Discussion and conclusion

Our research question focused on examining how students and instructors

perceive the impact of AI systems on learner–instructor interaction (inter alia,
communication, support, and presence) in online learning. Although the
growing body of AIEd research has been conducted to investigate the useful
functionalities of AI systems (Seo et al., 2020b; Popenici & Kerr, 2017; Zawacki-
Richter et al., 2019), little has been done to understand students’ and
instructors’ concerns on AI systems. Recent use of AI systems in online
learning showed that careless application can cause surveillance and privacy
issues (Lee, 2020), which makes students feel uncomfortable (Bajaj & Li, 2020).
In this study, we found that students and instructors perceive the impact of AI
systems as double-edged swords. Consequently, although AI systems have
been positively recognized for improving the quantity and quality of
communication, for providing just-in-time, personalized support for large-
scale students, and for improving the feeling of connection, there were
concerns about responsibility, agency, and surveillance issues. In fact, what
students and instructors perceive negatively often stemmed from the positive
aspects of AI systems. For example, students and instructors appreciated AI’s
immediate communication, but at the same time they were concerned about
AI-based misunderstandings or misleadingness. Although students and
instructors valued the just-in-time, personalized support of AI, they feared that
AI would limit their ability to learn independently. Students and instructors
valued the social interaction cues provided by AI, but they are uncomfortable
with the loss of privacy due to AI’s excessive data collection. As shown in
Table 6, this study provides rich opportunities to identify the boundaries
beyond which AI systems are perceived as “invasive.”
Table 6 Summary of the boundaries beyond which AI systems are
perceived as invasive, and their potential solutions

Full size table

First, although AI systems improve instructional communication due to the

anonymity it can provide for students, students were concerned about
responsibility issues that could arise when AI’s unreliable and unexplained
answers lead to negative consequences. For instance, when communicating
with an AI Teaching Assistant, the black-box nature of the AI system leaves no
choices for students to check whether the answers from AI are right or wrong
(Castelvecchi, 2016). Accordingly, students believe they would have a hard
time deciphering the reasoning behind an AI’s answer. This can result in
serious responsibility issues if students apply an AI’s answers to their tests but
instructors mark them as wrong. As well, students would find more room to
argue for their marks because of AI’s unreliability.
Acknowledging that AI systems cannot always provide the right answer, a
potential solution to this problem is to ensure the system is explainable.
Explainability refers to the ability to offer human-understandable justifications
for the AI’s output or procedures (Gunning, 2017). Explainability gives students
the opportunity to check whether an AI’s answer is right or wrong by
themselves, and in doing so can make AI more reliable and responsible
(Gunning, 2017). Explainability should be the boundary that determines
students’ trust and acceptance of AI systems. How to ensure the explainability
of AI systems in the online learning communication context will be an
interesting research topic. For example, instead of providing unreliable
answers that may mislead or confuse students, AI systems should connect
students to relevant sources of information that students can navigate on their
own.
Second, while AI systems enable some degree of personalized support, there
is a risk of over-standardizing the learning process by prescribing how an
engaged student would or should act. Despite the fact that students
appreciate the support that they could potentially receive from AI systems,
students also worry that canned and standardized support would have a
negative influence on their agency over their own learning. Instructors are
similarly wary of the fact that too much support from AI systems could take
away students’ opportunities for exploration and discovery. Many instructors
were concerned that students could lose opportunities to learn new skills or
learn from their mistakes.
A solution to mediate this challenge may be to keep instructors involved. The
role of AI systems in online education should not be to reduce learning to a
set of canned and standardized procedures that reduce the student agency,
but rather to enhance human thinking and augment the learning process. In
practice, adaptive support is often jointly enacted by AI systems and human
facilitators, such as instructors or peers (Holstein et al., 2020). In this context,
Baker (2016, p. 603) tried to reconcile humans with AI systems by combining
“stupid tutoring systems and intelligent humans.” AI systems can process large
amounts of information quickly, but do not respond well to complex contexts.
Humans cannot process information as AI systems do, but instead they are
flexible and intelligent in a variety of contexts. When AI systems bring human
beings into the decision-making loop and try to inform them, humans can
learn more efficiently and effectively (Baker, 2016). The human-in-the-loop is
the solution to ensure students’ perceived agency in online learning. How to
balance artificial and human intelligences to promote students’ agency is an
important research direction (e.g., goldilocks conditions for human–AI
interaction; Seo et al., 2020a).
Third, even though AI strengthens the perceived connection between students
and instructors, students are uncomfortable with the measurement of their
unconscious behavior, such as facial expression analysis or eye tracking, as it
feels like surveillance. While most students liked the Virtual Avatar system
(Scenario 9) where AI simply delivers student facial expressions and body
language to the instructor via an avatar, students declined to use the AI Facial
Analytics (Scenario 11), which might miss the nuance of social interaction by
flattening and simplifying it in a way that might cause more confusion.
Interpreting social interaction from unconscious behavior could be the
boundary beyond which AI systems are perceived as “invasive.” Students felt
uncomfortable about being represented by their unconscious behavior
because they did not know what their gaze or face was doing. Stark (2019)
described facial recognition as the plutonium of AI: “[facial recognition] is
dangerous, racializing, and has few legitimate uses; facial recognition needs
regulation and control on par with nuclear waste.” Students complained about
their presence being represented by the interpretation of the AI system. In a
similar vein, the instructor negatively felt the AI system’s involvement in
interpreting the meaning of student behavior.
Establishing clear, simple, and transparent data norms and agreements about
the nature of data being collected from students and what kind of data is okay
to be presented to instructors are important considerations for future research
(Ferguson, 2019; Tsai et al., 2020).
While this study revealed important findings and implications for using AI
systems in online learning, the study recognizes some limitations that should
be considered when interpreting the patterns of the results. First, although this
study attempted to capture various forms of AI systems in online learning
based on the ideations from HCI designers and AI experts, it might be possible
that other kinds of AI systems exist. Different AI systems might offer different
insights. As such, further studies can be conducted with different kinds of AI
systems. Next, students’ and instructors’ perceptions of AI systems could be
affected by different disciplines. In the current study, we recruited students
and instructors in diverse majors and subjects. Although this helped us to
generalize our findings from participants with diverse backgrounds, there’s
more room to investigate how students and instructors in different disciplines
perceive AI systems differently. In our findings, we anecdotally found that
instructors in humanities-based fields were more concerned about rapport
with students and students’ creativity in courses compared to other disciplines.
In order to fully investigate this, future research should consider the different
learner–instructor interaction needs of participants from different majors (e.g.,
engineering vs. humanities).
Another limitation is that the study was conducted by reading the storyboards,
rather than directly interacting with AI systems. This might have limited
participants’ perceptions about the AI systems. If participants have continuous,
direct interactions with the AI systems in the real world, their perceptions may
change. As such, future researchers should examine students’ responses to
direct exposures of AI systems. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways.
For example, one could conduct a lab experiment using virtual reality, the
wizard-of-oz method, or the user enactment method to see how students
actually respond to AI systems. It would also be meaningful to conduct a
longitudinal study to understand whether and/or how student perceptions
would change over time.

