pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09634 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-19 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

From Understanding to Creation: A Prerequisite-Free AI Literacy Course with Technical Depth Across Majors

Amarda Shehu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 07:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI literacyundergraduate educationprerequisite-freeBloom's taxonomycourse designethical AItechnical depthcross-major education
0
0 comments X

The pith

A prerequisite-free course teaches non-technical undergraduates to design and build AI systems with integrated safeguards.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a course design that allows students from any major to gain technical depth in AI without prerequisites by using a repeated conceptual pipeline that advances from problem definition to reflection. Ethical reasoning is woven in at each step, supported by studio sessions, cumulative portfolios, and an AI agent for reinforcement. Analysis of student artifacts shows clear progression to the Create level in Bloom's taxonomy, where learners produce original AI-enabled artifacts defended before evaluators. This matters for expanding AI education beyond computer science majors to meet growing demands for informed users and creators across fields.

Core claim

By structuring the course around five mechanisms—a unifying pipeline traversed repeatedly at increasing sophistication, concurrent ethical integration, AI Studios with critique, a cumulative portfolio culminating in field experiments and projects, and a custom AI agent—the course enables students to move from intuition-based descriptions to technically grounded designs with safeguards, achieving the Create level of Bloom's revised taxonomy as documented through instructor-coded analysis of artifacts at multiple stages.

What carries the argument

The unifying conceptual pipeline (problem definition, data, model selection, evaluation, reflection) traversed repeatedly at increasing sophistication, which carries the technical and ethical progression.

If this is right

  • The design demonstrates that technical depth and broad accessibility can coexist in AI literacy education.
  • Mechanisms such as the portfolio and AI Studios can be adapted or separated for different institutional settings.
  • Students produce co-authored field experiments on chatbot reasoning and defend AI artifacts to external evaluators.
  • The course reaches the Create level of Bloom's taxonomy across majors without prior technical requirements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the progression holds beyond this single institution, it could inform scalable models for AI education in diverse university contexts.
  • Extending the pipeline approach to discipline-specific AI applications might help embed literacy in fields like biology or business.
  • Testing the course in online or hybrid formats could reveal how much in-person studio time is essential for the observed gains.

Load-bearing premise

The documented progression in student artifacts is caused by the five course mechanisms rather than student self-selection or other unmeasured factors.

What would settle it

A comparison study at another institution using a control group without the cumulative portfolio or AI Studios showing no significant difference in final artifact technical grounding would falsify the claim that these mechanisms drive the progression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09634 by Amarda Shehu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cross-major AI literacy courses positioned along two dimensions: audience breadth (hor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The structure of UNIV 182 as two continuous threads running beneath rising technical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Assessment submission rates across the semester for all enrolled students (solid line, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint distribution of technical description mode and ethical reasoning mode across HW1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of argument grounding levels across all distinct arguments coded from Debate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prevalence of three evaluative capabilities across HW3 submissions. Each submission was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prevalence and depth of four design integration competencies across final project team [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of coded reasoning across Bloom’s revised taxonomy levels at four assessment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Most AI literacy courses for non-technical undergraduates emphasize conceptual breadth over technical depth. This paper describes UNIV 182, a prerequisite-free course at George Mason University that teaches undergraduates across majors to understand, use, evaluate, and build AI systems. The course is organized around five mechanisms: (1) a unifying conceptual pipeline (problem definition, data, model selection, evaluation, reflection) traversed repeatedly at increasing sophistication; (2) concurrent integration of ethical reasoning with the technical progression; (3) AI Studios, structured in-class work sessions with documentation protocols and real-time critique; (4) a cumulative assessment portfolio in which each assignment builds competencies required by the next, culminating in a co-authored field experiment on chatbot reasoning and a final project in which teams build AI-enabled artifacts and defend them before external evaluators; and (5) a custom AI agent providing structured reinforcement outside class. The paper situates this design within a comparative taxonomy of cross-major AI literacy courses and pedagogical traditions. Instructor-coded analysis of student artifacts at four assessment stages documents a progression from descriptive, intuition-based reasoning to technically grounded design with integrated safeguards, reaching the Create level of Bloom's revised taxonomy. To support adoption, the paper identifies which mechanisms are separable, which require institutional infrastructure, and how the design adapts to settings ranging from general AI literacy to discipline-embedded offerings. The course is offered as a documented resource, demonstrating that technical depth and broad accessibility can coexist when scaffolding supports both.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper describes UNIV 182, a prerequisite-free undergraduate AI literacy course at George Mason University open to all majors. It organizes instruction around five mechanisms: a repeatedly traversed conceptual pipeline (problem definition through reflection), concurrent ethics integration, structured AI Studios with critique protocols, a cumulative portfolio culminating in a co-authored chatbot field experiment and defended AI artifact project, and a custom reinforcement agent. Instructor-coded qualitative analysis of artifacts from four assessment stages is presented as evidence of progression from intuition-based description to technically grounded design with safeguards, reaching Bloom's revised Create level. The work situates the design in a comparative taxonomy of cross-major AI courses and discusses separable mechanisms and adaptation to other settings.

