Tutors

Item discrimination is a fundamental psychometric property of educational assessment, which measures whether an item meaningfully distinguishes students with higher proficiency from students with lower proficiency. While various existing works have explored whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate item difficulty, it remains unclear whether they can capture item discrimination. In this work, we evaluate 42 proprietary and open-weight LLMs in zero-shot settings using two complementary approaches: direct discrimination prediction, where models explicitly estimate an item's discrimination value from its content, and response-based Classical Test Theory (CTT) calibration, where LLM answers are treated as synthetic student responses to compute discrimination scores. Our results show that direct prediction yields weak alignment with human-calibrated discrimination: the best-performing model reaches only a Spearman correlation of 0.152. Response-based CTT calibration provides a stronger but still limited signal, with the all-persona synthetic respondent pool reaching a Spearman correlation of 0.241. These findings highlight item discrimination as an open challenge for LLM-based psychometric evaluation: current LLMs contain non-random discrimination-relevant signal, but they do not yet reliably capture how assessment items distinguish human students.

There exist numerous tutor training platforms. However, few provide AI-driven training and evaluation for human tutors based on real-life performance. We present an AI-driven system that assesses both open responses during training and authentic real-life tutoring. Unlike platforms that only assess learning through online training or simulations, our system utilizes Generative AI (Gemini-2.5-pro) to analyze transcriptions of authentic tutoring, measuring the transfer of tutor skills to real-life application. Human tutors instructing students remotely in math (N=86) completed six scenario-based lessons, averaging a significant 7.4% learning gain. Using mixed-effects models across 405 session-to-lesson pairs, we found that training performance significantly predicted real-life transcript scores with an effect size of 0.25 SD. Model comparison (AIC/BIC) indicated averaging open response and multiple choice performance during training predicted real-life tutor performance best, although open responses were comparatively more predictive. Exploratory analysis showed that after training, tutors were significantly more likely to encounter pedagogical opportunities to apply their skills (61.1% to 68.9%) and demonstrated higher execution quality within those opportunities (65.5% to 68.1%). Interrupted time series analysis suggested that these tutor improvements were part of a gradual trend over time rather than an immediate intervention effect of training. We illustrate an AI-driven method to link tutor training with real-life assessment. In doing so, we contribute open datasets, AI prompts, and scoring rubrics to support transparency and reproducibility.

Generative AI tutors provide real-time, personalized learning support, but also create a new education inequity: students with access to premium AI services may receive clearer explanations, more personalized guidance, and better scaffolding than students limited to free or low-cost services. To address this challenge, we propose FairTutor, an equity-aware model-routing framework that achieves cost-effective AI tutoring via pedagogically motivated multi-agent orchestration. FairTutor combines query analysis, pedagogical planning, low-cost model generation, evaluator-guided critique and revision, and selective escalation to premium AI models. We introduce access-tier AI Education (AIED) Advantage Gap to measure the quality difference between premium-access and budget-constrained tutoring, and TutorAccessEval, a benchmark spanning math, reading, writing, science, and language learning. Empirical evaluations show that FairTutor achieves 97.1% of premium pedagogical quality (in floor-adjusted Likert scale) while reducing serving cost by 71.6%. Sensitivity analysis reveals a tunable cost--quality Pareto frontier, enabling FairTutor to be tailored to the needs of diverse student populations.

Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to question generation and automated assessment. However, deploying LLMs in preparation for high-stakes exams requires more than prompt engineering; it demands software pipelines that systematically ground model outputs in authorised curriculum artefacts and marking guidelines issued by education authorities. This paper presents a curriculum-grounded, configurable LLM-as-Judge pipeline for question-level marking, co-developed with an industrial partner, to support exam preparation for university admission. The pipeline identifies the relevant topics, subtopics, and cognitive demand of a question, and assembles verifiable and authorised context to support LLM judgement. Curriculum intent is operationalised through concrete syllabus artefacts, including prescribed verbs and outcomes, performance band descriptors, glossary definitions, and marking-guideline principles. A staged LLM workflow is employed to first generate question-specific rubrics, capturing structured expectations of performance, and then derive and evaluate marking criteria used to allocate marks to student responses. This design improves consistency, transparency, and alignment with official marking practices. Preliminary evaluation shows that the proposed LLM-as-Judge pipeline delivers marking outcomes comparable to human tutors, while yielding justifications that are more traceable to authorised curriculum artefacts and marking standards. The pipeline has also been integrated into an online study platform, where early deployment data provide initial insights into operational usage and manual overrides.

Educational support services often face a qualified-capacity problem: staff time is scarce, qualifications decay, new support needs can appear before anyone is prepared for them, and training consumes the same hours needed by current students. We introduce a synthetic benchmark and decision-support framework for qualified educational capacity planning. The model is a stylized single-institution service system with heterogeneous support-demand categories, backlog-only dynamics, continuous preparation states with hard threshold qualification and decay, and capacity-consuming training. The benchmark includes seed-controlled scenarios for announced and surprise new support categories, staff absences, and demand surges; exact feasibility discipline; declared per-policy information sets; requalification and greenfield-qualification counters; access-dispersion metrics; replay checksums; and paired statistics. We compare service-only, reactive, static-insurance, water-filling, and rolling-horizon mixed-integer controllers, with an attribution chain separating service planning, qualification maintenance, and acquisition, plus a perfect-foresight reference. The central result is a regime map governed by whether a newly required qualification can be acquired within the controller's reaction reach. When it can, the closed-loop controller wins across the core and adversarial suites, with value concentrated in just-in-time qualification acquisition. When the training lag exceeds the horizon, lean static insurance wins structurally, and a reactive trainer that starts after onset can be worse than no training. Backlog perishability shifts this boundary without erasing either regime. EduCapacity Studio reproduces exported scenarios bit-for-bit. All evidence is stylized and synthetic; the framework makes no claims about real student outcomes, compliance, or individual placements.

Using an open problem from the EC 2025 paper "Stable Menus of Public Goods" as a testbed, we conduct experiments to understand the effectiveness of different AI-for-EconCS research workflows. Specifically, we study three questions: Does providing human intuition in the prompt help? Does automated multi-turn interaction help? And, does an LLM outperform a first-year PhD student? Regarding the first two questions, we provide evidence for the following workflow suggestions: (1) prompting with human intuition can encourage the LLM to have better "taste", (2) multi-turn workflows help when the pipeline encourages "ambitious" steps. Regarding the third question, using an unpublished manuscript written by the paper's senior authors prior to collaborating with the first-year PhD student, we compare the effectiveness of the LLM with that of the first-year PhD student, and find that the LLM is slightly less effective.