Theoretical implications

This study provides theoretical implications for a learner–instructor interaction

framework by highlighting and mapping key challenges in AI-related ethical
issues (i.e. responsibility, agency, and surveillance) in online learning
environments. Researchers have requested clear ethical guidelines for future
research to prevent AI systems from accidently harming people (Loi et
al., 2019). Although several ethical frameworks and professional codes of
conduct have been developed to mitigate the potential dangers and risks of AI
in education, significant debates continue about their specific impact on
students and instructors (Williamson & Eynon, 2020). The results of this study
increase our understanding of the boundaries that determine student and
instructor trust and acceptance of AI systems, and provide a theoretical
background for designing AI systems that positively support learner–instructor
interactions in a variety of learning situations.

Practical implications

This study has practical implications for both students and instructors.
Interestingly, most of the negative experiences with AI systems came from
students’ unrealistic expectations and misunderstandings about AI systems.
The AI system’s answer is nothing more than an algorithm based on
accumulated data, yet students typically expect the AI system to be accurate.
These misconceptions can be barriers to the effective use of AI systems by
students and instructors. To address this, it is important to foster AI literacy in
students and instructors without a technical background (Long &
Magerko, 2020). For example, recent studies have published guides on how to
incorporate AI into K-12 curricula (Touretzky et al., 2019), and researchers are
exploring how to engage young learners in creative programming activities
involving AI (Zimmermann-Niefield et al., 2019).
Furthermore, in order to minimize the negative impact of AI systems on
learner–instructor interaction, it is important to address tensions where AI
systems violate the boundaries between students and instructors (e.g.,
responsibility, agency, and surveillance issues). We proposed that future AI
systems should ensure explainability, human-in-the-loop, and careful data
collection and presentation. By doing so, AI systems will be more closely
integrated into future online learning. It is important to note that the present
study does not argue that AI systems will replace the entire role of human
instructors. Rather, in the online learning of the future, AI systems and humans
will work closely together, and for this, it is important to use these systems
with consideration about perceived affordances and drawbacks.
Availability of data and materials
The full set of storyboards and an example of our codes can be viewed
at https://osf.io/3aj5v/?view_only=bc5fa97e6f7d46fdb66872588ff1e22e.
References
 Andersen, J. C. (2013). Learner satisfaction in online learning: An analysis
of the perceived impact of learner-social media and learner–instructor
interaction. Doctoral dissertation. East Tennessee State University,
Tennessee.
 Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring
systems. Science, 228(4698), 456–462.

