Generative AI in Education

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

18 papers in the last four weeks, against 2 the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 161

Oct 1, 2026cs.AI

Feedback Without the Wait: Piloting a Generative AI Practice Platform in a Large Maths Class

Timely and specific feedback is one of the strongest influences on student learning, yet it is difficult to sustain in large electrical engineering classes where the ratio of students to demonstrators is high and a learner who is stuck may wait days to find out why an approach was wrong. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) offers a way to scale conversational feedback, but using it to grade assessed work raises trust and accountability concerns, and keeping a human in the loop to assure its judgements reintroduces the very delay that erodes the value of feedback. The result is a tension between the immediacy that makes feedback so impactful and the human oversight that makes it trustworthy. In this work, we set out to resolve that tension in practice by designing and piloting a GenAI practice platform that delivers immediate, scaffolded feedback during self-directed practice. This relocates human oversight from real-time grading to the upfront verification of solutions. Our goal was to understand how students engaged with the tool, how they perceived the value and reliability of its feedback, and what lessons transfer to other engineering subjects.

Lili Chen, Gavin Buskes, Yuxin Ren +1

The University of Melbourne · Monash University

Educational Assessment Educational Technology Generative AI in Education Human Oversight of AI

Oct 1, 2026cs.AI

An Educator-Guided LLM Pedagogical Agent for Scaffolded Feedback in Conceptual Database Design

We present an educator-guided LLM pedagogical agent for scaffolded feedback in conceptual database design. Integrated into an entity--relationship diagram (ERD) editor, the system grounds feedback in the student artifact, assignment requirements, educator-authored rubrics, and instructional resources. Its architecture separates hidden, artifact-grounded diagnosis from the workflow that controls the form and disclosure level of student-facing support. We instantiate the architecture as a four-stage workflow progressing from concept checks and guided application to low-detail feedback and localized clarification. Each feedback request creates a stateful episode linked to versioned ERD states. In a deployment spanning three ERD environments and 383 feedback episodes, 71.1% of observed target-level changes fully or partially incorporated the hidden diagnostic target, including many after Stages~1--2. Qualitative analysis showed that staged disclosure sometimes withheld inaccurate details, supported selective uptake, or allowed later recovery, though some errors still shaped revisions. Survey responses from a self-selected sample favored delayed disclosure and student agency but noted indirectness and repetition.

Sara Riazi, Pedram Rooshenas

University of Illinois Chicago Chicago, IL, USA

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Educational Assessment Generative AI in Education LLM Agents

Sep 30, 2026cs.RO

AIfred: Augmented Learning through Functional Robotic Embodiment at the Desk

Desk-based learning and creative activities benefit from handwritten engagement. However, current generative AI tools deliver guidance through a separate screen, creating a gap between where users think and where assistance appears. To address this, in this work we design AIfred, a desk-based robotic arm with a projector mounted at the end-effector that places AI-generated guidance alongside handwritten work. AIfred combines workspace perception, context-aware content generation, and robot-mediated projection to support math assignments, image generation, and drawing tasks. In a user study (n = 36), we compared AIfred against ChatGPT (GPT-5.6 Luna) running on a laptop. Both tools performed comparably while assistance was available during the math assignment (6.7 vs. 7.3/10, p = .41), but AIfred improved short-term learning transfer by 60% once assistance was withdrawn (7.0 vs. 4.4/10, p = .003). In addition, independent art and design professors ranked drawings produced with AIfred better in 33 of 36 cases. Our findings indicate that spatially co-located AI assistance benefits tasks whose guidance shares a spatial frame with the work.