Effective personalized AI-assisted learning demands systems that can not only generate accurate learner-specific educational materials, but also dynamically adapt their instruction to diverse learners. However, existing educational agents have primarily focused on lecture content automation and simulations, which often fall short of modelling multimodal and embodied instructional methods tailored for the individual learner. To this end, we propose LectūraAgents - a multi-agent framework that enables personalized learning through end-to-end adaptive embodied teaching. At its core, LectūraAgents mirrors a professor-student relationship, in which a ProfessorAgent leads a collaborative team of specialized subordinate agents through research, planning, review, and embodied delivery of lecture contents that adapt to a learner's needs. The framework offers three main contributions: (1) a hierarchical multi-agent architecture for end-to-end personalized learning; (2) an adaptive embodied teaching mechanism, wherein the ProfessorAgent executes visible and pedagogically motivated teaching actions (e.g., handwrite, highlight, underline, etc.) over contents in a teaching environment; and (3) a Teaching Action-Speech Alignment (TASA) algorithm that employs salience-based heuristics and temporal semantic segmentation to generate coherent teaching action sequences aligned with learner profiles. We evaluate LectūraAgents on diverse courses at high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels using sample-specific rubric-based analysis; with generated lecture materials and teaching actions assessed and validated by expert educators. Experimental results show consistent gains in lecture content quality, embodied teaching quality, assessment, and personalization over existing approaches, positioning LectūraAgents as a pedagogically well-grounded framework for personalized learning at scale.

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

Gender bias in LLMs has been studied extensively in model outputs, with biased prompts shown to amplify stereotyped generations. Whether such bias propagates into text produced by humans who use these systems, however, remains underexplored. We investigate whether gender bias in an LLM writing assistant transfers into career plan essays written by students. We first verify that a gender-biased prompt induces gender-differentiated language in LLM-generated essays, while a neutral prompt does not. We then recruited participants (N = 123) in a controlled environment to write career plan essays for paired biographical profiles differing only in gender under three conditions: no AI assistance, neutral LLM assistance, or gender-biased LLM assistance. Students in the biased condition produced essays with a significantly larger agentic gap and more gender-stereotypic occupation suggestions than those in the control and neutral conditions. Our results also reveal that this bias transfer is asymmetric: agency is suppressed in female-target essays while male-target writing remains largely unaffected. Our findings highlight the risk of bias propagation in AI-assisted writing, calling for fairness-aware design in educational AI tools.

Many undergraduate students in Computer Science (CS) and Software Engineering (SWE) struggle to identify suitable career paths, particularly when their academic performance, abilities, and interests do not fully align. To address this issue, this study proposes an AI-driven Student Assessment and Career Prediction System that integrates a Career Guidance Expert (CGE) system with a Web-Based Student Assessment (WBSA) platform. Within the integrated framework, CGE enhances personalized career recommendations using AI while also assisting students after graduation in identifying suitable jobs, research domains, and higher study opportunities aligned with their skills and interests. The WBSA platform further strengthens interaction between students and faculty through assessments, personalized tasks, mentorship activities, and a secure real-time chat application. The CGE system employs a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) model trained on real-world academic and extracurricular data collected using the snowball sampling method from the students of universities, achieving a validation accuracy of 94.71% in predicting personalized career paths. A pre-survey was conducted across universities to evaluate the proposed model before deployment. The WBSA system was developed as a modern web application using technologies such as Node.js, Next.js, and PostgreSQL to ensure scalability, responsiveness, and secure data management. The overall system is supported by a secure cloud-based infrastructure, the platform provides reliable performance while assisting graduates to select suitable career path in IT sector. In addition, a post-survey involving both students and faculty was conducted to gather feedback and further improve the overall effectiveness and usability of the system.

A central pedagogical value evaluated in AI tutor benchmarks is scaffolding: guiding students through graduated steps toward a solution. Alignment and evaluation methods for embedding scaffolding behaviour into chatbots, however, rest on an implicit assumption: that students will take up the scaffolding and engage in the conversation. To examine whether this assumption holds, we introduce an evaluation pipeline around two metrics - Chatbot Scaffolding and Student Uptake - and apply them across nine datasets of 9,490 chats, spanning AI tutor benchmarks and real-world deployments of educational chatbots. Our analysis reveals that while benchmarks assume a high-scaffolding, high-student-uptake environment, students in real-world settings exhibit lower levels of uptake overall - frequently bypassing the chatbot's pedagogical framing to drive the interaction toward their own learning goals at little interpersonal cost. We argue that bypassing scaffolding is not necessarily detrimental; rather, it frequently highlights a mismatch between a chatbot's pedagogical framing and the student's learning goals. To meaningfully evaluate the effectiveness of a chatbot's assistance, future benchmarks must move beyond the assumption that students will simply take up the scaffolding, and instead evaluate how these chatbots navigate diverse learning contexts and student-driven interaction patterns.

Drawing on 23 anonymized student pro-jects from a fourth-year Machine Transla-tion and Post-editing course in a BA-level translation programme, this paper exam-ines how structured comparison of gen-eral-purpose LLMs and online MT sys-tems can elicit evaluative judgement in AI-mediated translation. Students translat-ed short specialised English Wikipedia texts into Catalan or Spanish, generated four system outputs, evaluated them using automatic metrics and human adequa-cy/fluency assessment, selected one output for post-editing, and justified their deci-sion in written reports. Descriptive counts are reported for all 23 projects, while qualitative interpretation is based on the 22 cases accompanied by written reports. Results show that students did not treat automatic metrics as final authority: final post-editing selections often diverged from metric rankings and were justified through adequacy, fluency, terminology, naturalness, and expected post-editing ef-fort. The study therefore does not bench-mark systems under controlled conditions; it analyses how students justified system choice within an authentic classroom as-signment.

Open-source social robots offer accessibility, repairability, and student empowerment, yet the build itself often presents a barrier. Existing platforms either ship pre-assembled, foreclosing hands-on learning, or expose students to unfamiliar fasteners, opaque wiring, and inaccessible service points that erode engagement. Whether targeted mechanical redesign can lower this barrier whilst maintaining structural integrity remains untested. Here we show that Design for Assembly (DfA) and Design for Disassembly (DfD) interventions reshape how a build feels before they shorten how long it takes. Working with university students in Guyana and Estonia, we applied the Double Diamond framework to co-create the Robot Study Companion (RSC) v4.1: mapping pain points, then redesigning its chassis around twist-lock fasteners, snap-fit joints, and tool-free service latches. Across two studies with developers and first-time builders, system usability climbed from Poor to Excellent (SUS 59.4 to 89.4), perceived workload trended downward (NASA-TLX 4.29 to 4.00), and mean assembly time trended downward (21.4 to 13.7 minutes, with juniors' learning effect), whilst orientation cues and navigation continuity for first-time builders emerged as the next documentation frontier. Perceived workload, not completion time, appears to govern whether students take up open hardware.

Large-scale learner-task interaction data are crucial for intelligent educational systems but are costly to collect and constrained by privacy and learner engagement. Learner simulators play a critical role in simulating scalable learner behavior without the need for continuous involvement of real learners. However, existing methods are predominantly \textbf{individual-centric}, pairing a simulator with each learner to iteratively infer latent knowledge states from dense interaction histories, which is both data- and computation-intensive, and fragile in cold-start scenarios. We propose a \textbf{cohort-aware roll-call simulation paradigm} that first constructs cohort-level proficiency priors and refines individual learner states through a small number of targeted diagnostic queries. Based on this paradigm, we introduce \textbf{Edu-Theater}, an LLM-powered agent system that performs cohort-aware learner simulation via a teacher agent and retrospective roll-call probing over learner logs. Edu-Theater enables scalable future behavior simulation without the need for dense per-learner histories. Experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate that Edu-Theater achieves higher simulation accuracy with significantly fewer LLM calls, producing synthetic data that enhances downstream applications such as adaptive testing.