Article Google Scholar

 Aslan, S., Alyuz, N., Tanriover, C., Mete, S. E., Okur, E., D'Mello, S. K., &
Arslan Esme, A. (2019). Investigating the impact of a real-time,
multimodal student engagement analytics technology in authentic
classrooms. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors
in computing systems (pp. 1–12).
 Bajaj, M., & Li, J. (2020). Students, faculty express concerns about online
exam invigilation amidst COVID-19 outbreak. Retrieved February 8, 2021,
from https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/Students-express-concerns-about-
online-exams/
 Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent
humans. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2),
600–614.

Article Google Scholar

 Banna, J., Lin, M. F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction
matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online
introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching/MERLOT, 11(2), 249.

Google Scholar

 Beard, A. (2020). Can computers ever replace the classroom?. Retrieved

January 10, 2021,
from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/19/can-
computers-ever-replace-the-classroom
 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Article Google Scholar

 Castelvecchi, D. (2016). Can we open the black box of AI? Nature

News, 538(7623), 20.

Article Google Scholar

 Chan, R. (2019). The Cambridge Analytica whistleblower explains how the

firm used Facebook data to sway elections. Business Insider. Retrieved
from https://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-
whistleblower-christopher-wylie-facebook-data-2019-10
 Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI
research. Nature, 538(7625), 311–313.

Article Google Scholar

 Cruz-Benito, J., Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Therón, R., & García-Peñalvo, F. J.

(2019). Measuring students’ acceptance to AI-driven assessment in
eLearning: Proposing a first TAM-based research model. In: International
conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 15–25). Springer, Cham.
 Davidoff, S., Lee, M. K., Dey, A. K., & Zimmerman, J. (2007). Rapidly
exploring application design through speed dating. In: International
conference on ubiquitous computing (pp. 429–446). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
 Felix, C. V. (2020). The role of the teacher and AI in education.
In: International perspectives on the role of technology in humanizing
higher education. Emerald Publishing Limited.
 Ferguson, R. (2019). Ethical challenges for learning analytics. Journal of
Learning Analytics, 6(3), 25–30.

Google Scholar

 Fong, M., Dodson, S., Harandi, N. M., Seo, K., Yoon, D., Roll, I., & Fels, S.
(2019). Instructors desire student activity, literacy, and video quality
analytics to improve video-based blended courses. In Proceedings of the
Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 1–10).
 Goel, A. K., & Polepeddi, L. (2016). Jill Watson: A virtual teaching
assistant for online education. Georgia Institute of Technology.

Google Scholar

 Guilherme, A. (2019). AI and education: The importance of teacher and

student relations. AI & Society, 34(1), 47–54.

Article Google Scholar

 Gunning, D. (2017). Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web, 2(2).
 Heidicker, P., Langbehn, E., & Steinicke, F. (2017). Influence of avatar
appearance on presence in social VR. In: 2017 IEEE symposium on 3D
user interfaces (3DUI) (pp. 233–234). IEEE.
 Holstein, K., Hong, G., Tegene, M., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2018).
The classroom as a dashboard: Co-designing wearable cognitive
augmentation for K-12 teachers. In: Proceedings of the 8th international
conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 79–88).
 Holstein, K., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2020). A conceptual framework
for human–AI hybrid adaptivity in education. In: International conference
on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 240–254). Springer, Cham.
 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.

Google Scholar

 Jou, M., Lin, Y. T., & Wu, D. W. (2016). Effect of a blended learning
environment on student critical thinking and knowledge
transformation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1131–1147.

Article Google Scholar

 Kang, M. S. (2010). Development of learners’ perceived interaction model
and scale between learner and instructor in e-learning environments.
Doctoral dissertation. Korea University, Korea.
 Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which
predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning
environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292–301.