Significance. If the reported progression is robustly attributable to the course mechanisms, the manuscript supplies a concrete, documented template for delivering technical depth in AI education without prerequisites. The explicit mapping of mechanisms to Bloom's taxonomy, the provision of the course as an adoptable resource, and the taxonomy of existing offerings add practical value for curriculum designers seeking to balance accessibility and rigor.

major comments (2)
  1. [Instructor-coded analysis of student artifacts] The section presenting the instructor-coded analysis of student artifacts supplies no coding rubric, inter-rater reliability statistic, blinding procedure, or quantitative supplement. Because the central claim—that the five mechanisms produce measurable movement to Bloom's Create level—rests entirely on this qualitative evidence, the absence of these methodological details leaves open the possibility that observed changes reflect coding expectations or self-selection rather than instructional effects.
  2. [Course design and evaluation] No control cohort, pre-course baseline measures, or multi-institution replication is reported. The single-offering design at one university therefore cannot isolate the causal contribution of the unifying pipeline, AI Studios, portfolio structure, agent, or ethics integration from confounding factors such as motivated student enrollment or institutional context.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Comparative taxonomy] The comparative taxonomy of AI literacy courses would be clearer if the categorization criteria (e.g., depth vs. breadth axes) were stated explicitly rather than left implicit in the narrative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments correctly identify limitations in the current presentation of evidence. We address each point below, indicating revisions that will be incorporated in the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Instructor-coded analysis of student artifacts] The section presenting the instructor-coded analysis of student artifacts supplies no coding rubric, inter-rater reliability statistic, blinding procedure, or quantitative supplement. Because the central claim—that the five mechanisms produce measurable movement to Bloom's Create level—rests entirely on this qualitative evidence, the absence of these methodological details leaves open the possibility that observed changes reflect coding expectations or self-selection rather than instructional effects.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of the qualitative analysis is insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we will add: (1) the full coding rubric with explicit criteria for each Bloom level, (2) a step-by-step description of the coding procedure including how artifacts were selected and how progression was tracked across the four stages, (3) acknowledgment that a single instructor performed the coding and that no blinding or inter-rater reliability statistic is available, and (4) a new appendix containing representative coded excerpts from each stage so readers can evaluate the coding themselves. We will also revise the language of the central claim to describe the analysis as illustrative documentation of student progression rather than as quantitative proof of causal effect. These changes will be made. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Course design and evaluation] No control cohort, pre-course baseline measures, or multi-institution replication is reported. The single-offering design at one university therefore cannot isolate the causal contribution of the unifying pipeline, AI Studios, portfolio structure, agent, or ethics integration from confounding factors such as motivated student enrollment or institutional context.

