AI in Education

AI learning tools are rapidly entering classrooms, but evidence about whether they help students learn is mixed and rests mostly on test scores. Comparatively less research addresses whether the use of AI changes students' live learning behaviors in class. Here, we report the results of a preregistered field experiment with 759 MBA students enrolled in ten sections of a course, in which each student was randomly assigned two of ten class sessions to prepare for with a purpose-built voice-based AI discussion partner. After two uses of the AI discussion partner, students made about 31% more voluntary contributions in each later class session. Students who used the AI discussion partner more also reported greater comfort speaking up and greater perceived learning, but not greater focus or motivation. These findings suggest that repeated practice with a voice-based AI partner can meaningfully increase students' engagement in class discussion, enhancing a critical intermediate learning outcome.

We present TutorLoop, a sensor-in-the-loop system that regulates student learning behaviors by delivering adaptive feedback based on real-time cognitive states. Unlike prior large language model (LLM) tutors that directly depend on scenario-specific content, TutorLoop operates on sensor-derived signals captured via webcams. Moreover, unlike direct cognitive-to-feedback mappings that are short-sighted, the system employs a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agent to optimize the feedback type across the entire learning process. Finally, another LLM tutor refines feedback into human-like, context-aware messages. We evaluate TutorLoop in a large-scale user study (N=187), where a model trained offline is directly applied to a new learning task without retraining. Results show that TutorLoop provides less frequent yet more effective interventions, improving attention, reducing workload, increasing engagement, and ultimately enhancing learning outcomes. These findings highlight the potential of closed-loop, sensor-driven feedback for scalable human-AI integrated systems to support learning.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable problem solvers, but being able to solve a problem is not the same as being able to teach it. Existing approaches to training LLMs as teachers rely on demonstrations, preference data, or predefined pedagogical criteria that specify what good teaching looks like. However, these signals are often not grounded in individual student learning outcomes, where effective teaching strategies can vary substantially across learners. To address this, we introduce Sherpa, a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework that instantiates multiple student archetypes with LLMs conditioned on distinct learning preferences and trains a teacher model to adapt its instruction by directly maximizing their learning outcomes. Teacher LLMs trained with Sherpa improve instructed students' performance across all archetypes by an average of 20.5 percentage points. Under MathTutorBench's evaluation, Sherpa raises the overall pedagogy score from 52.5% to 79.2%, indicating better teaching responses. Our human studies show that the trained teacher is preferred over the base model in 79.6% of pairwise comparisons. Together, Sherpa trains LLM teachers to adapt to diverse simulated students and become better aligned with human teachers, paving the road towards AI tutors teaching real students.

In K-12 mathematics tutoring, student-tutor dialogue provides rich evidence of learners' problem-solving processes and sources of difficulty. Learning analytics research increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) to extract such information from dialogue for a variety of downstream tasks, including knowledge tracing, behavioral modeling, and diagnosis of student reasoning errors. However, the validity of these model-generated interpretations remains insufficiently understood. In this exploratory study, we examine the validity of LLM classifications of five student failure modes in mathematics tutoring dialogue using an operational diagnostic codebook: uncertainty, misattribution, operator selection, conceptual gap, and procedural slip. Across models, human-LLM agreement was moderate (kappa = .524-.597), while cross-model agreement was substantially higher (kappa = .755-.781; alpha = .769). These findings show that cross-model agreement can create a misleading appearance of correctness, challenging the assumption that consensus among LLMs constitutes evidence of valid learner interpretation. For learning analytics, the implication is clear: scalable labeling is useful only if the inferred constructs are valid, and model consensus cannot substitute for independent evidence of that validity.