Article Google Scholar

 Laura, R. S., & Chapman, A. (2009). The technologisation of education:

Philosophical reflections on being too plugged in. International Journal
of Children’s Spirituality, 14(3), 289–298.

Article Google Scholar

 Lee, S. (2020). Proctorio CEO releases student’s chat logs, sparking

renewed privacy concerns. Retrieved February 8, 2021,
from https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/proctorio-chat-logs/
 Linsey, J. S., & Becker, B. (2011). Effectiveness of brainwriting techniques:
comparing nominal groups to real teams. In: Design creativity 2010 (pp.
165–171). Springer.
 Loi, D., Wolf, C. T., Blomberg, J. L., Arar, R., & Brereton, M. (2019). Co-
designing AI futures: Integrating AI ethics, social computing, and design.
In: Companion publication of the 2019 on designing interactive systems
conference 2019 companion (pp. 381–384).
 Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and
design considerations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on
human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–16).
 Luckin, R. (2017). Towards artificial intelligence-based assessment
systems. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3), 1–3.

Article Google Scholar

 Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on
students’ sense of community in e-learning environment. Computers &
Education, 115, 153–160.
Article Google Scholar

 Luria, M., Zheng, R., Huffman, B., Huang, S., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J.
(2020). Social boundaries for personal agents in the interpersonal space
of the home. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human
factors in computing systems (pp. 1–12).
 Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student
perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online
learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222.

Article Google Scholar

 Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of

helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence,
connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet
and Higher Education, 37, 52–65.

Article Google Scholar

 McArthur, A. (2020). Students struggle with online test proctoring systems.

Retrieved January 10, 2021,
from https://universe.byu.edu/2020/12/17/students-struggle-with-
online-test-proctoring-systems/
 Misiejuk, K., & Wasson, B. (2017). State of the field report on learning
analytics. Centre for the Science of Learning & Technology (SLATE),
University of Bergen.
 Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of
Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.

Article Google Scholar

 Murphy, R. F. (2019). Artificial intelligence applications to support K–12

teachers and teaching. RAND
Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/PE315

Article Google Scholar

 Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student
behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers
and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163–174.

Article Google Scholar

 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic
analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.

Article Google Scholar

 Perin, D., & Lauterbach, M. (2018). Assessing text-based writing of low-

skilled college students. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 28(1), 56–78.

Article Google Scholar

 Popenici, S. A., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial

intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 22.

Article Google Scholar

 Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence
in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online
environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–
417.

Article Google Scholar

 Robinson, H., Kilgore, W., & Warren, S. (2017). Care, communication,

support: Core for designing meaningful online collaborative
learning. Online Learning
Journal. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1240

Article Google Scholar

 Roll, I., & Winne, P. H. (2015). Understanding, evaluating, and supporting
self-regulated learning using learning analytics. Journal of Learning
Analytics, 2(1), 7–12.
 Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial
intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 26(2), 582–599.
 Roll, I., Russell, D. M., & Gašević, D. (2018). Learning at
scale. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(4),
471–477.
 Ross, B., Chase, A. M., Robbie, D., Oates, G., & Absalom, Y. (2018).
Adaptive quizzes to increase motivation, engagement and learning
outcomes in a first year accounting unit. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 30.

Article Google Scholar

 Seo, K., Fels, S., Kang, M., Jung, C., & Ryu, H. (2020a). Goldilocks
conditions for workplace gamification: How narrative persuasion helps
manufacturing workers create self-directed behaviors. Human–
Computer Interaction. 1–38.
 Seo, K., Fels, S., Yoon, D., Roll, I., Dodson, S., & Fong, M. (2020b). Artificial
intelligence for video-based learning at scale. In Proceedings of the
Seventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 215–217).
 Seo, K., Dodson, S., Harandi, N. M., Roberson, N., Fels, S., & Roll, I. (2021).
Active learning with online video: The impact of learning context on
engagement. Computers & Education, 165, 104132.
 Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Contribution of learner–
instructor interaction to sense of community in graduate online
education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 248–
260.

Google Scholar

 Stark, L. (2019). Facial recognition is the plutonium of AI. XRDS:

Crossroads, the ACM Magazine for Students, 25(3), 50–55.
Article Google Scholar

 Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019).

Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI?.
In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 33,
No. 01, pp. 9795–9799).
 Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Storyboarding: an
empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines.
In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive
systems (pp. 12–21).
 Tsai, Y. S., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., & Gašević, D. (2020). The privacy
paradox and its implications for learning analytics. In: Proceedings of the
tenth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp.
230–239).
 VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring,
intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational
Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.

