Opportunities for Adaptive Experiments to Enable Continuous Improvement that Trades-off Instructor and Researcher Incentives

Randomized experimental comparisons of alternative pedagogical strategies could provide useful empirical evidence in instructors' decision-making. However, traditional experiments do not have a clear and simple pathway to using data rapidly to try to increase the chances that students in an experiment get the best conditions. Drawing inspiration from the use of machine learning and experimentation in product development at leading technology companies, we explore how adaptive experimentation might help in continuous course improvement. In adaptive experiments, as different arms/conditions are deployed to students, data is analyzed and used to change the experience for future students. This can be done using machine learning algorithms to identify which actions are more promising for improving student experience or outcomes. This algorithm can then dynamically deploy the most effective conditions to future students, resulting in better support for students' needs. We illustrate the approach with a case study providing a side-by-side comparison of traditional and adaptive experimentation of self-explanation prompts in online homework problems in a CS1 course. This provides a first step in exploring the future of how this methodology can be useful in bridging research and practice in doing continuous improvement.

Using Adaptive Bandit Experiments to Increase and Investigate Engagement in Mental Health

Digital mental health (DMH) interventions, such as text-message-based lessons and activities, offer immense potential for accessible mental health support. While these interventions can be effective, real-world experimental testing can further enhance their design and impact. Adaptive experimentation, utilizing algorithms like Thompson Sampling for (contextual) multi-armed bandit (MAB) problems, can lead to continuous improvement and personalization. However, it remains unclear when these algorithms can simultaneously increase user experience rewards and facilitate appropriate data collection for social-behavioral scientists to analyze with sufficient statistical confidence. Although a growing body of research addresses the practical and statistical aspects of MAB and other adaptive algorithms, further exploration is needed to assess their impact across diverse real-world contexts. This paper presents a software system developed over two years that allows text-messaging intervention components to be adapted using bandit and other algorithms while collecting data for side-by-side comparison with traditional uniform random non-adaptive experiments. We evaluate the system by deploying a text-message-based DMH intervention to 1100 users, recruited through a large mental health non-profit organization, and share the path forward for deploying this system at scale. This system not only enables applications in mental health but could also serve as a model testbed for adaptive experimentation algorithms in other domains.

Impact of Guidance and Interaction Strategies for LLM Use on Learner Performance and Perception

Personalized chatbot-based teaching assistants can be crucial in addressing increasing classroom sizes, especially where direct teacher presence is limited. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue, with increasing research exploring their educational utility. However, the challenge lies not only in establishing the efficacy of LLMs but also in discerning the nuances of interaction between learners and these models, which impact learners' engagement and results. We conducted a formative study in an undergraduate computer science classroom (N=145) and a controlled experiment on Prolific (N=356) to explore the impact of four pedagogically informed guidance strategies and the interaction between student approaches and LLM responses. Direct LLM answers marginally improved performance, while refining student solutions fostered trust. Our findings suggest a nuanced relationship between the guidance provided and LLM's role in either answering or refining student input. Based on our findings, we provide design recommendations for optimizing learner-LLM interactions.

ABScribe: Rapid Exploration of Multiple Writing Variations in Human-AI Co-Writing Tasks using Large Language Models

Exploring alternative ideas by rewriting text is integral to the writing process. State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) can simplify writing variation generation. However, current interfaces pose challenges for simultaneous consideration of multiple variations: creating new versions without overwriting text can be difficult, and pasting them sequentially can clutter documents, increasing workload and disrupting writers' flow. To tackle this, we present ABScribe, an interface that supports rapid, yet visually structured, exploration of writing variations in human-AI co-writing tasks. With ABScribe, users can swiftly produce multiple variations using LLM prompts, which are auto-converted into reusable buttons. Variations are stored adjacently within text segments for rapid in-place comparisons using mouse-over interactions on a context toolbar. Our user study with 12 writers shows that ABScribe significantly reduces task workload (d = 1.20, p < 0.001), enhances user perceptions of the revision process (d = 2.41, p < 0.001) compared to a popular baseline workflow, and provides insights into how writers explore variations using LLMs.

Getting too personal(ized): The importance of feature choice in online adaptive algorithms

Digital educational technologies offer the potential to customize students' experiences and learn what works for which students, enhancing the technology as more students interact with it. We consider whether and when attempting to discover how to personalize has a cost, such as if the adaptation to personal information can delay the adoption of policies that benefit all students. We explore these issues in the context of using multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithms to learn a policy for what version of an educational technology to present to each student, varying the relation between student characteristics and outcomes and also whether the algorithm is aware of these characteristics. Through simulations, we demonstrate that the inclusion of student characteristics for personalization can be beneficial when those characteristics are needed to learn the optimal action. In other scenarios, this inclusion decreases performance of the bandit algorithm. Moreover, including unneeded student characteristics can systematically disadvantage students with less common values for these characteristics. Our simulations do however suggest that real-time personalization will be helpful in particular real-world scenarios, and we illustrate this through case studies using existing experimental results in ASSISTments. Overall, our simulations show that adaptive personalization in educational technologies can be a double-edged sword: real-time adaptation improves student experiences in some contexts, but the slower adaptation and potentially discriminatory results mean that a more personalized model is not always beneficial.