Socially assistive robots (SARs) are increasingly deployed in educational and information-sharing contexts, supported by advances in large language models that enable fluent real-time interaction. Despite the growing diversity of robot embodiments, it remains unclear whether a single robot appearance is appropriate across different interaction tasks or whether trust depends primarily on contextual factors. In this study, we examine how robot appearance and task type jointly influence trust in robots. Using a within-subjects video-based experiment (N = 81), participants evaluated three robots with distinct appearances while performing three educationally relevant tasks: teaching, procedural instruction, and personal-information discussion. Results from repeated-measures analyses show a strong main effect of task on trust, with participants reporting the highest trust during instructional guidance, moderate trust during teaching activities, and significantly lower trust when robots requested personal information. In contrast, robot appearance showed no significant main effect, and the interaction between appearance and task was marginal. These findings suggest that trust in human-robot interaction is shaped more strongly by task context than by physical embodiment alone. By focusing on future educators as end users, this work contributes empirical evidence toward task-aware robot deployment in educational environments and highlights the importance of aligning robot roles and behaviors with interaction goals rather than relying solely on anthropomorphic design.

We study multi-domain LLM training in which two models, each stronger in a different domain, co-evolve by tutoring each other through on-policy feedback. Unlike one-way distillation or single-model fine-tuning, our goal is mutual Pareto improvement: each model improves across domains without losing its original strength. To this end, we propose On-Policy Co-Distillation (OPCoD), where each student's self-distillation is conditioned on its own correct rollout and feedback from its peer. To make feedback exchange effective, OPCoD uses cognizance-based gating to decide when to give feedback and feedback anchoring to ground feedback in the problem. On Science Q&A tasks, OPCoD consistently outperforms baselines and achieves Pareto improvement across all evaluated domain pairs and students.

Large Language Model (LLM) based AI educational content generation systems are increasingly being developed, yet no standardised benchmark exists to systematically evaluate them. This study introduces LessonBench-V1, a benchmark dataset comprising 647 human-written lessons paired with LLM-based reverse-engineered lesson plans across 240 STEM topics spanning mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computer science. The lessons are drawn from 97 trusted open sources, including LibreTexts, Brilliant.org and GeeksForGeeks. Each lesson plan is human-reviewed and produced through a pedagogically grounded methodology that synthesises Bloom's Taxonomy, Gagné's Events, Merrill's First Principles, and the 5E Instructional Model. The lesson plans capture 3,620 learning objectives with pedagogical metadata, enabling systematic, reproducible evaluation of lesson-generation AI agents and supporting further research. The study further proposes a three-dimensional evaluation pipeline for use with the dataset.

Geometry problem generation is useful for AI-assisted education and multimodal mathematical reasoning, but reliable synthesis remains difficult because the problem statement, diagram, constraints, and solution should be mutually consistent. Existing methods often trade off controllability and reliability: seed-based rewriting is flexible but weakly verifiable, whereas diagram-first construction improves validity but is less suited to arbitrary user-specified constraints. We introduce VeriGeo, a controllable geometry generation framework grounded in executable reasoning traces. Given user constraints such as target concepts and difficulty, an Author agent generates a problem and diagram, and a Solver agent produces a proof-aligned solution. Both agents use a shared action sequence that connects natural language, diagrams, geometric constraints, and proof steps into a verifiable representation. A three-stage pipeline checks numerical consistency, analytical realizability, and global consistency, using verification-guided reflection to repair recoverable failures and reject unrecoverable ones. Across five LLM backbones, raw generations frequently fail these checks, while VeriGeo repairs a substantial fraction of the invalid attempts. Supervised fine-tuning on 8.7k examples generated by VeriGeo achieves the best reported GeoQA performance among end-to-end multimodal LLM-based solvers, and obtains strong results on PGPS9K and MathVista-GPS, demonstrating the effectiveness of verified synthetic data for improving multimodal geometry reasoning.

Cities deliver basic services through mixed public-private facility networks, including schools, clinics, transit providers, and subsidized service points. In these systems, planners often observe where households go, but not the latent cost function through which they trade off factors such as distance, price, and institutional access. We study this urban problem through school choice in the Philippines, where the country's largest national education subsidy is intended to redirect learners from congested public schools to participating private schools. Treating school-to-school enrollment flows as an entropic optimal transport plan, we recover latent choice costs using two complementary inverse optimal transport models: an interpretable distance-banded model with a subsidy term, and a neural cost model trained through a differentiable Sinkhorn forward pass. Applied to 283{,}016 learner trips across 23{,}820 observed flows in the most populated region, the framework estimates a subsidy-equivalent distance, $λ^{(k)}$, interpreted as the kilometers of perceived travel cost offset by the subsidy. The case demonstrates how administrative origin-destination data can be transformed into interpretable planning metrics for accessibility-aware subsidy design, facility siting, and urban service allocation.

Sharing mathematical content in online forums remains a significant friction point for students and educators: writing raw LATEX is error-prone, standalone optical character recognition tools require platform switching, and current forum software offers no integrated path from a photograph of a formula to a rendered post. We present a unified system that eliminates this friction by embedding an image to LATEX conversion pipeline directly inside a forum posting interface. A user uploads or captures an image of a mathematical expression; the system routes it through the Mathpix OCR API, detects whether the returned output is LATEX or plain text containing inline math, applies the appropriate delimiter normalisation, and renders a live preview in either LATEX or Markdown mode before the post is committed to the database. The architecture is organized in three loosely coupled layers: image processing, rendering, and storage, and supports both desktop and mobile clients. A provisional US patent application has been filed covering the core methods. We describe the full system design, each component in detail, the data schema, and the key technical innovations, and we position the work against existing standalone tools and forum platforms to demonstrate the practical gap it closes. Beyond immediate usability, we argue that a deployed platform of this kind constitutes a continuously growing, community-validated dataset of mathematical problems and step-by-step solutions, a resource that can be used to train and benchmark AI systems for accurate mathematical reasoning

Automated analysis of K-12 classroom dynamics faces challenges due to background noise and variable child speech, often confounding acoustic-only models. This study evaluates a multimodal speaker identification framework anchoring acoustic embeddings with LLM-derived semantic context. Using a subset of the EDSI dataset (8 math classrooms, N = 2,801 utterances), we found an acoustic baseline (ECAPA-TDNN) achieved only 39.0% accuracy. By integrating transcript-based "contextual anchoring" into a gradient boosting classifier, our multimodal approach raised student identification to 50.3%. Performance also improved for utterances over 5 seconds, reaching 76.9% accuracy (vs. 64.9% baseline) with a 90.9% Top-3 accuracy. Additionally, the model distinguished teacher vs. student roles with 99.3% accuracy. This approach advances the feasibility of automated feedback systems capable of considering individual student participation, a crucial step for supporting equitable instruction at scale.