Gregorio Orlando, Milan Groshev, Eduardo Castelló Ferrer

CyPhy Life, Robotics & AI Lab, School of Science & Technology, IE University, Spain

Generative AI in Education Assistive Robotics Human-Robot Interaction Human-AI Collaboration

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Examining Variation in How Guided AI Tutors Resolve Student Impasses

When a student is stuck, a tutor faces the assistance dilemma: help given too early can hinder productive struggle, while help withheld too long leaves the student in a frustrating, persistent impasse (i.e., wheel spinning). Generative AI tutors increasingly use guardrails restricting answer-giving, yet little is known about how such tutors behave once an impasse persists. We analyze 20,462 student turns from 1,260 authentic sessions with a guided LLM chemistry tutor, identifying 6,630 impasse turns of three major types: conceptual errors, expressed uncertainty, or help-seeking. We then used these impasses to simulate three tutoring conditions to study variation in AI tutor guidance through impasses: baseline, no-direct-answer, and guided tutor. For a sample of 150 impasses, prompt specificity changed pedagogy: a baseline tutor provided the answer directly in 50.7% of responses, a no-direct-answer tutor asked a follow-up question every time, and the guided tutor responded in a wide variety of ways depending on the context. We then analyzed impasse trajectories in authentic interactions, finding that each additional impasse turn lowered the odds of next-turn recovery by 12.7% (AOR = 0.873, p < .001), and early dropouts were caught in recursive concept elicitation before reaching execution. The benefit of questioning decayed as impasses persisted (scripted question x depth AOR = 0.78; follow-up x depth AOR = 0.83), whereas addressing the student's error grew more beneficial (AOR = 1.14); after a failed scripted question, repeating it was followed by recovery in 28.1% of cases, compared with 39.8% when the tutor addressed the error instead. For learning analytics, these findings identify impasse depth and type as observable, turn-level dialogue signals that analytics can use to trigger graduated, state-sensitive assistance in real time.

Bakhtawar Ahtisham, Kirk Vanacore, Alessandra Napoli +5

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States · Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Educational Data Mining Generative AI in Education Teacher-Student Learning

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

DraftTrace: A Multi-View Analytics Environment for AI-Integrated Writing

Generative AI has changed how students produce writing assignments. The final artifact is no longer sufficient to understand the process through which it was produced. We introduce DraftTrace, a writing environment that jointly captures three complementary views of writing: the final product, the writing process and interactions with an integrated AI-assistant. DraftTrace reconstructs how a document develops over time and organizes these signals into submission, longitudinal, and class-level analytics for instructors. We deployed DraftTrace in a graduate NLP course with 81 students and compared their sessions with LLM-generated responses entered by automated tools and with copy-typed responses. While product measures distinguish differences in text formulation, process measures distinguish differences in how text is entered. Considering both views together helps characterize cases such as copy-typing. Interaction traces show that students use the assistant differently across stages of writing: to clarify the question at an early stage and to verify answers at a later stage. A preliminary instructor survey highlights the importance of multi-view writing analytics and their interpretability.

Divyansh Chandarana, Sandipan De, Vivek Gupta

Arizona State University

Educational Data Mining Generative AI in Education Human-AI Collaboration

Sep 24, 2026cs.HC

Guardrails or Roadblocks? Effects of Pedagogical Style and Context Awareness in AI Teaching Assistants for Programming

AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) backed by large language models (LLMs) and pedagogical guardrails are increasingly being integrated into programming courses, providing students with scalable access to hints, conceptual explanations, and code-level feedback. However, guardrails may also create friction. If students feel that the support provided is overly restrictive or poorly contextualized to their current progress, they may bypass approved tools for general-purpose LLMs. To investigate how AI TA design affects students' learning experiences, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with 132 students in an introductory programming course. Students completed three tasks related to code-writing and debugging and were randomly assigned to one of four AI TAs varied across two dimensions: pedagogical guidance style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context of the problem and student solution). We examined students' perceptions, interaction behaviors, and evidence of post-task comprehension. Students rated the Socratic AI TA with full context least favorably, reporting significantly lower perceived support for task completion. Descriptively, this condition also showed the highest observed interaction stress, the highest rate of external LLM use, and the lowest proportion of post-task explanations demonstrating full comprehension, though these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that guardrailed AI TAs are not automatically better for learning. Instead, their effectiveness depends on how pedagogical guidance and contextual awareness are balanced in ways that students experience as useful, supportive, and worth continuing to use.