    Authors: We accept that the single-offering, single-institution design precludes strong causal claims. The revised manuscript will: (1) explicitly state in the methods and discussion sections that the study is observational and that alternative explanations (self-selection, instructor effects, institutional context) cannot be ruled out, (2) add a dedicated limitations subsection that outlines the exact threats to internal validity, and (3) describe concrete plans for future controlled and multi-site replications that would isolate the contribution of each mechanism. Because the data were collected from a completed offering, we cannot retroactively introduce a control cohort or pre-course measures. We will therefore frame the current evidence as a documented existence proof and template rather than as a definitive demonstration of mechanism efficacy. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of a control cohort or pre-course baseline measures: these data were not collected during the single past offering and cannot be added retrospectively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: descriptive course report with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive account of an AI literacy course design organized around five mechanisms, supported by instructor-coded qualitative analysis of student artifacts across four stages. No equations, fitted parameters, mathematical derivations, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claim—that artifacts progress from descriptive to technically grounded design reaching Bloom's Create level—rests on narrative documentation rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. The analysis does not invoke uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or rename known results; it is self-contained as an observational report without self-definitional loops or predictions that are statistically forced by prior fits.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that Bloom's revised taxonomy validly captures AI competency gains and that instructor coding of artifacts accurately reflects causal effects of the course design without external validation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bloom's revised taxonomy accurately measures progression in AI reasoning and design skills
    The paper treats reaching the Create level as the key success metric.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1300 out tokens · 59966 ms · 2026-05-15T07:46:34.229110+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Discipline-Agnostic AI Literacy Course for Academic Research: Architecture, Pedagogy, and Implementation

    cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A four-module, discipline-agnostic course on AI-assisted literature review produces large self-reported confidence gains in hallucination detection, responsible use, and AI attribution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    What is ai literacy? competencies and design considerations

    Duri Long and Brian Magerko. What is ai literacy? competencies and design considerations. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, page 1–16, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450367080. doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376727. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3313831. 3376727

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 2020

  2. [2]

    David Touretzky, Christina Gardner-McCune, Fred Martin, and Deborah Seehorn. Envision- ing AI for K-12: what should every child know about AI? InProceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artifi- cial Intelligence Conference and Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Arti...

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019795 2019

  3. [3]

    Ai literacy as a core component of ai education

    Sri Yash Tadimalla and Mary Lou Maher. Ai literacy as a core component of ai education. AI Magazine, 46(2):e70007, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.70007. URLhttps:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aaai.70007

    work page doi:10.1002/aaai.70007 2025

  4. [4]

    Concep- tualizing ai literacy: An exploratory review.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2:100041, 2021

    Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Jac Ka Lok Leung, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, and Maggie Shen Qiao. Concep- tualizing ai literacy: An exploratory review.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2:100041, 2021. ISSN 2666-920X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X21000357

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 2021

  5. [5]

    The essentials of ai for life and society: A full-scale ai literacy course accessible to all, 2025

    Zifan Xu, Kristen Procko, Michael Munje, Kristin Patterson, Lea Sabatini, Joydeep Biswas, and Peter Stone. The essentials of ai for life and society: A full-scale ai literacy course accessible to all, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04110

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    The essentials of ai for life and society: An ai literacy course for the university community

    Joydeep Biswas, Don Fussell, Peter Stone, Kristin Patterson, Kristen Procko, Lea Sabatini, and Zifan Xu. The essentials of ai for life and society: An ai literacy course for the university community. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 28973–28978, Apr. 2025. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35166

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35166 2025

  7. [7]

    Georgiou, Rebecca Ramnauth, Jessie Cheung, E

    Kate Candon, Nicholas C. Georgiou, Rebecca Ramnauth, Jessie Cheung, E. Chandra Fincke, and Brian Scassellati. Artificial intelligence for future presidents: Teaching ai literacy to ev- eryone. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 28988–28995, Apr. 2025. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35168

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35168 2025

  8. [8]

    Bynum, Lucas Rosenblatt, and Falaah Arif Khan

    Julia Stoyanovich, Armanda Lewis, Eric Corbett, Lucius E.J. Bynum, Lucas Rosenblatt, and Falaah Arif Khan. We are ai: Taking control of technology. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 29070–29077, Apr. 2025. doi: 10.1609/ aaai.v39i28.35178

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: 34 Insights and recommendations

    Office of Educational Technology. Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: 34 Insights and recommendations. Technical report, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, May 2023. URLhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED631097. ERIC Number: ED631097

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Guidance for generative ai in education and research, 2023

    UNESCO. Guidance for generative ai in education and research, 2023. URLhttps://www. unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Evaluation of an artificial intelligence literacy course for university students with diverse study backgrounds.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2:100026, 2021

    Siu-Cheung Kong, William Man-Yin Cheung, and Guo Zhang. Evaluation of an artificial intelligence literacy course for university students with diverse study backgrounds.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2:100026, 2021. ISSN 2666-920X. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100026. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100026 2021

  12. [12]

    Trust and reliance on ai — an ex- perimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on ai.Computers in Human Behavior, 160:108352, 2024

