Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12743 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866913030258819072 |
|---|---|
| author | Fox, Danielle S. Robles, Brenda L. Brovey, Elizabeth DiPietro Schunn, Christian D. |
| author_facet | Fox, Danielle S. Robles, Brenda L. Brovey, Elizabeth DiPietro Schunn, Christian D. |
| contents | While recent research has explored AI tools' ability to classify the quality of mathematical tasks (arXiv:2603.03512), little is known about their capacity to increase the quality of existing tasks. This study investigated whether AI tools could successfully upgrade low-cognitive-demand mathematics tasks. Eleven tools were tested, including six broadly available, general-purpose AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT and Claude) and five tools specialized for mathematics teachers (e.g., Khanmigo, coteach.ai). Using the Task Analysis Guide framework (Stein & Smith, 1998), we prompted AI tools to modify two different types of low-demand mathematical tasks. The prompting strategy aimed to represent likely approaches taken by knowledgeable teachers, rather than extensive optimization to find a more effective prompt (i.e., an optimistic typical outcome). On average, AI tools were only moderately successful: tasks were accurately upgraded only 64% of the time, with different AI tool performance ranging from quite weak (33%) to broadly successful (88%). Specialized tools were only moderately more successful than general-purpose tools. Failure modes included both "undershooting" (maintaining low cognitive demand) and "overshooting" (elevating tasks to an overly ambitious target category that likely would be rejected by teachers). Interestingly, there was a small negative correlation (r = -.35) between whether a given AI tool was able to correctly classify the cognitive demand of tasks and whether the AI was able to upgrade tasks, showing that the ability to modify tasks (i.e., a generative task) represents a distinct capability from the ability to classify them (i.e., judgement using a rubric). These findings have important implications for understanding AI's potential role in curriculum adaptation and highlight the need for specialized approaches to support teachers in modifying instructional materials. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_12743 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Can AI Tools Transform Low-Demand Math Tasks? An Evaluation of Task Modification Capabilities Fox, Danielle S. Robles, Brenda L. Brovey, Elizabeth DiPietro Schunn, Christian D. Artificial Intelligence While recent research has explored AI tools' ability to classify the quality of mathematical tasks (arXiv:2603.03512), little is known about their capacity to increase the quality of existing tasks. This study investigated whether AI tools could successfully upgrade low-cognitive-demand mathematics tasks. Eleven tools were tested, including six broadly available, general-purpose AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT and Claude) and five tools specialized for mathematics teachers (e.g., Khanmigo, coteach.ai). Using the Task Analysis Guide framework (Stein & Smith, 1998), we prompted AI tools to modify two different types of low-demand mathematical tasks. The prompting strategy aimed to represent likely approaches taken by knowledgeable teachers, rather than extensive optimization to find a more effective prompt (i.e., an optimistic typical outcome). On average, AI tools were only moderately successful: tasks were accurately upgraded only 64% of the time, with different AI tool performance ranging from quite weak (33%) to broadly successful (88%). Specialized tools were only moderately more successful than general-purpose tools. Failure modes included both "undershooting" (maintaining low cognitive demand) and "overshooting" (elevating tasks to an overly ambitious target category that likely would be rejected by teachers). Interestingly, there was a small negative correlation (r = -.35) between whether a given AI tool was able to correctly classify the cognitive demand of tasks and whether the AI was able to upgrade tasks, showing that the ability to modify tasks (i.e., a generative task) represents a distinct capability from the ability to classify them (i.e., judgement using a rubric). These findings have important implications for understanding AI's potential role in curriculum adaptation and highlight the need for specialized approaches to support teachers in modifying instructional materials. |
| title | Can AI Tools Transform Low-Demand Math Tasks? An Evaluation of Task Modification Capabilities |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12743 |