Madeleine Eastwood, Harshith Narne, Joseph Hilby +3

University of Florida Gainesville, FL, United States · University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand

LLM Guardrails Programming Education Generative AI in Education Conversational Agents

Sep 24, 2026cs.AI

A Risk-Adaptive and Evidence-Constrained Framework for Generative AI Feedback in Programming Education

Generative artificial intelligence can turn learning analytics into personalized support, but feedback systems must decide when to intervene, which evidence to use, and how much assistance to provide. We developed a risk-adaptive, evidence-constrained framework for introductory programming using 2993 failed-submission states from 215 students. Student-disjoint models predicted persistent failure and related outcomes; four matched feedback conditions were generated for 136 cases; and calibrated risk informed capacity-limited intervention policies. The validation-selected logistic regression model achieved a test precision-recall area under the curve of 0.550 and a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.681. Broader student histories improved prediction of unmodified resubmission. After standardized repair and evidence gating, 519 of 544 newly generated messages contained all required components. A fixed-threshold sequential policy selected 17.8% of eligible test states and captured 25.2% of observed persistent failures. These findings support an evidence-gated progressive assistance strategy: calibrated risk guides intervention timing, recorded evidence constrains feedback content, and assistance progresses from self-checks to localized hints when warranted. The framework connects prediction, decision-making, and grounded generation while keeping their evaluation outcomes distinct.

Shihao Wang

Department of Education, Practice and Society, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Generative AI in Education Evidence-Grounded Generation

Sep 23, 2026cs.AI

StudentBench: AI and human tutoring yield equivalent GRE learning gains

Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advancing model capabilities. We introduce StudentBench, a suite of AI teaching evaluations and a public platform that enables large-scale data collection with over 175,000 student-AI messages to study whether large language models (LLMs) produce learning gains equivalent to human tutoring. Using StudentBench, we measured learning gains on Quantitative and Verbal GRE questions across 2,383 human participants receiving AI tutoring, human tutoring, or no tutoring. We establish that AI tutoring is statistically equivalent to expert human tutoring for GRE learning gains (p = .015), and in five of the seven GRE domains, the best performing AI tutor surpassed the human tutor, on average. In a second study, expert human tutors compared LLM-generated lesson plans and practice problems through 2,028 pairwise rubric evaluations. Together, the two studies clearly separate AI tutors across: (1) lesson planning, (2) practice-problem creation, (3) conversational pedagogy, (4) cost, and (5) engagement. Surprisingly, one AI tutor achieved learning gains equivalent to human tutoring (p = .044) at 918 times lower cost (USD 0.0052 for AI versus USD 4.81 for human, per percentage point gained). For Quantitative GRE sessions, faster AI replies correlated with more student messages, more messages with more correct practice, and more correct practice with larger learning gains (all p < .002). To support future research, we open-source the de-identified data collected in our studies.

Curtis Northcutt, Inaara Hasmani, Kevin Feng +3

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education

Sep 23, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating Feedback Focus and Pedagogical Adaptivity in LLM-Generated Feedback on Student Writing

We investigate whether state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) generate feedback that reflects the pedagogical practices of expert teachers in terms of feedback focus and adaptivity. Previous evaluation efforts have examined feedback characteristics, its impact on learning, and its target, yet the focus of feedback and its adaptivity remains largely overlooked. To bridge this gap, we adopt and refine Narciss's taxonomy into seven feedback focus types to annotate teacher and LLM-generated feedback across three university writing courses. We release FeedType, a benchmark containing annotated teacher and LLM feedback from six LLMs under three prompting strategies. We assess the coverage and distribution of feedback focus types, and examine whether LLMs adapt their feedback across draft stages and student performance levels as an expert instructor does. Our findings show that while most LLMs cover most feedback focus types, they fail to reflect teacher feedback distributions and show varying levels of adaptivity, with none matching the teachers' adaptive behavior. We believe FeedType will support future research on pedagogical alignment in LLM feedback generation.