Large language models are now widely used for everyday learning, but the underlying interactions are typically unstructured chats rather than following a curriculum. Unlike formal online learning systems, these interactions carry no prior record of the student, so any estimate of what the student already knows must be inferred from the dialogue itself. We show that this gap is not closed by scaling models alone. Frontier and education-tuned LLMs perform poorly when asked to tutor a student over an extended session, because doing so requires three things at once. The tutor must sequence a curriculum, conduct Socratic dialogue, and infer the student's knowledge state from that dialogue. We propose separating these responsibilities. Given a student query, our system constructs a prerequisite knowledge graph in which subtopics are nodes and dependencies are edges, and frames tutoring as deciding which node to teach next and how many dialogue turns to spend on it before moving on. A lightweight PPO policy handles this sequencing decision, while an LLM conducts the Socratic exchange at the chosen node and returns a signal of student progress. Across held-out STEM and non-STEM topics, our PPO-paired tutor outperforms heuristic baselines, frontier general-purpose models, and a model specialised for Socratic dialogue: on both the rate at which students reach full curriculum mastery and the number of turns required. Explicit curriculum structure delivers gains that scaling the underlying model does not.

Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to ensure that both students and staff develop Generative AI (GenAI) literacies. In response, they are introducing professional development programs and embedding GenAI skills within student curricula. However, current educational frameworks typically assume a linear progression of GenAI literacy, implying that foundational technical understanding must precede creative application. This paper challenges such an assumption through a psychometric analysis of a taxonomy-based self-assessment instrument (n = 158). We applied Rasch measurement theory and Guttman ordering to map the latent perceived order of difficulty of GenAI skills across students, academics, and professional staff. Results reveal a fundamental divergence in perceived competence profiles: while academics follow a more traditional linear path, students exhibit an "inverted" profile, frequently mastering high-level creation tasks before acquiring foundational conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the correlation of skill difficulty between students and academics was weak (r = 0.188). We argue that this "skill bypass" creates a fragile sense of fluency, where high self-efficacy in prompting masks low literacy in AI mechanics. These findings challenge the "one-size-fits-all" curricula and provide the empirical basis for diagnostic-driven, modular interventions that foster genuine human-AI synergy.

Large online courses generate thousands of student questions directed at conversational AI teaching assistants, yet these interaction logs remain largely untapped as diagnostic signals. We present a pipeline that maps student questions from a conversational AI teaching assistant to curriculum topics using a few-shot text classifier, grounded in a GPT-4-extracted prerequisite knowledge graph of course concepts. Evaluated on 1,340 question events from 164 students in a graduate-level AI course, our classifier achieves 80.0% accuracy across 43 labels (42 curriculum topics plus an "unknown" abstention class). Topic-level question volume correlates significantly with student self-reported difficulty from an independent mid-semester survey (rho = 0.491, p = 0.008, n = 28 topics), providing convergent evidence that the classified question stream reflects genuine topic difficulty. These results demonstrate that conversational AI interaction logs, mapped onto curriculum structure, carry actionable signals about topic-level knowledge gaps and provide instructors with a curriculum-grounded view of which topics warrant attention.

Large language models generate code from natural language prompts, enabling "vibe coding," which allows non-programmers to develop computational solutions. Vibe coding for teachers amplifies the value of teachers-as-designers, improving technology integration while fostering AI literacy. However, structured guidance on supporting this process is lacking. We propose GAIDE (A Guiding Framework for AI-Integrated Design for Educators), a framework that supports K-12 teachers in creating AI-powered learning technologies through vibe coding. The initial framework, built on Design Thinking and INTERACT, was validated through a CORDTRA interaction analysis of three teachers and four faculty mentors in an eight-week workshop to derive the final framework. Additionally, the qualitative analysis of pre- and post-interviews found an enhancement of teachers' AI literacy. Findings highlight the potential of learning-by-creating for professional development.

This paper aims to synthesize empirical research on AI tools used to support English as a second/foreign language (EL2) learners in Arab University classrooms (AUCs) between Jan 1st 2023 and Aug 31st 2025. We utilized 3 large datasets, namely Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus as the data sources. Using PRISMA-guided searches across these well-known databases, we included only published articles. The search process results in 184 studies, but only 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings unveil that EL2 learners have positive attitudes towards AI for drafting, revision, and practice. Empirical gains were most consistent for surface-level outcomes improvements in higher-order writing quality and speaking proficiency was mixed and often contingent on teacher mediation. The paper concludes by proposing a research agenda and practical guidelines for Arab universities seeking evidence-based AI integration in EL2 instruction. It also recommends scaffolded integration, teacher training, reflective tasks to reduce over-reliance on AI tools.

Writing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) is a high-labor, knowledge-intensive document burden; English-language research has demonstrated that generative AI can significantly reduce drafting time, yet automated IEP generation in Traditional Chinese remains virtually unexplored due to domain data scarcity, strict privacy regulations, and the absence of local evaluation benchmarks. We propose a low-resource fine-tuning pipeline centered on Corpus-Grounded Feature Diffusion (CGFD): (1) 25 dual-expert high-score seed transcripts are selected via a tau threshold with flag-aware score caps; (2) a FeatureProfile (sentence length, structure, quantification templates) is extracted from seeds and injected into LLM prompts alongside Verbalized-Sampling-style diversity control to drive diffusion; (3) 15 expert gold seeds are used as diffusion anchors, targeting 585 samples; 567 valid diffusion samples are obtained, yielding a 582-sample training set used to fine-tune Breeze-7B with QLoRA; (4) schema-constrained inference via Grammar-Constrained Decoding (GCD) enforces a hierarchical SMART Goal Ladder schema at inference time. Ablation results on a 55-sample schema stress set reveal an unexpected finding: GCD is counterproductive under Traditional Chinese token budgets -- the no-GCD path achieves 100% schema pass rate at 34% lower median latency, outperforming GCD on both reliability and speed. On the n=10 formal hold-out, the no-GCD inference path achieves BERTScore F1 = 0.779, exceeding GPT-5.4 (0.726), DeepSeek-V3.2 (0.703), Gemini-3-Flash-Preview (0.703), and Llama-4-Maverick (0.700) zero-shot baselines while maintaining fully local, air-gapped inference. This system addresses a gap in Traditional Chinese special-education NLP and offers a scalable, privacy-preserving local inference solution under an industrial engineering paradigm.

We present RPO-PDT: a retrieval-grounded, role-play-based dialogue system for adaptive student support in higher education. RPO-PDT is: (1) able to provide institution-specific Personal Development Tutor (PDT) guidance using structured knowledge sources; (2) constrained by explicit persona, boundary, confidentiality, and safety policies; and (3) designed around a reverse-roleplay loop where unresolved interactions are replayed from the student perspective, enabling alternative tutor strategies to be generated and stored as reusable strategy memory. RPO-PDT supports both text-based and Furhat-based embodied interaction for demonstrating grounded, safe, and adaptive student-support dialogue.

Research on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is rapidly expanding, yet technical progress often lacks human-centered grounding and adequate attention to cultural context. Community-Based Learning, a pedagogy rooted in social work, remains underrepresented in AIED research, particularly within Asia-Pacific contexts. This paper reports on cross-boundary Community-Based Learning where undergraduate students develop AI-enabled solutions for cultural heritage preservation and sustainable development. We examine how community-engaged computing operationalizes human-centered AIED across three dimensions: education, technology, and culture. We contribute a collaborative framework for culturally-aware AIED that fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration while widening participation by dissolving disciplinary silos between social work and computational science.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use. Our code is publicly available under the AGPL-3.0 license at https://github.com/jiarui-liu/overleaf

This paper examines the limitations of fully digital and partially digital e-assessment approaches in summative examinations in higher education. The analysis focuses on the didactic narrowing caused by closed question formats and on organizational, technical, and legal constraints that become particularly relevant in large student cohorts. As an alternative, the paper proposes a hybrid e-assessment approach that retains paper-based, problem-oriented examination tasks while enabling semi-automated grading. Assessment-relevant intermediate results are encoded in a structured answer format, entered by students by hand, and subsequently captured from table fields. The central technical bottleneck is reliable recognition of handwritten characters under realistic examination conditions. Recent vision-capable large language models, combined with a two-pass validation principle and comparison against a solution key, can reduce misclassifications and thereby improve the validity, fairness, and scalability of summative assessment.