Contextual Bandits in a Survey Experiment on Charitable Giving: Within-Experiment Outcomes versus Policy Learning

We design and implement an adaptive experiment (a ``contextual bandit'') to learn a targeted treatment assignment policy, where the goal is to use a participant's survey responses to determine which charity to expose them to in a donation solicitation. The design balances two competing objectives: optimizing the outcomes for the subjects in the experiment (``cumulative regret minimization'') and gathering data that will be most useful for policy learning, that is, for learning an assignment rule that will maximize welfare if used after the experiment (``simple regret minimization''). We evaluate alternative experimental designs by collecting pilot data and then conducting a simulation study. Next, we implement our selected algorithm. Finally, we perform a second simulation study anchored to the collected data that evaluates the benefits of the algorithm we chose. Our first result is that the value of a learned policy in this setting is higher when data is collected via a uniform randomization rather than collected adaptively using standard cumulative regret minimization or policy learning algorithms. We propose a simple heuristic for adaptive experimentation that improves upon uniform randomization from the perspective of policy learning at the expense of increasing cumulative regret relative to alternative bandit algorithms. The heuristic modifies an existing contextual bandit algorithm by (i) imposing a lower bound on assignment probabilities that decay slowly so that no arm is discarded too quickly, and (ii) after adaptively collecting data, restricting policy learning to select from arms where sufficient data has been gathered.

Using Adaptive Experiments to Rapidly Help Students

Adaptive experiments can increase the chance that current students obtain better outcomes from a field experiment of an instructional intervention. In such experiments, the probability of assigning students to conditions changes while more data is being collected, so students can be assigned to interventions that are likely to perform better. Digital educational environments lower the barrier to conducting such adaptive experiments, but they are rarely applied in education. One reason might be that researchers have access to few real-world case studies that illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of these experiments in a specific context. We evaluate the effect of homework email reminders in students by conducting an adaptive experiment using the Thompson Sampling algorithm and compare it to a traditional uniform random experiment. We present this as a case study on how to conduct such experiments, and we raise a range of open questions about the conditions under which adaptive randomized experiments may be more or less useful.

Increasing Students' Engagement to Reminder Emails Through Multi-Armed Bandits

Conducting randomized experiments in education settings raises the question of how we can use machine learning techniques to improve educational interventions. Using Multi-Armed Bandits (MAB) algorithms like Thompson Sampling (TS) in adaptive experiments can increase students' chances of obtaining better outcomes by increasing the probability of assignment to the most optimal condition (arm), even before an intervention completes. This is an advantage over traditional A/B testing, which may allocate an equal number of students to both optimal and non-optimal conditions. The problem is the exploration-exploitation trade-off. Even though adaptive policies aim to collect enough information to allocate more students to better arms reliably, past work shows that this may not be enough exploration to draw reliable conclusions about whether arms differ. Hence, it is of interest to provide additional uniform random (UR) exploration throughout the experiment. This paper shows a real-world adaptive experiment on how students engage with instructors' weekly email reminders to build their time management habits. Our metric of interest is open email rates which tracks the arms represented by different subject lines. These are delivered following different allocation algorithms: UR, TS, and what we identified as TS{\dag} - which combines both TS and UR rewards to update its priors. We highlight problems with these adaptive algorithms - such as possible exploitation of an arm when there is no significant difference - and address their causes and consequences. Future directions includes studying situations where the early choice of the optimal arm is not ideal and how adaptive algorithms can address them.

Reinforcement Learning in Modern Biostatistics: Constructing Optimal Adaptive Interventions

Reinforcement learning (RL) is acquiring a key role in the space of adaptive interventions (AIs), attracting a substantial interest within methodological and theoretical literature and becoming increasingly popular within health sciences. Despite potential benefits, its application in real life is still limited due to several operational and statistical challenges--in addition to ethical and cost issues among others--that remain open in part due to poor communication and synergy between methodological and applied scientists. In this work, we aim to bridge the different domains that contribute to and may benefit from RL, under a unique framework that intersects the areas of RL, causal inference, and AIs, among others. We provide the first unified instructive survey on RL methods for building AIs, encompassing both dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) and just-in-time adaptive interventions in mobile health (mHealth). We outline similarities and differences between the two areas, and discuss their implications for using RL. We combine our relevant methodological knowledge with motivating studies in both DTRs and mHealth to illustrate the tremendous collaboration opportunities between statistical, RL, and healthcare researchers in the space of AIs.

Challenges in Statistical Analysis of Data Collected by a Bandit Algorithm: An Empirical Exploration in Applications to Adaptively Randomized Experiments

Multi-armed bandit algorithms have been argued for decades as useful for adaptively randomized experiments. In such experiments, an algorithm varies which arms (e.g. alternative interventions to help students learn) are assigned to participants, with the goal of assigning higher-reward arms to as many participants as possible. We applied the bandit algorithm Thompson Sampling (TS) to run adaptive experiments in three university classes. Instructors saw great value in trying to rapidly use data to give their students in the experiments better arms (e.g. better explanations of a concept). Our deployment, however, illustrated a major barrier for scientists and practitioners to use such adaptive experiments: a lack of quantifiable insight into how much statistical analysis of specific real-world experiments is impacted (Pallmann et al, 2018; FDA, 2019), compared to traditional uniform random assignment. We therefore use our case study of the ubiquitous two-arm binary reward setting to empirically investigate the impact of using Thompson Sampling instead of uniform random assignment. In this setting, using common statistical hypothesis tests, we show that collecting data with TS can as much as double the False Positive Rate (FPR; incorrectly reporting differences when none exist) and the False Negative Rate (FNR; failing to report differences when they exist)...