Norah Almousa, Shayan Peyghambari Oskoui, Raquel Coelho +3

University of Pittsburgh

LLM Evaluation LLM Alignment Generative AI in Education Adaptive Learning

Sep 23, 2026cs.AI

Evaluation of pre-trained models for pedagogical assessment of novel AI-assisted educational questions

The surge in AI-assisted generation of educational materials has outpaced our capacity to validate their pedagogical quality. Automated evaluation using Bloom Classifier models is a promising approach to assess educational materials at scale. These models show high accuracy within-distribution dataset (IID Dataset). However, applying the same models to new out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets such as AI-assisted generated questions could show performance degradation. To identify robust classifiers under dataset shift, we evaluated traditional Machine Learning (ML), transformer, and Large Language models on the Bloom level classification task. We also explored feature-engineering strategies incorporating NLP metrics, appending the learning objectives as part of the input, and text splicing to stabilize OOD performance. Our baseline tests show that TFPOS-IDF ML models perform poorly on OOD (Macro F1-score 0.48) compared to BERT (0.55) and LLMs (0.79). Text splicing improved macro F1-score performance of ML and BERT models (0.59 and 0.62, respectively). Appending the learning objectives with the input increased model performance on specific dataset. Model retraining provided the largest improvement across models and datasets. Overall, these findings highlight the trade-off on the use of pre-trained models with novel AI-assisted educational questions and how strategic feature enhancements help address loss in performance.

Michael Lawrence Castanares, Princess Ventures, Allan Tan

Predictive Systems Inc, Ortigas, Pasig City, Philippines, 1605 · Better Labs Oy, Helsinki, Finland

Educational Assessment OOD Generalization Generative AI in Education Language Model Robustness

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

From Content Generation to Learning Support: Pedagogy-Guided Generative Video Tutors for STEM Learning

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.

Xinchen Ma, Shuimu Wang, Gaole He +4

Department of Data Science and Engineering, East China Normal University · School of Computing, National University of Singapore

Intelligent Tutoring Systems AI in Education Generative AI in Education Video Generation

Sep 17, 2026cs.HC

DataCanvas-EDU: An Agentic Framework for Instructor-Guided Synthetic Data Generation in Business Analytics Education

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

Bang An, Maria Hamdani, Joseph Fox

Department of Management College of Business University of Akron

Synthetic Data Generation AI in Education Generative AI in Education Agentic Code Generation

Sep 16, 2026cs.AI

The Uneven Impact of Generative AI on Student Learning: Examining the Roles of Reliance, Evaluation Literacy, and Course Policy in AI-related Courses

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how students learn, yet the roles of course context, cognitive reliance, evaluation literacy, and early reliance remain underexplored. Using survey responses from 118 students across 12 AI-related courses at our institution, we examined differences in GenAI use and perceived learning experiences. We identified four user clusters: high-use students reporting many benefits, light users reporting less reliance and fewer benefits, and two moderate-use groups reporting different levels of benefit. We also found significant differences between free- and premium-version users, single- and multiple-tool users, and students experiencing different instructor policies. In multivariable regression models, academic benefit was associated with early reliance and academic task support; positive impact was associated with cognitive reliance, academic task support, confidence in GenAI reliability, and instructor policy; and negative impact was associated with early reliance and attitudinal change. The association between early reliance and negative impact became stronger as evaluation literacy increased. Finally, perceptions of GenAI-enhanced learning appear to reflect cognitive, performance, and self-efficacy benefits, while concerns about stress and diminished critical thinking are associated with lower perceived learning benefits. These findings suggest that institutions need better policies to address such inequities so that institutions can enable students to benefit from increasingly capable AI systems.