Assessing the developmental suitability of children's narratives is important for educational recommendation and developmental literacy research, yet such assessment typically relies on subjective and difficult-to-scale human judgment. This raises an important question: Can AI systems approximate human developmental judgments of children's stories? To study this problem, we introduce CLARA, a cognitively grounded framework for developmental narrative understanding through structured annotation across cognitive (COG), language (LAN), and social-emotional (SEL) dimensions, together with a bilingual benchmark resource containing 1107 Chinese--English children's stories with normalized silver developmental references and structured developmental annotations. We evaluate CLARA through benchmark comparison, component analysis, translated bilingual consistency analysis, and blinded human evaluation with educators. Experimental results show that structured developmental annotation achieves substantially stronger alignment with developmental references and human judgments than readability-based methods and direct prompting baselines. Overall, our findings suggest that AI systems can approximate certain aspects of human developmental judgment when guided by structured developmental annotation, while also highlighting the importance of interpretability and human oversight in educational NLP.

Knowledge concept tagging aims to assign specific concept or topic labels to educational content, which is essential for both educators and learners in traditional and online teaching practices. Recent work has explored large language models (LLMs) for this task, achieving promising performance. However, LLMs still struggle to select the correct concept from a large-scale candidate set due to the high dimensionality of the decision space. In this paper, we propose a novel three-stage Select-Reason-Judge (SRJudge) framework, which empowers LLMs with selective reasoning capability for fine-grained knowledge concept tagging. Specifically, the Selector in Stage 1 first narrows the candidate concepts to a top-K shortlist by fine-tuning a small language model (SLM), e.g., BERT, since the top-$K$ predictions hit the correct concept in most cases, thereby reducing the decision space of correct candidates. Next, the Stage 2 Reasoner employs a lightweight LLM for refined reasoning over the shortlisted candidates. It further integrates an improved reinforcement learning strategy with a dynamic task-specific reward function and a pruning mechanism to better align with human reasoning preferences. Finally, a larger LLM acts as a judger that evaluates the overall rationality of the reasoning process and its explanations to determine the final output. In addition, we construct two high-quality datasets for further validation, i.e., the biology dataset S_Bio and the physics dataset S_Phy. Experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across benchmark datasets, verifying its effectiveness and superiority. Resources are available at: https://github.com/Nicozwy/SRJudge.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as a force to empower underserved communities, and significant efforts are being made to expand access. Yet, access alone does not equate to meaningful adoption. First, even if a system is accessible, it won't be adopted if users are not willing to adopt it. Second, even if an LLM system is superficially adopted, the heterogeneity of LLM tools means that LLM adoption can be further deepened. Closing this access-adoption gap is critical to ensuring that the full social potential of LLM is not only accessible but fully realised. Drawing on 61 interviews (15 long-form semi-structured interviews with first-generation, low-income college (FGLI) students, 3 non-FGLI students, 3 FGLI program directors, and 40 intercept interviews), this paper examines the access-adoption gap in first-generation, low-income student communities. This paper a) finds that while FGLI students have adopted LLM systems, their depth of LLM tool usage is limited to chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT or Claude) for narrow use cases, and b) identifies barriers limiting their willingness to learn and use (low perceived value, under-estimated self-efficacy, unclear starting point, low peer exposure, and resource constraints). Then, from these findings, the paper derives the four design principles to design a system or an intervention aimed at closing the access-adoption gap in LLM adoption by FGLI students. In doing so, the paper contributes to the field by a) examining the LLM access-adoption gap in the FGLI student community, and b) reframing LLM adoption as a depth gradient across four modes of LLM tool use: basic chatbot interfaces, tool-augmented prebuilt interfaces, agentic development interfaces, and programmatic integration.

