)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Creating a Corporate Social Responsibility Program with Real Impact

• Emilio Marti,
• David Risi,
• Eva Schlindwein,
• Andromachi Athanasopoulou

Lessons from multinational companies that adapted their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge.

Exploring the critical role of experimentation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), research on four multinational companies reveals a stark difference in CSR effectiveness. Successful companies integrate an experimental approach, constantly adapting their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge. This strategy fosters genuine community engagement and responsive initiatives, as seen in a mining company’s impactful HIV/AIDS program. Conversely, companies that rely on standardized, inflexible CSR methods often fail to achieve their goals, demonstrated by a failed partnership due to local corruption in another mining company. The study recommends encouraging broad employee participation in CSR and fostering a culture that values CSR’s long-term business benefits. It also suggests that sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies should focus on assessing companies’ experimental approaches to CSR, going beyond current practices to examine the involvement of diverse employees in both developing and adapting CSR initiatives. Overall, embracing a dynamic, data-driven approach to CSR is essential for meaningful social and environmental impact.

By now, almost all large companies are engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR): they have CSR policies, employ CSR staff, engage in activities that aim to have a positive impact on the environment and society, and write CSR reports. However, the evolution of CSR has brought forth new challenges. A stark contrast to two decades ago, when the primary concern was the sheer neglect of CSR, the current issue lies in the ineffective execution of these practices. Why do some companies implement CSR in ways that create a positive impact on the environment and society, while others fail to do so? Our research reveals that experimentation is critical for impactful CSR, which has implications for both companies that implement CSR and companies that externally monitor these CSR activities, such as sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies.

• EM Emilio Marti is an associate professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. His research focuses on corporate sustainability with a specific focus on sustainable investing.
• DR David Risi is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a habilitated lecturer at the University of St. Gallen. His research focuses on how companies organize CSR and sustainability.
• ES Eva Schlindwein is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how organizations navigate tensions between business and society.
• AA Andromachi Athanasopoulou is an associate professor at Queen Mary University of London and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how individuals manage their leadership careers and make ethically charged decisions.

Partner Center