Agentic tutoring systems introduce a coordination challenge: multiple agents may propose different but reasonable interventions, yet only one response can be delivered to the learner. In this paper, we study how voting protocols shape cooperation among four role-constrained pedagogical agents responsible for scaffolding, misconception, motivation, and metacognition. We compare four voting protocols -- simple, ranked, cumulative, and approval voting -- across two simulated tutoring environments on SciQ and HumanEval benchmarks. Rather than using voting as a simple aggregation step, we use it to analyze how collective decision rules shape coordination under partial pedagogical conflict. Across 1,200 simulated interactions, we find that agent deliberation and voting protocol type frequently change which response ultimately wins, showing that both meaningfully shape the collective decision. Different voting rules also produce distinct coordination behaviors, and even brief tutoring turns show measurable learning gains in simulated students. Overall, we show that protocol choice is associated with distinct coordination patterns among role-specialized pedagogical agents.

LLM-driven software engineering agents have become a central testbed for real-world language-model capability, yet their training remains limited by the availability of high-quality SWE tasks. Existing synthetic data methods typically create tasks through fixed mutation or bug-injection procedures, making the resulting distributions largely independent of the agent's own weaknesses and training progress. We introduce Socratic-SWE, a closed-loop self-evolution framework that reuses the agent's historical solving traces as a source of training signal. Rather than treating traces only as evidence for reward computation, Socratic-SWE distills them into structured agent skills that summarize recurring failures and effective repair patterns. These skills then guide the generation of targeted repair tasks in real repositories. Candidate tasks are checked through execution-based validation and scored with a solver-gradient alignment reward, so that the retained tasks are both verifiable and useful for improving the Solver. The updated Solver produces new traces, enabling the task curriculum to adapt over successive rounds. Across SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Lite, SWE-bench Pro, and Terminal-Bench 2.0, Socratic-SWE consistently improves over self-evolving baselines under the same compute budget, reaching 50.40% on SWE-bench Verified after three iterations. These results suggest that solving traces can serve as a scalable substrate for self-evolving SWE agents.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know. Existing benchmarks emphasize domain-general correctness or depend on manually designed rubrics that scale poorly to long-tail pedagogical scenarios. We introduce Elmes*, an end-to-end framework for constructing, refining, and applying fine-grained scenario-specific rubrics. Elmes* combines a declarative multi-agent engine for teacher--student--judge interactions with SceneGen, a self-evolving module that co-optimizes evaluation criteria and test data from expert-defined pedagogical dimensions. Using Elmes*, we build Edu-330, covering 330 scenarios across 11 subjects, 3 grade bands, and 10 task types, with over 1{,}000 second-level indicators. Experiments on Edu-330 and four expert-authored gold-standard scenarios show that educational capability is multidimensional: top-tier LLMs differ mainly in creativity and values integration, knowledge-strong models may fail at Socratic scaffolding, and the education-specialized InnoSpark achieves the best human-evaluated average score. LLM judges preserve human-comparable rankings with much lower scoring variance, but exhibit judge-specific biases such as self-preference. Ablations show that expert-scored few-shot anchoring improves human--LLM alignment, while reasoning enforcement and greedy decoding are model-dependent. Elmes* thus provides scalable diagnostic infrastructure for pedagogically grounded LLM evaluation.

Given the inherently multimodal nature of human experience, vision-language models (VLMs) hold substantial promise for modeling human cognition as it grows and develops with experience. Realizing their potential requires tools for comparing VLMs with human cognitive development across tasks, ages, and populations. We present LEVANTE-bench, a benchmark based on tasks and data from the Learning Variability Network (LEVANTE), which distributes open-source tasks and data measuring children's cognition across languages and cultures. In LEVANTE-bench, we systematically assess VLMs on six tasks, comparing their alignment with children aged 5-12 ($N$ = 1547) across three countries. We compare models at multiple scales, assessing their overall accuracy, their task- and item-level alignment with children, and how well they match children's trial-level error distributions. Alignment was heterogeneous across scales: at the level of tasks and items, more capable models aligned better with humans. However, match to human error distributions varied widely across tasks, and for several tasks, smaller models matched younger children's errors better. In addition, even the best-performing VLMs struggled on matrix reasoning and mental rotation tasks. Thus, current VLM architectures align only partially with the cognitive abilities of children.

We investigate whether methods of human mathematics pedagogy can guide the training of language models toward arithmetic reasoning. Building on the GASING method -- an Indonesian pedagogy that solves basic arithmetic through a left-to-right procedure aligned with the causal order of token generation -- we operationalize each operation as a computational procedure whose execution trace is serialized into natural-language Chain-of-Thought (CoT) supervision. A small GPT-2 decoder (86M parameters) with a syllabic-agglutinative TOBA tokenizer for Indonesian is trained from scratch on this data using only a next-token prediction objective, without reinforcement learning or reward-based optimization. Monitoring training reveals three distinct learning phases, and mechanistic analyses -- attention-masking interventions on the CoT information graph, residual-stream probing, and logit-lens inspection -- show that the model first internalizes a procedural pathway and subsequently develops an associative, ``mental-arithmetic'' capacity that retrieves intermediate results without explicit step-by-step computation. The trained model reaches over 80% accuracy on held-out problems and attains competitive performance against substantially larger language models, indicating that targeted, pedagogically grounded training can yield strong and economical arithmetic capability at small scale.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular in educational settings, they raise important questions about the ethical implications of their use. Publicly available online chatbots are quickly improving in capability and accuracy leading to more widespread use, including among students looking for help with their homework. This makes it crucial to consider whether these models are aligned with educational standards. Because curriculum standards in the United States are set at the state level, they differ significantly in required content, emphasis, and narrative focus. In this work, we develop an LLM-based pipeline to identify variations in U.S. History curricula across states and evaluate the extent to which different LLMs reflect these state-specific curricular differences. In addition, we conduct controlled experiments that vary user personas by stating user attributes such as geographic location, grade level, gender and race to evaluate the sensitivity of LLM responses to user characteristics. We find that while models are able to adjust their presentation of historical topics, these shifts may come from the perceived political leanings of states and do not necessarily reflect actual curriculum content. Additionally, models successfully adapt to a student's grade level while showing minimal sensitivity to race or gender, suggesting they are capable of useful adaptation to student personas with limited demographic bias. Together, these findings highlight potential risks that open access to LLM chatbots may cause to student learning outcomes stemming from misalignment with state curriculum standards and highlight the need for more robust alignment techniques.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models usually supervises reasoning with scalar outcome rewards, such as binary correctness. Such rewards provide an optimization direction but rarely explain how a model should revise its mistaken reasoning, which can encourage shortcut learning and brittle policies. We propose \textbf{SocraticPO} (Socratic Policy Optimization), a policy-optimization framework that augments RL rollouts with Socratic-style natural-language guidance. During rollout, the student first answers independently; if the answer is incorrect, a teacher diagnoses the attempt and provides concise corrective guidance, after which the student continues under the expanded context. Crucially, this guidance is paired with reward decay: correct answers obtained after teacher intervention only receive decayed rewards, preventing the policy from treating teacher help as a free path to reward. Since SocraticPO only modifies the rollout process while leaving the standard expected-reward objective intact, it can be plugged into existing policy-gradient backends such as Reinforce++. Moreover, because the teacher provides only text-level guidance, SocraticPO can leverage stronger black-box teacher models without requiring access to logits or distribution matching. On undergraduate-level scientific reasoning benchmarks from SciKnowEval, SocraticPO improves over strong RL and self-distillation baselines. Ablations show that both targeted guidance and reward decay are necessary, with reward decay mitigating reliance on assisted correction.