The public visibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is growing rapidly, driven by the positive impact of its applications across diverse fields of knowledge. In this new chapter, courses that cover the foundations of AI and machine learning become essential for understanding their role and potential in contemporary society. Therefore, understanding fundamental concepts and elementary algorithms through the close integration of theory with practice is essential in AI courses. In this essay, we report our experience designing machine learning exercises for automated assessment tools in programming. It is worth mentioning that we are not developing a novel form of automated grading system. Instead, we propose a perspective that frames machine learning problems as input-output assessment tasks. From this perspective, each exercise admits a unique and deterministic answer and enables automated programming assessment tools (e.g., VPL for Moodle, Codeforces, and MOJ) to effectively support AI education. We believe this essay can encourage instructors to foster educational innovation by adopting more dynamic and interactive approaches to AI courses that integrate theory and practice. Importantly, this essay does not introduce an innovation in the use of AI for education; rather, it introduces an innovative approach to improving the learning of AI, particularly, machine learning.

Large language models have allowed the rapid deployment of pedagogical annotations corresponding to constructs of interest, allowing a natural language interface for generating classifications on a conversational dataset. However due to the opaque nature of LLM reasoning, we have no verifiable, mechanistic insight into why a model chose a label for an utterance. We introduce the EduBehaviors framework, an interpretable, scalable approach to annotating educational data that uses LLMs to measure repeated observable behaviors relevant to many constructs of interest and then learns a classifier for the construct based on these observable behaviors. We evaluate the framework on the TalkMoves dataset, predicting the Teacher TalkMoves labels. Our best configuration results in a macro-F1 of 0.673 and 0.688 Cohen's kappa, proving competitive with direct prompting approaches. In addition, we release EduBehaviors Toolkit, two tools allowing researchers to operationalize the EduBehaviors framework in their own data.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as course-specific tutors, but their usefulness depends on grounding in vetted instructional materials that are often revised mid-semester. Our prior work built a multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system over an authentic machine learning course corpus (Foundations of Machine Learning) and found that retrieval improved contextual grounding, but that fixed retrieval strategies were suboptimal. That motivates a different question: whether how a corpus is structured at ingest time matters more than how much is retrieved at query time. We present a controlled head-to-head comparison of two knowledge representations over an identical classroom corpus: (A) vector RAG, replicating the best-performing configuration from our prior study, and (B) an LLM-compiled wiki (Karpathy framework), in which the corpus is synthesized at ingest into linked concept pages with explicit cross-references and citations back to source materials. We evaluate 59 questions spanning single-fact recall, cross-unit concept linking, synthesis and explanation, and currency after a syllabus revision, scored by an LLM judge against a human-authored rubric. Both representations answered single-fact questions about equally well (9.33 vs. 9.96 of 10), but diverged sharply on questions requiring links across course units. The compiled wiki remained accurate and grounded (9.93; 100% grounded in cited sources), while retrieval scored lower and was markedly less grounded (8.14; 64%). The wiki's citations let students and instructors trace any claim back to the lecture that introduced it, adding a layer of dynamic retrieval that machine learning courses require. While further testing is needed, instructors using AI to support learning in ML courses should consider wiki-based structure for its potential to support foundational elements of best practice.

Children increasingly interact with AI chatbots, making trust calibration essential to AI literacy. Prior research has examined children's trust in AI mainly as users evaluating systems built by others, rather than as designers of their own chatbots. We developed a chatbot-building environment with adjustable trust-relevant traits (e.g., confidence, transparency, formality, assertiveness), rules, and persona. We conducted mixed-methods study with 115 learners (ages 8-18) who made 119 chatbots. We examined how children configured their chatbots, reasoned about trustworthiness, and how closely chatbot behavior aligned with their designs. Younger students (age 10-13) set significantly higher confidence than older students (age 14-18), and some deliberately built chatbots that gave wrong answers on purpose, yet still called them trustworthy, arguing that a chatbot does what it was built to do. Younger students equated trust with purpose-fulfillment, while older students linked it to transparent, calibrated design. Students also calibrated academic chatbots to be more transparent and formal than hobby chatbots. We identify seven design dimensions describing what children believe makes a chatbot trustworthy, and discuss implications for AI literacy tools.