Article Google Scholar

 Walker, C. H. (2016). The correlation between types of instructor-student

communication in online graduate courses and student satisfaction levels
in the private university setting. Doctoral dissertation. Carson-Newman
University, Tennessee.
 Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and
future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and
Technology, 45(3), 223–235.

Article Google Scholar

 Wogu, I. A. P., Misra, S., Olu-Owolabi, E. F., Assibong, P. A., Udoh, O. D.,
Ogiri, S. O., & Damasevicius, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence, artificial
teachers and the fate of learners in the 21st century education sector:
Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, 119(16), 2245–2259.

Google Scholar
 Woolf, B. P., Arroyo, I., Muldner, K., Burleson, W., Cooper, D. G., Dolan, R.,
& Christopherson, R. M. (2010). The effect of motivational learning
companions on low achieving students and students with disabilities.
In: International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 327–337).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
 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(1), 39.

Article Google Scholar

 Zhang, C., Chen, H., & Phang, C. W. (2018). Role of instructors’ forum
interactions with students in promoting MOOC continuance. Journal of
Global Information Management (JGIM), 26(3), 105–120.

Article Google Scholar

 Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2017). Speed dating: Providing a menu of

possible futures. She Ji: THe Journal of Design, Economics, and
Innovation, 3(1), 30–50.

Google Scholar

 Zimmermann-Niefield, A., Turner, M., Murphy, B., Kane, S. K., & Shapiro,
R. B. (2019). Youth learning machine learning through building models
of athletic moves. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international
conference on interaction design and children (pp. 121–132).

Download references
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all students, instructors, and AI experts for
their great support and inspiration.
Funding
This study was financially supported by Seoul National University of Science &
Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Applied Artificial Intelligence, Seoul National University

of Science and Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Gongneung-dong,
Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, Korea
Kyoungwon Seo
2. Department of Computer Science, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
Joice Tang & Dongwook Yoon
3. Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion-Israel
Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Ido Roll
4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Sidney Fels

Contributions

KS: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft,

visualization, project administration; JT: conceptualization, methodology,
investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, project administration; IR:
writing—review and editing, conceptualization; SF: writing—review and
editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition; DY: writing—
review and editing, conceptualization, supervision, project administration. KS
and JT contribute equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyoungwon Seo.

Ethics declarations
Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information
Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: summary of the AI experts’ information

Table 7 Summary of the AI experts’ information

Full size table

Appendix B: speed dating interview script

1. Introduction
 Hello, thank you for taking time for this interview today. We’re really
looking forward to learning from your experience with online learning.
 Today, we’ll be discussing a set of 11 storyboards that are related to AI
systems for online courses. When reading the storyboards, try to think
about them in the context of your discipline and experiences. Our goal is
to reveal your perceptions of AI in online learning.
 For your information, the interview will take about 60 min. The interview
will be audio recorded but will be confidential and de-identified.

2. For each storyboard

 Do you think this AI system supports learner–instructor interaction? Yes,
no, or do you feel neutral? Why?
 [When the participant is a student] Would the incorporation of this AI
system into your courses change your interaction with the instructor?
 [When the participant is an instructor] Would incorporating this AI
system into the course change how you interact with students?
 Do you have any reservations or concerns about this AI system?
3. After examining all storyboards (capturing participants’ holistic point of
view)
 Of the storyboards shown today, which AI systems do you think would
work well in your online classroom? Why? Also, which ones wouldn’t
work well?
 How do you think the adoption of AI would affect the relationship
between students and the instructor?

4. Conclusion
 Do you have any final comments?
 Thank you for taking the time to interview with us today. We really
appreciate that you took time to participate in our study and share your
expertise. Your insights were really helpful.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and
reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other
third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If
material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article

Seo, K., Tang, J., Roll, I. et al. The impact of artificial intelligence on learner–
instructor interaction in online learning. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 18, 54
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00292-9
Download citation
 Received20 April 2021
 Accepted29 July 2021
 Published26 October 2021
 DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00292-9
Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

Artificial intelligence
 Boundary
 Learner–instructor interaction
 Online learning
 Speed dating
Download PDF

 Sections
 Figures
 References
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Materials and methods
 Findings
 Discussion and conclusion
 Availability of data and materials
 References
 Acknowledgements
 Funding
 Author information
 Ethics declarations
 Additional information
 Appendices
 Rights and permissions
 About this article
Advertisement
 Support and Contact
 Jobs
 Language editing for authors
 Scientific editing for authors
 Leave feedback
 Terms and conditions

https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-
021-00292-9