Lydia Manikonda, Mei Si, Sirajam Munira +2

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy, New York, USA

AI Literacy Generative AI in Education

Sep 15, 2026cs.HC

Does AI Assistance Leave a Temporal Fingerprint? Detecting Overreliance in AI-Assisted Writing and Programming

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1

\geq

0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.

Eduardo Davalos, Yike Zhang

Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA · St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX 78228, USA

Generative AI in Education Human-AI Collaboration

Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

The Role of Implicit and Explicit Demographic Signals in Large Language Model-based Student Assessment

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.

Donya Rooein, Luca Benedetto, Dirk Hovy

Bocconi University, Milan, Italy · Télécom SudParis, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France

AI in Education Generative AI in Education Automated Essay Scoring Language Model Bias Evaluation Demographic Bias in Language Models

Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

EduFair-Bench: Evaluating Pedagogical Fairness of LLM Tutors Across Student Demographics

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as tutors, but it is unclear whether they support all students equally well. We introduce \textbf{EduFair-Bench}, a benchmark for auditing the pedagogical fairness of LLM tutors---whether tutoring quality varies systematically with student demographics. EduFair-Bench pairs a multi-domain question bank (mathematics, physics, chemistry) with a controlled simulation in which a fixed LLM student interacts with each tutor across nine demographic levels spanning four dimensions: gender, immigration background, first language, and socioeconomic status (SES). Tutoring quality is scored on five turn-level pedagogical metrics and four conversation-level dimensions, using an LLM judge validated against three-annotator consensus on 180 tutor turns. Bias is measured via paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and bootstrap effect-size confidence intervals. Two ablations (demographic cues conveyed through names; conflicting demographic information between tutor and student) disentangle tutor-driven from student-driven bias. Across five tutors, we find that model capability and demographic fairness are largely orthogonal: the smallest model is the most consistent while the four more capable tutors all exhibit wide demographic gaps with no clear capability-to-fairness ordering, pedagogy-specific RL training redistributes rather than removes bias, and language- and immigration-related cues produce larger gaps than gender- and SES-related cues.

Jiaxu Zhao, Bahar Radmehr, Fares Fawzi +2

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland

Generative AI in Education Language Model Bias Evaluation Demographic Bias in Language Models

Sep 9, 2026cs.CY

With a Thermomix You Lose the Ability to Cook: A Kitchen Machine Analogy for Applications of Generative AI in Education

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT has sparked intense debate about their risks and opportunities for education, as well as the ways researchers should investigate them. In this paper, we approach these discussions through an analogy with the Thermomix, a smart kitchen appliance that has similarly provoked both enthusiasm and critique. By mapping Thermomix use cases onto examples of learning with generative AI, and situating them within the ICAP and SAMR frameworks, we show how different modes of tool use can either support or undermine meaningful engagement and learning. The Thermomix metaphor underscores that the central question is not whether learners employ AI, but how such use shapes their learning processes. In doing so, we provide a conceptual lens for researchers and practitioners to critically examine - and more effectively guide - the integration of generative AI into educational practice.

Nikol Rummel, Valentina Nachtigall, Ernesto Panadero

Institute of Educational Research, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany · Center for Advanced Internet Studies, Bochum, Germany · Centre for Assessment Research, Policy and Practice in Education, Dublin City University, Ireland +1

Educational Technology Generative AI in Education

Sep 7, 2026cs.CY

An emancipatory vision for designing (generative) AI for learner flourishing

The hype around generative AI seems to promise unprecedented productivity (and learning) gains. However, these technologies' increasing agentic features seem to push learners towards individualism (or individual isolation), over-reliance, and dependence on them. Human-centered design approaches (e.g., value-sensitive design) assume that, by unearthing human needs, preferences, and values, technology researchers/designers may avoid such dangers, which are driven by wider systemic factors like economic incentives or inherent human limitations (e.g., our tendency to seek, in the moment, the easiest path of action). Yet, so far these efforts seem insufficient to guide our design of educational technology that avoids the aforementioned dependency and isolation dangers, while finding widespread adoption. This paper presents an alternative, more emancipatory vision for future educational AI technology, oriented towards learner flourishing while considering the wider complex systems they inhabit, including tentative design principles and an overall design methodology. Yet, many open questions remain before this vision can be realized.