Generative AI enables scalable production of educational videos, but current systems largely focus on producing visually coherent content rather than supporting learning. As a result, generated videos often lack explicit pedagogical structure, reliable quality control, and mechanisms for assessing learner understanding or addressing misconceptions. In this work, we introduce PIVOT (Pedagogy-guided Instructional VideO Tutoring), a generative video tutoring framework for STEM learning via learning-centered instructional support.1 Inspired by conventional teaching workflows, our framework integrates pedagogy into the full generation pipeline: it first uses instructional principles to guide storyboard generation, then produces verified multimodal videos through code-centric generation and a pedagogical verification harness, and finally connects videos with assessment and misconception-aware remediation. Experiments and expert evaluations across four STEM domains show that our framework produces educational videos with pedagogically aligned content, clear and engaging presentation, coherent instructional flow, and perceived effectiveness for learning. These findings suggest a human-centered perspective on educational content generation: generative systems should be evaluated and designed not only by what they produce, but also by how they support teaching practices, learner understanding, and corrective feedback.

Despite the widely recognized potential of AI in education, most prior work has focused on individualized student assistance. In contrast, the majority of educational practice worldwide still takes place in collective classroom settings. To enable researchers to study AI assistance in collective teaching, we introduce Edustories, a dataset of 1,492 teacher-written case studies describing real elementary and high-school classroom situations involving challenging student behavior, pedagogical interventions, and their outcomes. Among many other applications, Edustories enables evaluating LLMs' ability to predict the success of teacher interventions, crucial for providing practicing teachers with useful feedback. Comparing the latest models from four language-model families against expert assessments, we find that current models fall short of human expertise in predicting classroom outcomes; the strongest models reach 58% accuracy compared to 64% of human experts. This gap highlights both the limitations and the emerging potential of AI as assistants for practicing teachers.

Cognitive offloading to AI can reduce opportunities to practice skills, creating risks of deskilling. However, it remains unclear how to prevent deskilling without restricting access to AI. Here, we design two interventions to reduce offloading decisions: (1) metacognitive feedback that makes the implications of offloading for users explicit, and (2) an effort-based reward that incentivizes less extensive LLM assistance. We test both in a preregistered online experiment ($N = 704$) with a 2$\times$2 design and a no-AI control. The task was to practice fraction arithmetic with an LLM-based assistant that provided solutions only on explicit request, followed by an unaided test. Metacognitive feedback reduced answer offloading (OR $= 0.47$) and improved test performance (OR $= 1.51$). We found no evidence that the reward affected either outcome. Our results identify metacognitive feedback as a promising design choice to reduce cognitive offloading.

Business analytics education requires diverse datasets to support different learning objectives, student backgrounds, and analytical tasks. Real-world data can be difficult to obtain and offer limited flexibility for adapting a case to a particular course. Even when suitable data are available, instructors must investigate the patterns, verify the results, and prepare assignments and reference solutions, requiring substantial time and effort. The use of large language models (LLMs) introduces an additional concern about training data contamination. Widely used public datasets often have extensive tutorials and worked analyses that models may have encountered during training. Students may therefore receive explanations drawn from existing analyses without practicing how to investigate unfamiliar data in collaboration with AI. This paper presents DataCanvas-EDU, an agentic framework for instructor-guided synthetic data generation in business analytics education. Instructors specify teaching goals and intended patterns through conversation, while an AI agent writes generation code, checks the resulting data, and prepares assignments, reference analyses, and rubrics. Four phases, Plan, Create, Verify / Test Analysis, and Evaluate, organize the process and support instructor review and revision. The framework is intended to simplify case preparation while creating opportunities for students to investigate newly designed patterns with AI. We illustrate the approach with WindowDash, a food delivery case containing 15,000 orders and nine designed patterns. DataCanvas-EDU is packaged as a reusable AI Agent Skill for compatible agent environments, with the package and installation instructions available at https://github.com/BANG23333/datacanvas-edu