Social skills such as negotiation and leadership are crucial for personal and professional success in today's interconnected world. However, scalable and effective training remains a significant challenge due to the scarcity of expert coaching. In this paper, we introduce SocialCoach, a holistic LLM-powered agentic tutoring system for personalized social skill development at scale. First, SocialCoach automatically constructs a pedagogically-grounded, theory-to-practice knowledge corpus from diverse expert sources, leveraging a multi-agent pipeline. Second, to personalize the learning journey, it employs an adaptive practice scheduling module that follows a prescription-retrieval-adaptation process. To maximize the long-term learning experience while overcoming the cold-start problem, this policy is optimized within a learner simulation environment through reinforcement learning. Finally, SocialCoach integrates immersive, goal-driven practice, causality-driven proficiency assessment and knowledge-grounded, reflective tutoring to help address the knowing-doing gap. We deploy it in our product, EQoach, and conduct extensive experiments. The results show that SocialCoach improves simulated pathway quality and judge-rated tutoring quality over baseline approaches, while early user feedback indicates strong perceived engagement and usefulness. These findings suggest a practical architecture for personalized and gamified pedagogical platforms on soft skill learning.

Human experience in digital environments offers a vast, underexplored resource of authentic, untrimmed interactions that contain rich procedural knowledge. We introduce Demo2Tutorial, a framework that transforms this experience captured via screen recordings and interaction logs into structured, multimodal software tutorials for teaching both humans and agents. Demo2Tutorial first collects human experience via a dedicated recorder, then parses raw experience using a multimodal Action Parser to reconstruct perception, action, and intent. A Step Planner then abstracts these steps into hierarchical task graphs representing goals and steps. Finally, a Tutorial Composer transforms the parsed experience into structured, reusable image-text instructions. We evaluate the tutorial generation quality on a new benchmark derived from official software documentation. We further demonstrate that this distilled representation benefits (i) human learning, by automatically generating multimodal tutorials, and (ii) agent learning, by improving downstream GUI-agent planning and generalization. Experiments show Demo2Tutorial produces high-quality tutorials that surpass human-authored ones and significantly outperform baseline methods, while enabling both faster human task completion and improved GUI agent planning, demonstrating that structured tutorials distilled from human experience can serve as effective knowledge representations for advancing both human learning and agent capabilities. Code and data will be available at https://github.com/showlab/Demo2Tutorial.

Stronger code agents are commonly assumed to be superior teachers for post-training, yet this assumption remains poorly disentangled from task difficulty, harness design, and student capacity. We investigate this pedagogical link using Terminal-Lego, a scalable pipeline that transforms multi-domain real-world issues into environment-verified agentic tasks. Surprisingly, standalone performance does not dictate teaching efficacy: while Claude Opus 4.6 achieves higher scores on Terminal-Bench 2.0, students fine-tuned on trajectories from DeepSeek-V3.2, a lower-scoring agent, exhibit significantly stronger generalization. We attribute this "pedagogical paradox" to Environment-Grounded Supervision (EGS): trajectories that explicitly expose inspect-act-verify behaviors through harness-visible interactions allow students to internalize robust problem-solving routines rather than fragile action sequences. Scaling analysis reveals exceptional data efficiency: with only 15.3k Terminal-Lego trajectories, for example, Qwen3-32B achieves a 24.3% score on Terminal-Bench 2.0, rivaling previous SOTA performance established with over 30x the data volume. Our results suggest that the frontier of agent post-training lies beyond mere outcome-matching, shifting the focus toward "Harness Engineering", where the systematic design of environment-grounded interaction structures serves as the primary catalyst for reproducible and generalizable agentic intelligence.

Knowledge Distillation (KD) is a powerful tool for model compression, yet the precise mechanisms by which student models acquire feature representations remain underexplored. In this work, we analyze student feature learning using the Interaction Tensor framework. Our analysis reveals that effective KD acts as a regularizer that prunes low-frequency, sample-specific features, encouraging the student to rely on a compact set of highly reusable features. Crucially, we observe that the dataset-level confusion matrix contains structural information analogous to the teacher's "Dark Knowledge." Leveraging this insight, we propose Confusion Distillation (CD), a teacher-free self-distillation method that utilizes the model's own evolving )confusion patterns as dynamic soft targets. CD achieves competitive performance on ResNet-34 and ResNet-50 for CIFAR-100, outperforming existing self-distillation methods like CS-KD and PS-KD by 1.2% while offering a computationally efficient alternative to standard KD.

This study evaluates the pedagogical viability of LLM-generated English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning content. Utilising log data from Japanese junior high school students practicing on a grammar drilling application, we analysed how different question modalities impact student performance and whether theoretical localised CEFR difficulty tiers accurately predict empirical task difficulty. Results reveal a clear performance hierarchy: multiple-choice questions carried the lowest cognitive load, cloze tasks posed the greatest barrier to active recall, and drag-and-drop exercises incurred the heaviest time penalties. Furthermore, learner data validated the CEFR-J grammar framework, showing a steady decline in accuracy and increased response times as proficiency levels advanced. These findings demonstrate that LLMs can successfully generate learning content, while highlighting the need for developers to strategically sequence question modalities to transition learners from passive recognition to active linguistic production.

Conversational tutoring agents have been shown to improve learning engagement and student outcomes, and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in these systems to provide scalable, personalized feedback. However, LLMs may perpetuate or amplify stereotypical social biases, posing particular risks in educational settings. In this study, we evaluate LLMs in conversational tutoring scenarios to identify high-confidence social biases, instances where models are unable to identify biased judgments in tutoring conversations while maintaining strong confidence in their assessments, potentially affecting their reasoning and the feedback they provide to learners. We present a new dataset generation method that enables bias evaluation under naturalistic instructional conditions by regenerating student-AI tutor interactions and introducing turns with controlled bias derived from a benchmark dataset. Using this data, we assess multiple LLMs' ability to detect stereotypical biases and analyze the confidence and reasoning underlying their responses through computational and human evaluations. We find that bias detection is substantially more challenging in conversational tutoring contexts than in benchmark-based evaluations, and that state-of-the-art LLMs are overconfident in their incorrect assessments of stereotypical bias statements. Moreover, model confidence strongly influences reasoning and feedback, highlighting the risks of overconfident, biased behavior in LLM-based tutoring agents. We conclude by discussing implications, mitigation considerations, and directions for future research.