Luis P. Prieto, Yannis Dimitriadis

GSIC-EMIC Research Group, Universidad de Valladolid, Paseo de Belén, 15, 47011 Valladolid, Spain

Generative AI in Education Human-Centered AI

Aug 31, 2026cs.CL

CogEvol: Towards Efficient and Reliable Learning Environment Generation

We present CogEvol, a family of models trained specifically for Learning Environment Generation: turning a course brief into a finished learning artifact (structured-JSON slides or self-contained interactive HTML pages) in a single pass. Across 220k production requests, CogEvol completes a slide in a median of 17 seconds and an interactive page in 59, replacing minutes-long multi-turn agent scaffolding. Reliability is enforced rather than hoped for: a production-grounded data pipeline turns real failures into 53,687 verified SFT samples, and a hybrid rule-plus-VLM reward drives GRPO-based RL, hardened after we caught and fixed a reward-hacking episode that produced visually convincing but unplayable games. CogEvol-27B scores 83.7 on slide quality and 63.7 on a 500-case interactive-HTML benchmark with 26.9x fewer parameters than flagship coding models, and, in collaboration with the OpenMAIC team, serves their live production traffic. CogEvol-4B is released openly under the Apache 2.0 license at https://github.com/CogEvol/CogEvol-4B; external flagships are measured on the same suites under the identical harness. Scaffold editing cuts interactive-page generation cost by a further ~76%, and the full stack runs on domestic Ascend accelerators at application-level parity with A800 GPUs, lowering the unit cost of AI-native education at scale.

Shangqing Tu, Daniel Zhang-Li, Yucheng Wang +20

CogEvol Inc. & Tsinghua University

Generative AI in Education Procedural Content Generation

Aug 12, 2026cs.AI

Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: From Provision to Student Enactment

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

Omar Alsaiari, Nilufar Baghaei, Jason M. Lodge +3

The University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia · The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · University of Surrey Guildford, UK

Generative AI in Education Human-AI Collaboration

Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

CyberAGENTS: Structured Autonomy for Agentic Gamified Learning in Cybersecurity

Gamification is especially effective in learning domains requiring active problem-solving and iterative skill-building, such as cybersecurity education. Generative AI agents offer a path to delivering such experiences adaptively at scale, but introduce well-documented risks in educational settings: inconsistent behavior, hallucinated reasoning, and misalignment with pedagogical frameworks. Grounding these systems in learning science is therefore essential. We present \model, an agentic framework for gamified cybersecurity learning that enables structured autonomy through ontology-guided validation, schema-governed behavioral control, and competency-based progression. The system is organized around a competency-based progression model that structures topics by difficulty and prerequisite relationships, reflecting evidence-based principles of scaffolded instruction. The learning loop is decomposed into four specialized agents: challenge, support, evaluation, and reward, each governed by behavioral schemas that encode operational modes and progression logic, bounding agent autonomy without eliminating generative flexibility. A cybersecurity ontology validates all generated content prior to display, enforcing domain-consistent reasoning and safety constraints. We evaluate CyberAgents through classroom deployment with undergraduate students, complemented by expert evaluations from educators and domain specialists. Results indicate improved engagement, clearer feedback interpretation, and greater learner trust in AI-generated responses when behavioral schemas and ontology validation are active. Preliminary comparisons with an unconstrained configuration further support the role of structured control in stabilizing instructional behavior. These findings offer a blueprint for designing pedagogically grounded agentic gamified learning systems.

