Organizations: Archbishop Mitty High School, San Jose, CA · University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN · Indian Institute of Management Bodh Gaya, Bodh Gaya, India
This paper reflects on a AI research project carried out by a team of high-school and early-undergraduate students under the mentorship of graduate researchers and ably assisted by AI tools. We share our experience in not only on the learning experience for the high school students, but also on how AI tools accelerated the process that enabled the high school students to focus on higher order problem formulation and solution. Although the participants entered the project with limited background in both AI and finance, they showed strong enthusiasm for technical market analysis and ETF price prediction. Traditional learning settings would first teach the necessary methods in a classroom setting and only later let students apply them. In contrast, our project emphasized workflow design: students identified the sequence of steps needed to address the problem and then used AI-driven tools to execute each step. We note that the high school students developed the necessary code through iterating with the AI tools, and we used our daily stand-ups to debug and answer conceptual questions. Each of the student was able to dig deeper into their area of interest whether computer science or finance, while collaboratively making a significant advance over the summer of 2025. This project was an important pedagogical exercise on how AI tools can be used for mentoring high school students, allowing them to focus on their specific interests and using the daily stand-ups to focus on problem definition and conceptual understanding. Despite their limited technical qualifications, the students were able to leverage AI tools to build meaningful models with real-world application.
Generative AI is reshaping higher education programming through vibe coding, where students collaborate with AI via natural language rather than writing code line-by-line. We conceptualize this practice as help-seeking, analyzing 19,418 interaction turns from 110 undergraduate students. Using inductive coding and Heterogeneous Transition Network Analysis, we examined interaction sequences to compare top- and low-performing students. Results reveal that top performers engaged in instrumental help-seeking -- inquiry and exploration -- eliciting tutor-like AI responses. In contrast, low performers relied on executive help-seeking, frequently delegating tasks and prompting the AI to assume an executor role focused on ready-made solutions. These findings indicate that currently generative AI mirrors student intent (whether productive or passive) rather than optimizing for learning. To evolve from tools to teammates, AI systems must move beyond passive compliance. We argue for pedagogically aligned design that detect unproductive delegation and adaptively steer educational interactions toward inquiry, ensuring student-AI partnerships augment rather than replace cognitive effort.
Code review is central to software engineering education but hard to scale in capstone projects due to tight deadlines, uneven peer feedback, and limited prior experience. We investigate an LLM-as-reviewer integrated directly into GitHub pull requests (human-in-the-loop) across two cohorts (more than 100 students, 2023--2024). Using a mixed-methods design -- GitHub data, reflective reports, and a targeted survey -- we examine engagement and responsiveness as behavioral indicators of self-regulated learning processes. Quantitatively, the 2024 cohort produced more iterative activity (1176 vs. 581 PRs), while technical issues observed in 2023 (227 failed AI attempts) dropped to zero after tool and instructional refinements. Despite different adoption levels (93% vs. 50% of teams using the tool), responsiveness was stable: 32% (2023) and 33% (2024) of successfully AI-reviewed PRs were followed by subsequent commits on the same PR. Qualitatively, students used the LLM's structured comments to focus reviews and discuss code quality, while guidance reduced over-reliance. We contribute: (i) an in-workflow design for an AI reviewer that scaffolds learning while mitigating cognitive offloading; (ii) a repeated cross sectional comparison across two cohorts in authentic settings; (iii) a mixed-methods analysis combining objective GitHub metrics with student self-reports; and (iv) evidence-based pedagogical recommendations for responsible, student-led AI-assisted review.
Eduardo Oliveira, Michael Fu, Patanamon Thongtanunam +2
Middle school is a key window for building core academic skills and the learning routines students carry into later grades, yet many students still fall behind because help is often limited and comes too late, after they have already been stuck for a while. Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are now standard infrastructure for distributing materials, collecting work, assessing students' tasks, and recording grades, but in most deployments they still behave more like workflow tools than instructional supports. The result is the usual bottleneck: students keep practicing through confusion, teachers triage questions, and feedback that could have corrected the misunderstanding arrives after the misconception has already hardened. To address this gap, we propose an AI-integrated LMS for middle school instruction, paired with a longitudinal study design to test whether sustained, bounded AI support changes outcomes through high school and into post-high school pathways. The proposed platform adds policy-gated AI assistance to everyday coursework, delivering formative feedback and hinting, recommending spaced review and adaptive practice based on mastery, and providing teacher-facing dashboards that summarize misconception patterns and flag sustained struggle. Because the platform is intended for minors, the design is privacy-first, using data minimization, role-based access control, age-appropriate response constraints, and auditable logs of AI interactions. Beyond short-term performance, the evaluation plan links fine-grained learning traces (attempts, revisions, help-seeking, and pacing) to institutional outcomes where feasible, so we can separate tool adoption effects from longer-run changes in learning trajectories.