Classroom observations are widely recognized as a key tool for establishing benchmarks of education quality and guiding pedagogical improvement, yet they remain resource-intensive and dependent on trained observers. This study evaluated the feasibility of using a LLM (GPT-5 model) to score teacher-child interactions in early childhood classrooms, benchmarked against human raters. The study analyzed 87 video-recorded observations from 38 classrooms across 30 kindergartens in Hong Kong. Using observation transcripts, the AI model was configured to apply the full Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) framework. AI-rated scores were then compared with human ratings by examining correlations and differences in mean scores of the CLASS domains and dimensions. The results showed greater convergence between AI and raters for the Emotional Support domain and, in particular, the Quality of Feedback dimension, which captures how teachers use feedback to extend children's learning. Greater divergence emerged for interactions that were more procedural or context-dependent, particularly within the Classroom Organization and Instructional Support domains. These findings suggest that transcript-based AI scoring may capture some of the relative variation in teacher-child interactions but cannot yet reproduce calibrated human judgements consistently across the full CLASS framework. AI-assisted observation may therefore be more appropriate as a preliminary screening tool rather than as a replacement for trained observers, providing teachers with evidence for reflection rather than high-stakes evaluation. Future research should examine whether domain-specific training and incorporation of contextual and visual information can improve alignment between AI and human rated scores.

K-12 robotics and AI education remains difficult to scale, especially in rural regions lacking sustained technical mentorship. Programs like FIRST provide competition pathways and instructional opportunities, but they do not eliminate the need for local programming and robotics expertise. We introduce AI, Robotics, & Community (ARC), a hubs-based framework where colleges train undergraduate mentors and host workshops for nearby K-12 teams. Mature school programs can become secondary hubs that support additional schools, creating a self-reinforcing education loop where mentorship reach propagates geographically and can even grow super-linearly. We first evaluate ARC through a trial deployment at one university. The trial created three rural robotics teams. On five-point Likert surveys, mean increases in K-12 programming knowledge, resource access, and practice opportunities were 2.00, 2.25, and 1.25 points. Likewise, undergraduate confidence teaching technical concepts, adapting explanations, managing groups, and finding mentoring enjoyable and meaningful increased by 1.29, 1.14, 1.00, and 1.14 points. Additionally, we create a spatial Markov model of ARC's growth and simulate it using the state of Indiana as a testbed. Under moderate conditions, we find that ARC reaches 74% of Indiana's 1,925 public K-12 schools and produces 992 robotics programs after 40 years, compared with 161 projected under natural growth alone. Together, these results show ARC can create and support rural robotics programs, train undergraduate AI and robotics mentors, and potentially scale mentorship across a region.

Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considering student demographics may be necessary -- for example, to improve readability for users with lower educational levels. However, it also risks being a cause of discrimination, e.g., when assigning lower scores to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We set up controlled prompts to test 1) explicit demographic effects, where we mention demographic details directly, and 2) implicit effects, where we use conversation history as a demographic signal. We test these settings in three tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Formative Feedback, and Metalinguistic Question Answering. We test six state-of-the-art LLMs on these tasks. In both explicit and implicit cases, the models pick up on demographic cues and can change their scoring, feedback, and answers accordingly. We find that LLMs frequently adjust the readability of feedback to education levels when these are explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, implicit conditions produce unpredictable biases, such as in question answering, where responses from lower-education levels receive lower sentiment scores. Our results provide clear evidence of demographic sensitivity in LLMs for educational assessment tasks.