This paper presents an empirical analysis of AbbVie Intelligence's measurable impact on employee work activities across 192 distinct occupations in 2024 and 2025. Drawing on 598,744 de-identified AI conversations classified according to the O*NET Intermediate Work Activity (IWA) taxonomy, we compute occupation-level AI Applicability Scores that quantify the extent to which AI tools can meaningfully assist or automate real work at scale. Three convergent analyses are conducted: (1) longitudinal year-over-year trends from 2024 to 2025, (2) a quasi-experimental pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie Intelligence version 3 platform release in August 2025, and (3) a pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie AI Learning Summit held in November 22025. Results demonstrate statistically significant improvements across all three dimensions. Mean AI Applicability Scores rose substantially from 2024 to 2025; the platform release product a +10.0% gain (p<0.001); and the AI Learning Summit produced a +6.68% gain (p<0.001). These findings establish that both technological platform enhancements and structured enterprise AI eduction programs independently and substantially expand the reach of AI across the AbbVie workforce.

On-policy distillation (OPD) is a widely used technique to transfer capabilities from capable teacher language models to the base student models, and can be formulated in a reinforcement learning style objective using student generated rollouts. Yet, despite the divergence reward being dependent on student model likelihood, existing works usually adopt a stop gradient design primarily for stability, which makes the resulting advantage estimation questionable. In this work, we provide a generic optimization framework based on f-divergence between the student and teacher, and mathematically revisit whether such design space is valid. We prove that general stop-gradient operation would lead to biased estimates of the reward objective and corresponding gradient for general divergence functions. We propose OPD+, the corrected version of OPD that demonstrates improved performance over the baseline KL approach and also supports the choice of various f-divergence. We validate our findings on mathematical reasoning and tool-use benchmarks.

Identifying logical fallacies in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking these pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied across educational contexts to support learning. One approach to such support is "human-AI collaboration" (also termed "hybrid intelligence"), where human(s) and AI components interact to promote human learning. However, as in human-to-human computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), unstructured interaction does not necessarily produce an effective learning experience. This paper reports a systematic literature review of empirical studies (N=62) on human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence for learning support. The review characterizes collaboration processes, their structures, and contexts of application. It also extracts emerging design knowledge and research gaps. Researchers and technology designers can use these findings as a starting point for structuring more effective AI-enhanced technologies for collaboration, in educational practice and future research.

AI systems are increasingly used to support educational content creation, yet it remains unclear whether they can generate outputs that faithfully represent the pedagogical concepts they are intended to teach. Thus, we introduce equation-to-visual generation, a task that, in contrast to conventional image generation, requires producing pedagogically meaningful visuals from arithmetic equations while precisely preserving their numerical and relational structure. Informed by interviews with teachers and an analysis of educational materials, we construct E2V-Bench, a benchmark spanning four pedagogically grounded visual types, along with automatic metrics for evaluating visual correctness. Our evaluation reveals that recent text-to-image (T2I) models frequently fail on this task, with errors dominated by incorrect object counts and broken relational structure. Building on this, we explore benchmark-guided enhancement strategies. These strategies improve representative models, while the remaining gap calls for stronger numerical and relational grounding in future T2I models.

LLM pedagogical agents are proliferating, yet recent findings have raised questions about their adherence to established theories of learning and, by extension, their educational value. Concerns regarding cognitive offloading, over-reliance, and "gaming" behaviors persist and remain largely unaddressed. In response, we developed Copa, an agentic, multi-agent, multimodal Collaborative Peer Agent for STEM+C learning. Copa is built on top of the Evidence-Decision-Feedback (EDF) framework, grounding its interactions in Social Cognitive Theory and Social Constructivism and promoting sense-making through adaptive, dialogic support rather than answer-seeking. In an authentic high school computational-modeling study (n=33 dyads), we demonstrate that Copa (1) supports students' confidence building and ability to verbalize conceptual understanding without causing dependence; and (2) provides adaptive feedback personalized to learners that is interpretable with respect to students' multimodal input data. These findings position theory-guided, multimodal LLM agents as a promising path toward classroom AI integration that amplifies students' reasoning rather than replacing it.

The double-edged sword of integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) requires an effective triadic collaboration mechanism among LLMs, teachers and students, especially for K-12 education. By developing a triadic collaboration system to support K-12 writing learning, a multidimensional evaluation framework grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics and the suggestion trajectory tracing pipeline, this paper contributes a large-scale empirical dataset involving $57,954$ essays from $10,195$ students across $120$ schools over two years. Our findings confirm the efficacy of this system in improving writing quality through a strategic labor division: the LLM serves as a generative engine to mitigate teacher burnout, and the teacher acts as a pedagogical gatekeeper and bridge to guarantee feedback quality. While both LLM and teacher are critical for skill improvement, we uncover a ceiling effect where excessive linguistic expansion yields diminishing marginal utility. These suggest a dynamically adaptive LLM-teacher collaboration as student proficiency increases.

The widespread adoption of AI chatbots in education will drastically change learning, making responsible deployment a critical concern. While large language models (LLMs) might have access to sources discussing insights from educational sciences, they are not particularly inclined to adhere to pedagogical concepts, risking negative effects on the learning process, such as a loss of transfer capabilities, critical thinking, or creativity. In this paper, we introduce an agentic AI chatbot architecture assisting students with exercise solving, specifically designed to contribute to more responsible AI use in education. We base our conceptual development on the identification of several desiderata for responsible LLM-based educational systems, argue for the structural shortcomings inherent in monolithic, out-of-the-box solutions, and instead suggest modularizing the agentic architecture. We propose specific modules for different stages of exercise solving, enabling incorporation of targeted pedagogical advice, guiding students through the learning process in a more controllable, transparent, and overseeable manner.

As AI tools become increasingly integrated into educational contexts, questions arise about both their stability over time and their responsiveness to prompt engineering techniques. This longitudinal study focused on different AI tools' ability to use the Task Analysis Guide (TAG; Stein & Smith, 1998) to classify the cognitive demand of mathematics tasks. In particular, it examined whether this classification ability changed with (1) model version updates over time and (2) few-shot prompting using exemplar tasks. We tested a general-purpose AI tool (Gemini) and an education-specific AI tool (Coteach). The specific tools were selected because of their relatively high performance on relevant published benchmarks and prior task-specific tests. Models were tested at baseline, retested with model version updates, and then tested again using few-shot prompting (two exemplar tasks for each cognitive demand category). Results revealed that newer model versions alone produced mixed effects: Gemini's accuracy remained stable at 58%, while Coteach's accuracy decreased from 75% to 50%. However, few-shot prompting improved both models' performance: Gemini increased to 67% and Coteach recovered to 75% accuracy. These findings demonstrate that prompt engineering techniques can have larger and more reliable effects than passive model improvements, and that version updates may not always improve performance on specialized educational tasks. The study has important implications for how educators and researchers should approach AI tool selection, evaluation, and implementation in educational contexts.

