用大模型分析教育AI社交讨论,揭示师生认知差异。
Unpacking Generative AI in Education: Computational Modeling of Teacher and Student Perspectives in Social Media Discourse
- 构建基于提示的LLM框架,分析社交媒体中的教育AI言论。
- 90.6%情感识别准确率,发现12类隐含话题与不同群体分布。
- 学生担忧被误判作弊,教师更关注职业安全与学术诚信。
生成式人工智能(GAI)正快速重塑教育生态。本研究基于社交平台数据,对教育领域利益相关者关于GAI的讨论进行迄今最全面的分析,涵盖1,199篇Reddit帖子及13,959条顶级评论。通过情感分析、主题建模与作者分类,提出并验证了一种模块化框架,利用提示式大语言模型(LLMs)分析在线话语,性能优于传统自然语言处理(NLP)模型。其GPT-4o流水线在情感分析中达到90.6%准确率(对比人工标注)。主题提取揭示12个潜在议题,具有不同情感倾向与作者分布特征。学生普遍对GAI在高等教育中提升个性化学习与效率持乐观态度;但学生常表达因AI检测工具误判而遭作弊指控的焦虑,教师则主要关切职业稳定性、学术诚信及机构强制采用压力。这些差异凸显技术创新与监管缺失间的张力。研究呼吁制定更清晰的制度政策、透明的GAI整合路径及师生支持机制。同时证明大模型框架在建模在线社区利益相关者话语方面具有潜力。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Generative AI (GAI) technologies are quickly reshaping the educational landscape. As adoption accelerates, understanding how students and educators perceive these tools is essential. This study presents one of the most comprehensive analyses to date of stakeholder discourse dynamics on GAI in education using social media data. Our dataset includes 1,199 Reddit posts and 13,959 corresponding top-level comments. We apply sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and author classification. To support this, we propose and validate a modular framework that leverages prompt-based large language models (LLMs) for analysis of online social discourse, and we evaluate this framework against classical natural language processing (NLP) models. Our GPT-4o pipeline consistently outperforms prior approaches across all tasks. For example, it achieved 90.6% accuracy in sentiment analysis against gold-standard human annotations. Topic extraction uncovered 12 latent topics in the public discourse with varying sentiment and author distributions. Teachers and students convey optimism about GAI's potential for personalized learning and productivity in higher education. However, key differences emerged: students often voice distress over false accusations of cheating by AI detectors, while teachers generally express concern about job security, academic integrity, and institutional pressures to adopt GAI tools. These contrasting perspectives highlight the tension between innovation and oversight in GAI-enabled learning environments. Our findings suggest a need for clearer institutional policies, more transparent GAI integration practices, and support mechanisms for both educators and students. More broadly, this study demonstrates the potential of LLM-based frameworks for modeling stakeholder discourse within online communities.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。