AI literacy provides foundational competencies that support ethical, transparent, and sustainable technological development, although higher-order capabilities such as governance, critical evaluation, and strategic decision-making extend beyond basic literacy into advanced levels of AI competency. This study positions AI literacy as a governance capacity that complements and strengthens all 17 SDGs. It introduces a six-level taxonomy of artificial intelligence reasoning and ethics that extends traditional learning models by incorporating ethical judgement and strategic foresight. This taxonomy forms the foundation of an integrated framework linking education, governance, and sustainable development. A survey of 300 participants from diverse professional backgrounds within a national context which reveals strong technical awareness but limited ethical and governance readiness, highlighting critical gaps in public capacity to manage artificial intelligence responsibly. Findings show that ethical reasoning and reflective thinking are the strongest predictors of sustainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence use. The study proposed to embed literacy-based competencies into curricula, institutional policies, and governance mechanisms to accelerate equitable and responsible progress toward sustainable development goals

Chatbots built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as confidants. Tuned to satisfy users, they may answer with excessive empathy and affirmation that fosters dependence, and how the states and relationships of many users co-evolve under repeated consultation is hard to observe in real settings. We build a virtual classroom of 20 student agents who interact through rule-based chats, quarrels and consultations with friends and, when stressed, may instead consult a counselor AI (Gemini 2.5 Flash) under one of six style prompts: affirming, listening, solution-oriented, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming. A second LLM call turns each exchange into updates of five state variables (stress, happiness, self-reliance, sociability, AI dependence) without seeing the prompt. We compare the seven conditions, including a no-AI control, over 15 and 50 days and under a lower consultation threshold, and test the robustness of the 50-day comparison with a pre-specified protocol: the same block in ten independent classrooms, repeated LLM realizations of one classroom with its event stream fixed, and evaluator updates scaled by 0.3 and 0.1. In every classroom the affirming and inciting prompts ended with lower self-reliance and higher AI dependence than the control, and the listening, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming prompts with higher stress, lower happiness and more non-attendance; the solution-oriented prompt did not differ consistently from the control. The robust self-reliance and AI-dependence differences kept their signs at the 0.3 scale with highly similar rankings (Spearman 0.89, 0.93); the stress and happiness rankings did not, and the affirming prompt's lower stress reversed its sign. All quantities are simulation state variables, not effects on users. We specify the agent dynamics completely and discuss the limits of an LLM as generator of state updates.

Video lectures are valuable educational resources, but their dense and lengthy formats often overwhelm novice learners. This difficulty stems from a fundamental pedagogical mismatch: while videos deliver transient information linearly, human learning requires constructing interconnected cognitive networks, a task that induces severe cognitive overload for novice learners lacking prior domain knowledge. Existing video summarization methods fail to resolve this mismatch, as they primarily produce text-heavy, linear condensations that still demand high cognitive effort. To bridge this gap, we propose KnowVis, a framework that transforms linear video lectures into pedagogically grounded visual narratives. KnowVis first extracts a detailed concept map from multimodal video content to identify important and challenging threshold concepts, then constructs structured knowledge units, and finally synthesizes engaging visual summaries. Alongside the framework, we introduce a curated dataset of 125 educational videos across 10 academic disciplines, paired with 1,079 generated visual summaries. Extensive automated evaluations and a human study demonstrate that, compared to state-of-the-art baselines, KnowVis generates more accurate and clear visuals that successfully reduce cognitive load and significantly improve student learning effectiveness and knowledge retention.

Artificial intelligence (AI) teaching assistants powered by large language models (LLMs) offer scalable educational support but often provide limited personalization. This study presents a prompt-engineering-based framework for personalizing general-purpose LLM/RAG-based AI teaching assistants such as Jill Watson across academic disciplines and courses. The framework adapts responses using six learner-specific dimensions: self-assessment, abstraction preference, verbosity preference, perceptual orientation, information processing style, and level of understanding, yielding 96 distinct learner profiles. Student queries are additionally analyzed using Bloom's Taxonomy to estimate cognitive complexity at the interaction level. Learner attributes and cognitive assessments are encoded in structured prompts that condition the LLM without requiring model retraining. The framework is evaluated through experiments using NLP metrics and a human study with five participants. Results show perceived differences in response style and structure across personalization conditions, with statistical analyses identifying learner attributes associated with measurable response changes. These findings provide preliminary evidence that prompt-based personalization can support adaptive behavior in LLM-powered educational agents.