Despite the rapid deployment of LLMs into classrooms, validating educational AI remains uniquely intractable: interventions act on developing learners whose cognitive and social trajectories are irreversibly shaped, while real-world trials are slow, ethically constrained, and institutionally locked. LLM-based educational simulators have emerged as a potential remedy, but many still collapse learning into persona-conditioned role-play and, when optimized only to reproduce existing classrooms, can structurally penalize the institutional novelty that pedagogical reform requires. In this work, we introduce AgentSchool, an LLM-driven multi-agent simulator that models learning as state transition rather than prompted behavior. AgentSchool couples cognitively growable student agents -- equipped with weighted subject knowledge graphs, thinking-workflow pools, and explicit misconceptions -- with adaptive teacher agents that plan, scaffold, and reflect along the Zone of Proximal Development, embedded in a configurable scenery generator that situates instruction within both formal and informal learning fields, and a multi-scale simulator that decouples interaction scale, temporal granularity, and simulation duration. Experiments show that structured student agents produce more differentiated mastery and misconception traces than a baseline simulator, while teacher-agent comparisons show backbone-dependent patterns consistent with ZPD-informed adaptation. Further, AgentSchool generates plausible traces of peripheral participation, clique formation, aggressor-induced cohesion, and opinion-leader emergence consistent with classroom social theories. Beyond its role as an educational research instrument, AgentSchool frames education as a socially meaningful testbed for long-horizon memory, multi-agent coordination, and future institutional reasoning under organizational pressure.

A key part of developing large language model (LLM)-powered, automated tutoring tools is student simulation, i.e., using LLMs to role-play as students, which can facilitate tutor model evaluation and training. Existing work mostly focuses on within-dialogue simulation, which lacks context on student knowledge and behavior, partly due to not grounding in past student question-answering or dialogue interactions. In this work, we introduce the task of history-conditioned student simulation, where the goal is to accurately predict student dialogue turns by leveraging information in the student's learning history. We propose a two-component framework in which a profile generator summarizes a student's history and a simulator predicts student turns conditioned on the resulting profile. We train both components with reinforcement learning (RL), yielding profiles optimized for faithful student simulation. We evaluate our method and baselines on the first-of-its-kind real-world dataset of student dialogues and question responses that we collect from a math learning platform. Extensive experiments show that our method significantly outperforms baselines, and demonstrate the importance of history, profiles, and RL training.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show strong potential as educational tutors. Existing approaches typically train them to solve problems and provide correct answers, but this problem-solving-centered paradigm overlooks key requirements of effective tutoring: progressive guidance and the coordination of multiple pedagogical objectives across multi-turn interactions. Developing such tutors remains challenging because student behavior varies substantially with individual knowledge states, pedagogical effectiveness depends on multiple factors beyond final-answer correctness, and coordinating these objectives over tutor-student interactions is inherently difficult. To address these challenges, we propose PEARL, a PEdagogically Aligned Reinforcement Learning framework for training Socratic tutoring agents. First, we introduce a controllable student simulator that disentangles latent cognitive states from response generation, enabling simulation of diverse abilities and misconceptions. Second, we develop a pedagogically aligned reward model that jointly assesses pedagogical quality and objective correctness. Finally, we propose a stable multi-objective reinforcement learning approach that balances competing pedagogical objectives during tutor training. Experiments across multiple benchmarks show that PEARL performs competitively against tutoring-specific open-source systems and leading proprietary LLMs.

Educational platforms often predict student performance from prior interactions, but the assessment content itself also varies in linguistic and visual complexity. This paper studies whether lightweight content features extracted from CourseKata chapter-review questions improve prediction of end-of-chapter quiz scores beyond a student's average prior exercise performance. The study combines 2023 CourseKata student response data with chapter-level text features from review-question wording and image features from textbook visuals. Across 4,742 student-chapter observations from 562 class-student IDs, adding content features improves student-grouped five-fold quiz prediction performance by 9.1% relative to a prior-performance baseline. In leave-chapter-out validation, text features reduce prediction error relative to the baseline, while image-containing models have higher error. This paper suggests that a context-aware model adds useful signal about the text and visual features of questions to better predict student quiz performance compared with using past student performance alone.

This study reports findings from a cross-sectional survey (n = 72) of higher education practitioners examining beliefs, behaviors, and institutional conditions related to artificial intelligence (AI) integration in teaching and learning. Grounded in the DOT Framework, which integrates design thinking and open systems theory, the study investigates AI familiarity, usage patterns, design-oriented practices, and pedagogical beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis of 19 belief items identified a three-factor structure: AI Functional Capabilities, Oversight and Governance, and Instructor Collaboration and Planning (α = .90). Results indicate that practitioners hold favorable views of AI as a pedagogical support while maintaining strong commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation. Reported practices emphasize iterative prompting and content generation, with less consistent use of needs assessment and feedback loops. Institutional barriers including limited policy, training, and infrastructure were widely reported. These findings provide preliminary empirical support for the DOT Framework as a descriptive model of practitioner beliefs and practices, while also highlighting gaps between design-oriented theory and current implementation. The study contributes an initial measurement structure and identifies directions for confirmatory validation and outcome-based research linking AI-supported design practices to instructional quality.

Linking learning resources to a structured competency framework is key to enabling competency-based search and curriculum analytics in Learning Management Systems (LMS). However, manual tagging is labor-intensive, and fully automatic methods often lack transparency. In this paper, we present an end-to-end alignment pipeline that uses a large language model (LLM) as a constrained, evidence-producing tagger. LMS resources -both instructional content and assessments -are first segmented into meaningful pedagogical fragments. For each fragment, a small set of candidate competencies is retrieved from structured competency profiles enriched with graph-based context. The LLM then selects the most relevant competencies from this set and provides supporting evidence spans from the fragment text. These predictions are refined using the structure of the competency graph and aggregated at the resource level. We evaluate our approach on a dataset built from the Computer Science department's competency referential at the Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), covering 22 competencies across multiple course materials. Our LLM+BM25+Graph (LBG) pipeline achieves strong results, with a micro-F1 of 0.57 and macro-F1 of 0.50 at the fragment level, 0.51 macro-F1 at the resource level, and an MRR of 0.82outperforming zero-shot and few-shot LLM variants, retrieval/similarity baselines, and supervised classifiers -while also producing more mechanically traceable evidence spans to support human auditing and educational analysis.

Evaluating AI tutor responses requires more than factual correctness: tutors must identify mistakes, locate errors, provide guidance, and offer actionable next steps. We present GRADE, a systematic study of open-source models for pedagogical ability assessment in student-tutor dialogues. Building on the BEA 2025 TutorMind setting, we evaluate 120 configurations across five language models, zero-shot inference, LoRA fine-tuning, synthetic augmentation, CoT+Reasoning, and single-task versus multitask formulations. Gemma3-12B performs best for single-task evaluation, while Gemma3-27B in 8-bit precision is more reliable for multitask prediction. We find that augmentation helps models that struggle with the original data, verification adds limited gains despite higher cost, and CoT+Reasoning is more useful for synthetic data generation than direct classification. We further show that LoRA fine-tuning on structured classification objectives interferes with instruction-following behavior under thinking mode, redirecting generation away from the required evaluation format. Carbon analysis shows that model choice and reasoning mode substantially affect emissions. Overall, GRADE shows that carefully selected open-source LoRA pipelines can match or surpass proprietary and ensemble-based systems on key pedagogical dimensions, with code and data available at https://github.com/pvbgeek/GRADE.