COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF PQ4R METHOD AND ADAPTIVE LEARNING PLATFORM OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE ABILITIES AT UNIVERSITY LEVEL
Keywords:
Adaptive Learning Platform, Cognitive Abilities, PQ4R Method, True ExperimentalAbstract
The current research is to resolve a great concern about artificial intelligence in today's race of instructional technology. Artificial intelligence is assisting the human being to solve their issues and numerous platforms are employed in this context. However, in an educational context, it is doubtful to examine the impact of adaptive learning platform as an instrument of artificial intelligence on students' cognitive skills. True experimental design will be employed to provide the answer to this question. Study population will be comprised of all undergraduate students of public colleges of Punjab. A single public sector college of district Gujrat will be chosen for this study. Two equal groups; experimental group and control group be drawn through random assignment based on pre-test. Test for assessing students' cognitive skills will be developed in accordance with the sub-levels of cognitive domain. Test will be validated and administered to both groups. Experimental group students will be instructed using adaptive learning platforms whereas control group students will be instructed through PQ4R process. Post-test will be conducted on both groups after treatment manipulation for 21 days and data thus obtained will be analyzed using t-test.
Downloads
References
Bloom, B. (1956). Bloom’s taxonomy.
Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence trends in education: a narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136, 16-24.
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18–27.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. pearson.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2018). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th) ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hamet, P., & Tremblay, J. (2017). Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism, 69, S36-S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2017.01.011
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instructionmdoes not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
NGSS (2013). Lead states: next generation Science standards: for states, By states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pokrivcakova, S. (2019). Preparing teachers for the application of AI-powered technologies in foreign language education. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 7(3), 135-153.
Theofilatos, K., Pavlopoulou, N., Papasavvas, C., Likothanassis, S., Dimitrakopoulos, C.,
Georgopoulos, E., ... & Mavroudi, S. (2015). Predicting protein complexes from weighted protein–protein interaction graphs with a novel unsupervised methodology: evolutionary enhanced Markov clustering. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 63(3), 181-189.
Tobias, S. & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: success or failure? (p. 392). New York: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from Google Books.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley &Sons.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Irsa Tayyab, Assad Naveed, Moneeza Aslam (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