Artificial intelligence is changing the form of applied English materials from fixed paper sequences to adaptive learning systems that can diagnose learners, recommend tasks, and provide formative feedback. This paper studies the structure and application of a new practical English textbook driven by artificial intelligence. A five-layer architecture is proposed: knowledge mapping, learner profiling, task generation, feedback orchestration, and teacher-side governance. A prototype was tested on 186 non-English-major undergraduates for eight weeks of teaching. Compared with a static digital textbook, the proposed system increased the unit completion accuracy from 72.4% to 84.9%, raised the average score for speaking tasks by 10.8 points, and reduced the teacher's correction time by 31.6%. Therefore, an AI-driven textbook can maintain the stability of the curriculum while providing personalised learning paths, rich practice materials and traceable classroom data.

Machine learning (ML) education faces two persistent and connected obstacles: many educational tools present ML as an opaque black box, which leaves learners with a superficial understanding, and this same opacity prevents users from forming the calibrated trust that appropriate reliance on AI systems requires. We present ICE-T, a didactic framework that integrates three mutually reinforcing facets: intermodal transfer grounded in Bruner's enactive, iconic, and symbolic modes of representation, computational thinking operationalized through the Use-Modify-Create progression, and explanatory thinking supported by a process model. Connecting the framework to the empirical literature on algorithm aversion, AI literacy, and mental model formation, and to systematic reviews of the K-12 ML activity landscape, we argue that the three facets supply the cognitive mechanisms that the trust calibration literature identifies as drivers of appropriate reliance: representational richness, graduated process control, and the capacity to contextualize errors. On this basis, we propose that trust calibration be treated as an explicit educational objective, with ICE-T as a principled and scalable means of achieving it.

AI tutors are most useful when they adapt to each student's strengths, weaknesses, and preferred guidance, but evidence about which guidance works for which student is sparse, slow, and costly to collect from real learners. Student simulators can provide this signal as a proxy, yet existing approaches are limited: state-tracking models fit student behavior but struggle to process explanations or corrections, while LLM role-play follows guidance fluently but does not reliably match the competence of the student being imitated. We present StudentSim, a training framework that turns sparse per-student data into individualized simulators through pooled training followed by per-student specialization. The resulting simulators both mirror a student's own responses and update them under tutor guidance. We also introduce StudentSimEval, a standardized protocol covering 60 students across chess, second-language English writing, and mathematics, using public learner datasets with de-identified records shared for research. StudentSimEval measures behavioral fidelity (F), or how well a simulator matches a student's responses, and guidance responsiveness (R), or how readily it updates under tutor guidance, with all methods fit and evaluated on the same records. Across all three domains, StudentSim outperforms GPT-5.4 on both metrics. In chess, StudentSim reaches F=0.51 and R=0.91, compared with 0.23 and 0.72 for GPT-5.4 and 0.45 and 0.27 for Maia2. As a proof of concept, using StudentSim as a reward model for tutor reinforcement learning produces a chess tutor that expert humans rate as more accurate, better-guided, and more personalized than a no-RL baseline and a tutor trained against a GPT-5.4 simulator reward. Code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/StudentSim.

Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained bot that guides through hints without giving final answers, which we refer to as the Socratic mode; and (3) a non-conversational adaptive tutoring system that adjusts difficulty in real-time based on the user's cognitive engagement derived from the brain signals. Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols, a domain chosen for its zero-prior knowledge baseline. The participants progressed through an instructional video, a pre-test, an AI-driven assessment phase, which varied in the three conditions, and an immediate post-test. The nature of the questions centered primarily on factual knowledge acquisition, but it still required participants to have a global understanding of the concepts in order to answer the questions correctly. A Muse headband was used to derive the cognitive engagement of all users in all conditions. The unrestricted chatbot produced higher learning gains (delta) than both constrained modes (p < .03, d > 0.80), while the adaptive condition generated significantly higher EEG engagement (p = .018). The cluster analysis of chatbot usage and discussion patterns by users showed that most participants in the unrestricted-mode adopted a direct answer-retrieval strategy, while participants in the Socratic-mode initially attempted to reason through the hints before progressively disengaging. Consequently, this also suggests that the success of the unrestricted AI is not an evidence of deeper learning, but rather a result of the immediate post-test evaluation after the training phase.

