John Stamper
Publications
Transforming GenAI Policy to Prompting Instruction: An RCT of Scalable Prompting Interventions in a CS1 Course
Despite universal GenAI adoption, students cannot distinguish task performance from actual learning and lack skills to leverage AI for learning, leading to worse exam performance when AI use remains unreflective. Yet few interventions teaching students to prompt AI as a tutor rather than solution provider have been validated at scale through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To bridge this gap, we conducted a semester-long RCT (N=979) with four ICAP framework-based instructional conditions varying in engagement intensity with a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-test and surveys. Mixed methods analysis results showed: (1) All conditions significantly improved prompting skills, with gains increasing progressively from Condition 1 to Condition 4, validating ICAP's cognitive engagement hierarchy; (2) for students with similar pre-test scores, higher learning gain in immediate post-test predict higher final exam score, though no direct between-group differences emerged; (3) Our interventions are suitable and scalable solutions for diverse educational contexts, resources and learners. Together, this study makes empirical and theoretical contributions: (1) theoretically, we provided one of the first large-scale RCTs examining how cognitive engagement shapes learning in prompting literacy and clarifying the relationship between learning-oriented prompting skills and broader academic performance; (2) empirically, we offered timely design guidance for transforming GenAI classroom policies into scalable, actionable prompting literacy instruction to advance learning in the era of Generative AI.
How to Assess AI Literacy: Misalignment Between Self-Reported and Objective-Based Measures
The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 education highlights the need for psychometrically-tested measures of teachers' AI literacy. Existing work has primarily relied on either self-report (SR) or objective-based (OB) assessments, with few studies aligning the two within a shared framework to compare perceived versus demonstrated competencies or examine how prior AI literacy experience shapes this relationship. This gap limits the scalability of learning analytics and the development of learner profile-driven instructional design. In this study, we developed and evaluated SR and OB measures of teacher AI literacy within the established framework of Concept, Use, Evaluate, and Ethics. Confirmatory factor analyses support construct validity with good reliability and acceptable fit. Results reveal a low correlation between SR and OB factors. Latent profile analysis identified six distinct profiles, including overestimation (SR > OB), underestimation (SR < OB), alignment (SR close to OB), and a unique low-SR/low-OB profile among teachers without AI literacy experience. Theoretically, this work extends existing AI literacy frameworks by validating SR and OB measures on shared dimensions. Practically, the instruments function as diagnostic tools for professional development, supporting AI-informed decisions (e.g., growth monitoring, needs profiling) and enabling scalable learning analytics interventions tailored to teacher subgroups.