Jake Hofman

Kristina Gligoric, Tiziano Piccardi, Jake Hofman et al.

Science is facing a reproducibility crisis. Previous work has proposed incorporating data analysis replications into classrooms as a potential solution. However, despite the potential benefits, it is unclear whether this approach is feasible, and if so, what the involved stakeholders-students, educators, and scientists-should expect from it. Can students perform a data analysis replication over the course of a class? What are the costs and benefits for educators? And how can this solution help benchmark and improve the state of science? In the present study, we incorporated data analysis replications in the project component of the Applied Data Analysis course (CS-401) taught at EPFL (N=354 students). Here we report pre-registered findings based on surveys administered throughout the course. First, we demonstrate that students can replicate previously published scientific papers, most of them qualitatively and some exactly. We find discrepancies between what students expect of data analysis replications and what they experience by doing them along with changes in expectations about reproducibility, which together serve as evidence of attitude shifts to foster students' critical thinking. Second, we provide information for educators about how much overhead is needed to incorporate replications into the classroom and identify concerns that replications bring as compared to more traditional assignments. Third, we identify tangible benefits of the in-class data analysis replications for scientific communities, such as a collection of replication reports and insights about replication barriers in scientific work that should be avoided going forward. Overall, we demonstrate that incorporating replication tasks into a large data science class can increase the reproducibility of scientific work as a by-product of data science instruction, thus benefiting both science and students.

Jacy Reese Anthis, Hannah Cha, Solon Barocas et al.

The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.

Calvin Isley, Joshua Gilbert, Evangelos Kassos et al.

While large language models (LLMs) challenge conventional methods of teaching and learning, they present an exciting opportunity to improve efficiency and scale high-quality instruction. One promising application is the generation of customized exams, tailored to specific course content. There has been significant recent excitement on automatically generating questions using artificial intelligence, but also comparatively little work evaluating the psychometric quality of these items in real-world educational settings. Filling this gap is an important step toward understanding generative AI's role in effective test design. In this study, we introduce and evaluate an iterative refinement strategy for question generation, repeatedly producing, assessing, and improving questions through cycles of LLM-generated critique and revision. We evaluate the quality of these AI-generated questions in a large-scale field study involving 91 classes -- covering computer science, mathematics, chemistry, and more -- in dozens of colleges across the United States, comprising nearly 1700 students. Our analysis, based on item response theory (IRT), suggests that for students in our sample the AI-generated questions performed comparably to expert-created questions designed for standardized exams. Our results illustrate the power of AI to make high-quality assessments more readily available, benefiting both teachers and students.

Gabriel Kaptchuk, Daniel G. Goldstein, Eszter Hargittai et al.

A growing number of contact tracing apps are being developed to complement manual contact tracing. A key question is whether users will be willing to adopt these contact tracing apps. In this work, we survey over 4,500 Americans to evaluate (1) the effect of both accuracy and privacy concerns on reported willingness to install COVID19 contact tracing apps and (2) how different groups of users weight accuracy vs. privacy. Drawing on our findings from these first two research questions, we (3) quantitatively model how the amount of public health benefit (reduction in infection rate), amount of individual benefit (true-positive detection of exposures to COVID), and degree of privacy risk in a hypothetical contact tracing app may influence American's willingness to install. Our work takes a descriptive ethics approach toward offering implications for the development of policy and app designs related to COVID19.