    Artur Klingbeil, Cassandra Grützner, and Philipp Schreck. Trust and reliance on ai — an ex- perimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on ai.Computers in Human Behavior, 160:108352, 2024. ISSN 0747-5632. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352 2024

  13. [13]

    The illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity, 2025

    Parshin Shojaee, Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Maxwell Horton, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. The illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2506.06941

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Thomas K. F. Chiu. Ai literacy and competency: definitions, frameworks, development and future research directions.Interactive Learning Environments, 33(5):3225–3229, 2025. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2025.2514372

    work page doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2514372 2025

  15. [15]

    Krathwohl

    David R. Krathwohl. A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview.Theory Into Practice, 41 (4):212–218, 2002. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405. Accessed 19 Mar. 2026

    work page arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    Stephen Downie, and Samuel Kai Wah Chu

    Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Min Lee, Roy Jun Yi Tan, Xiao Hu, J. Stephen Downie, and Samuel Kai Wah Chu. A review of ai teaching and learning from 2000 to 2020.Education and Information Technologies, 28(7):8445–8501, 2023. ISSN 1573-7608. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11491-w. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11491-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11491-w 2000

  17. [17]

    Siu-Cheung Kong, Man-Yin William Cheung, and Olson Tsang. Developing an artificial in- telligence literacy framework: Evaluation of a literacy course for senior secondary students using a project-based learning approach.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6:100214, 2024. ISSN 2666-920X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100214. URL h...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100214 2024

  18. [18]

    Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse

    Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2):230–253, 1997. doi: 10.1518/001872097778543886. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1518/001872097778543886

    work page doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 1997

  19. [19]

    Teachable machine: Approachable web- based tool for exploring machine learning classification

    Michelle Carney, Barron Webster, Irene Alvarado, Kyle Phillips, Noura Howell, Jordan Griffith, Jonas Jongejan, Amit Pitaru, and Alexander Chen. Teachable machine: Approachable web- based tool for exploring machine learning classification. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’20, page 1–8, New York,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3334480.3382839 2020

  20. [20]

    Openai academy, 2025

    OpenAI. Openai academy, 2025. URLhttps://academy.openai.com/. Accessed: 2026-03-14

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Google ai essentials, 2025

    Google. Google ai essentials, 2025. URLhttps://grow.google/ai-essentials/. Accessed: 2026-03-14

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Ai literacy for all course,

    Digital Education Council. Ai literacy for all course,

    work page

  23. [23]

    Accessed: 2026-03-14

    URLhttps://www.digitaleducationcouncil.com/ digital-education-council-ai-literacy-for-all-course. Accessed: 2026-03-14. 35

    work page 2026

  24. [24]

    Ai for everyone

    Andrew Ng. Ai for everyone. Online course, 2019. URLhttps://www.coursera.org/learn/ ai-for-everyone. Accessed: 2026-03-19

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005

    National Research Council.How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005. ISBN 978-0-309-08950-

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    URLhttps://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11102/ how-students-learn-science-in-the-classroom

    doi: 10.17226/11102. URLhttps://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11102/ how-students-learn-science-in-the-classroom

    work page doi:10.17226/11102

  27. [27]

    Facilitating change in undergraduate stem instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8):952–984, 2011

    Charles Henderson, Andrea Beach, and Noah Finkelstein. Facilitating change in undergraduate stem instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8):952–984, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439. URLhttps: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.20439

    work page doi:10.1002/tea.20439 2011

  28. [28]

    Tsai, Sivasankaran Rajamanickam, and Melanie Mitchell

    Claas Beger, Ryan Yi, Shuhao Fu, Kaleda Denton, Arseny Moskvichev, Sarah W. Tsai, Sivasankaran Rajamanickam, and Melanie Mitchell. Do ai models perform human-like abstract reasoning across modalities?, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02125

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Integrating ethics within machine learning courses.ACM Trans

    Jeffrey Saltz, Michael Skirpan, Casey Fiesler, Micha Gorelick, Tom Yeh, Robert Heckman, Neil Dewar, and Nathan Beard. Integrating ethics within machine learning courses.ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 19(4), August 2019. doi: 10.1145/3341164. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/ 3341164

    work page doi:10.1145/3341164 2019

  30. [30]

    Using role-play to scale the integration of ethics across the computer science curriculum

