SUN’IY INTELLEKT YORDAMIDA SHAXSIYLASHTIRILGAN BAHOLASH
Keywords:
sun’iy intellekt, shaxsiylashtirilgan baholash, adaptiv testlash, intellektual tyutorlik tizimlari, bilimni kuzatish, formativ baholash, avtomatik baholash, ta’lim analitikasi, algoritmik xolislik, oliy ta’lim.Abstract
Ushbu maqolada sun’iy intellekt (SI) texnologiyalari yordamida ta’lim oluvchilarning bilim va ko‘nikmalarini shaxsiylashtirilgan tarzda baholashning nazariy asoslari, texnologik yondashuvlari va samaradorligi tahlil qilingan. Mavzuning dolzarbligi shundaki, an’anaviy baholash tizimi barcha talabalarga bir xil topshiriq, bir xil vaqt va bir xil mezonni qo‘llaydi, natijada o‘quv jarayonining faqat alohida lahzalarini qayd etadi va har bir o‘quvchining individual ehtiyojlarini hisobga olmaydi. Tadqiqotning maqsadi SI asosidagi shaxsiylashtirilgan baholash vositalarining samaradorligi bo‘yicha xalqaro empirik dalillarni tizimlashtirish hamda oliy ta’lim muassasalari uchun integrativ model taklif etishdan iborat. Metodologik asos sifatida integrativ adabiyotlar sharhi, meta-tahlil natijalarini qiyosiy sintez qilish va kontseptual modellashtirish usullari qo‘llanildi. Tahlil natijalari intellektual tyutorlik tizimlari o‘quv natijalarini o‘qituvchi boshchiligidagi katta guruhli mashg‘ulotlarga nisbatan o‘rtacha 0,42 standart og‘ishga oshirishini, ularning samaradorligi individual inson-repetitor bilan statistik jihatdan farq qilmasligini, bilimni kuzatish modellarida chuqur o‘qitish yondashuvlari prognoz aniqligini sezilarli yaxshilaganini ko‘rsatdi. Kompyuterlashtirilgan adaptiv testlash o‘lchov aniqligini saqlagan holda topshiriqlar sonini qisqartirish imkonini berishi, avtomatlashtirilgan insho baholash tizimlari esa ekspertlar bilan yuqori darajada mos keluvchi ball qo‘yishi aniqlandi. Shu bilan birga, algoritmik noxolislik, qarorlar shaffofligining yetishmasligi, shaxsiy ma’lumotlar himoyasi va generativ SI bilan bog‘liq akademik halollik muammolari jiddiy xavf omillari sifatida qayd etildi. Maqolada ma’lumotlar, o‘quvchi modeli, adaptiv qaror, fikr-mulohaza va inson nazorati qatlamlaridan iborat besh qatlamli model taklif etilgan. Tadqiqot natijalari O‘zbekiston oliy ta’lim muassasalarida, jumladan iqtisodiyot yo‘nalishidagi universitetlarda SI asosidagi baholash tizimlarini bosqichmabosqich joriy etish bo‘yicha amaliy tavsiyalar ishlab chiqishga xizmat qiladi.
Downloads
References
1. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2019-yil 8-oktabrdagi PF-5847-son «O‘zbekiston Respublikasi oliy ta’lim tizimini 2030-yilgacha rivojlantirish konsepsiyasini tasdiqlash to‘g‘risida»gi Farmoni. https://lex.uz
2. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2024-yil 14-oktabrdagi PQ-358-son «Sun’iy intellekt texnologiyalarini 2030-yilga qadar rivojlantirish strategiyasini tasdiqlash to‘g‘risida»gi qarori. https://lex.uz/docs/-7158604
3. Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1052–1092.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
5. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099821
8. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
9. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
10. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
11. Hwang, G.-J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
12. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
13. Khajah, M., Lindsey, R. V., & Mozer, M. C. (2016). How deep is knowledge tracing? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. International Educational Data Mining Society.
14. Khosravi, H., Buckingham Shum, S., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y.-S., Kay, J., …Gašević, D. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074
15. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420
16. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
17. Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037123
18. Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. UNESCO.
19. Pelánek, R. (2017). Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: An overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(3–5), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9193-2
20. Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L. J., & Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 (pp. 505–513). Curran Associates.
21. Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S. K. (2022). An automated essay scoring systems: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(3), 2495–2527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10068-2
22. Shermis, M. D. (2014). State-of-the-art automated essay scoring: Competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Assessing Writing, 20, 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.04.001
23. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
24. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
25. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752
26. Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075
27. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
28. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
29. van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (Eds.). (2010). Elements of adaptive testing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8
30. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
31. Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Terms of our Journal