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.

The Atom Learning Model (ALM) tokenises a school curriculum. 757 pages of GCSE and Further Mathematics material were read by machine into 1,934 atoms, each one thing a learner can do in a single step, ordered by 4,616 machine-written prerequisite links. Both sides of a lesson are then expressed in that one structure: a question is a set of atoms plus everything beneath them, a child's ability is a score between 0 and 1 on every atom of the same graph, and whether a question suits a child is arithmetic over one index, with no difficulty parameter fitted for either side. Nobody wrote an atom, a link or a question. Reading the 757 pages cost £55, building the whole structure cost between £615 and £1,230, and against it the system composed 6,648 questions for 373 children in two English secondary schools over seven weeks, at 26p per composed question. Four measurements went against expectation. The cost is in the links, not the pages. The composer's own difficulty label has a rank correlation of -0.0123 with measured facility, so a language model shown a question cannot say how hard it is. Children stop working when a mark takes seven seconds instead of three. And the deployment never served a question deeper than two prerequisite steps, which is exactly where the central premise becomes testable, leaving it unfalsified rather than confirmed.

Artificial intelligence tools for education and language support are increasingly framed as scalable responses to access gaps in under-resourced communities. Yet the infrastructure underlying these tools, including training corpora, tokenization schemes, evaluation benchmarks, and deployment architectures, can systematically disadvantage speakers of underrepresented languages before a model is trained. This paper examines these structural barriers through Bengali, one of the world's most widely spoken languages, focusing on AI-assisted education in low-connectivity environments. We identify four interlocking failures: a severe web presence gap, with Bengali accounting for less than 0.5% of global web content despite representing nearly 4% of the global population; a 67:1 training-token deficit between English and Bengali in major multilingual corpora; a tokenization penalty associated with Bengali's alphasyllabary script that compounds the data deficit through higher token fertility; and connectivity exclusion, with individual internet penetration at 36.5% in rural areas compared with 71.4% in urban areas. These failures reflect longstanding resource-allocation decisions, institutional priorities, and design defaults that did not center underrepresented languages in mainstream AI development. We argue that dataset scarcity should be understood as a structural barrier rather than an isolated technical limitation, and that offline-first design should be treated as an equity-oriented infrastructure strategy. We conclude with directions for linguistics and AI research aimed at reducing these structural inequalities.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in education as tutors, teaching assistants, and content generators. These roles place demands that ordinary question answering does not: a usable education-facing model is supposed to be accurate, safe under sensitive prompts, instructionally useful, and aligned with pedagogical goals at the same time. Existing benchmarks evaluate these requirements largely in isolation, so none assesses education-facing suitability as an integrated profile. We introduce ELBench, the first benchmark to evaluate all four requirements (General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation) on the same models under a common protocol, combining curated public sources with newly synthesized safety and cultivation data. We evaluate nine models, seven frontier general-purpose systems and two education-specialized variants, and report three findings. First, module-level profiles are more informative than a single aggregate: the top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall score, yet their module leaders differ substantially, and safety is anti-correlated with practical teaching (r = -0.83). Second, the Chinese-developed models lead the safety module, the most discriminative in the suite; this advantage is largest on region-specific normative content and narrows, but does not vanish, on universal-harm content. Third, the two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and on High-Level Cultivation all models share a systematic blind spot: on the structured judgment task they converge on the same non-reference option, favoring pedagogical style over fit to the stated goal, so the module scores uniformly low and does not separate models. This raises, but does not resolve, whether domain post-training keeps pace with frontier systems on education tasks.