    Ben Rydal Shapiro, Emma Lovegall, Amanda Meng, Jason Borenstein, and Ellen Zegura. Using role-play to scale the integration of ethics across the computer science curriculum. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE ’21, page 1034–1040, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978145...

    work page doi:10.1145/3408877.3432525 2021

  31. [31]

    Teaching AI ethics using science fiction

    Emanuelle Burton, Judy Goldsmith, and Nicholas Mattei. Teaching AI ethics using science fiction. InArtificial Intelligence and Ethics: Papers from the 2015 AAAI Workshop, pages 1–6, 2015

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Apress, Berkeley, CA, 2019

    Ekaba Bisong.Google Colaboratory, pages 59–64. Apress, Berkeley, CA, 2019. ISBN 978-1-4842-4470-8. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4842-4470-8_7. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4842-4470-8_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-4470-8_7 2019

  33. [33]

    ai-for-all

    Amarda Shehu, Adonyas Ababu, Asma Akbary, Griffin Allen, Aroush Baig, Tereana Battle, Elias Beall, Christopher Byrom, Matt Dean, Kate Demarco, Ethan Douglass, Luis Granados, Layla Hantush, Andy Hay, Eleanor Hay, Caleb Jackson, Jaewon Jang, Carter Jones, Quanyang Li, Adrian Lopez, Logan Massimo, Garrett McMullin, Ariana Mendoza Maldonado, Eman Mirza, Hadiy...

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, page 6000–6010, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781510860964

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term mem- ory (lstm) network.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 404:132306, 2020

    Alex Sherstinsky. Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term mem- ory (lstm) network.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 404:132306, 2020. ISSN 0167-2789. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2019.132306. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0167278919305974. 36

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physd.2019.132306 2020

  36. [36]

    Distributedrepresen- tations of words and phrases and their compositionality

    TomasMikolov, IlyaSutskever, KaiChen, GregSCorrado, andJeffDean. Distributedrepresen- tations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In C.J. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/ pap...

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    GloVe: Global vectors for word representation

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Alessandro Moschitti, Bo Pang, and Walter Daelemans, editors,Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532–1543, Doha, Qatar, October 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics. do...

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Socialloafing: Ameta-analyticreviewandtheoretical integration.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4):681–706, 1993

    StevenJ.KarauandKiplingD.Williams. Socialloafing: Ameta-analyticreviewandtheoretical integration.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4):681–706, 1993. doi: 10.1037/ 0022-3514.65.4.681

    work page 1993

  39. [39]

    Pradeep Aggarwal and Connie L. O’Brien. Social loafing on group projects: Structural an- tecedents and effect on student satisfaction.Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3):255–264,

    work page

  40. [40]

    doi: 10.1177/0273475308322283

    work page doi:10.1177/0273475308322283

  41. [41]

    Ataxonomyforlearning, teaching, andassessing: Arevisionofbloom’staxonomy of educational objectives complete edition by lorin w

    JackConklin. Ataxonomyforlearning, teaching, andassessing: Arevisionofbloom’staxonomy of educational objectives complete edition by lorin w. anderson et al.Educational Horizons, 83 (3):154–159, 2005. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42926529. Accessed 19 Mar. 2026

    work page arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    Biology in bloom: Implementing bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology.CBE–Life Sciences Education, 7(4): 368–381, 2008

    Alison Crowe, Clarissa Dirks, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. Biology in bloom: Implementing bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology.CBE–Life Sciences Education, 7(4): 368–381, 2008. doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 2008

  43. [43]

    Momsen, Tammy M

    Jennifer L. Momsen, Tammy M. Long, Sarah A. Wyse, and Diane Ebert-May. Just the facts? introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills.CBE–Life Sci- ences Education, 9(4):435–440, 2010. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001 2010

  44. [44]

    Zaidi, Christina Hwang, Shannon Scott, Shelly Stallard, Joel Purkiss, and Michael Hortsch

    Nadia B. Zaidi, Christina Hwang, Shannon Scott, Shelly Stallard, Joel Purkiss, and Michael Hortsch. Climbing bloom’s taxonomy pyramid: Lessons from a graduate histology course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(5):456–464, 2017. doi: 10.1002/ase.1685. 37

    work page doi:10.1002/ase.1685 2017