Ivan Hornung, Deepthi Marasinghe Arachchige, Tharindu Kumarage +4

Arizona State University · Amazon AGI

AI Agent Reliability Educational Technology Generative AI in Education

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

Curriculum as Code: An AI-Assisted Architecture for Instructional Design in STEM Education

Contribution: This paper presents a six-phase AI-assisted instructional design architecture based on the Curriculum as Code paradigm, integrating Generative AI with LaTeX and Python to automate the creation of reproducible, visually consistent, and technically precise materials for STEM education. Background: Creating customized instructional materials for active learning imposes a heavy workload on faculty. Standard presentation tools lack robust support for technical content, while current AI applications often hallucinate and fail to formalize the instructional authoring process, limiting their utility for rigorous academic design. Intended Outcomes: The framework aims to reduce preparation time while ensuring mathematical accuracy, adherence to institutional visual identity, and preservation of the instructor's tacit pedagogical knowledge through explicit rules. Application Design: The solution comprises a six-phase pipeline that replaces ad-hoc prompt engineering with a systematic workflow, utilizing text-based interfaces and code-driven generation (LaTeX/Beamer for slides, Python for figures), governed by pedagogical constraints, contextual calibrations, and automated review cycles. Findings: Validated over one year across 8 modules and 28 project contexts in a Project-Based Learning environment, the architecture significantly reduced instructor workload. Generated assets underwent independent peer review and were deployed by six different faculty members, confirming scalability beyond a single author. Based on over 600 voluntary student evaluations, materials achieved high quality ratings from 8.5 to 9.9/10. Results indicate high reproducibility, minimized hallucinations, and sustained pedagogical and visual fidelity, suggesting viability for broad STEM educational applications.

Henrique Mohallem Paiva

Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo (Unifesp), Rua Talim, 330, Sao Jose dos Campos (SP), Brazil, 12231-280 · Institute of Technology and Leadership (Inteli), Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 520, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil, 05508-901

Educational Technology AI in Education Generative AI in Education

Aug 7, 2026cs.CY

Methodologies for Improving the Quality of AI Tutoring in K-12 Education

Many AI tutors leverage large language models (LLMs) today. Given that LLMs are opaque black boxes, robust evaluation and live experimentation to measure the impact of every change are essential. We pioneered AI-powered tutoring for K-12 with the launch of Khanmigo (Khan Academy, 2023). We describe the metrics we use to measure AI tutoring quality and student engagement as well as various experiments we have run. We highlight the changes that have moved our metrics, including models, prompting, personalization and agents.

Tushar Udeshi, Anna Khazenzon, Kabir Khan +5

Khan Academy, Mountain View CA 94041, USA

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education

Aug 5, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating and Improving Pedagogical Fit in LLM-Based AI Tutors with the Pedagogical Suitability Index

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as AI tutors, but a correct answer is not always a pedagogically appropriate one. In classroom learning, effective help depends not only on correctness, but also on whether a response matches the learner's current foundation, the course sequence, and the timing of concept introduction. Existing evaluations focus mainly on answer quality, leaving this instructional fit under-measured. We present the Pedagogical Suitability Index (PSI), a composite metric of six theory-informed sub-scores that evaluates how well LLM-generated tutoring responses align with learner readiness and curricular progression, and we further use PSI as a structured feedback signal for response improvement. We evaluate four LLM tutors (ChatGPT, Gemini, Gemma4, and Qwen3) across 240 scenario-based evaluations using paired standard and defective prompts, then apply a PSI-guided regeneration protocol to 62 weak-performing cases. Baseline differences across the four tested models were modest overall (PSI range: 0.557 to 0.638), and open-weight and closed models did not exhibit a clear separation in pedagogical fit. Under the tested prompt perturbations, overall PSI remained largely stable (Delta = -0.002), though sub-score trade-offs emerged. More importantly, PSI-guided feedback substantially improved weak-performing cases: 51 of 62 cases improved (82.3%). Focused manual evaluation of the 62 PSI-selected weak cases provides initial evidence that the identified weaknesses are instructionally meaningful and that many PSI-guided regenerations correspond to human-judged improvement. These results suggest that learner- and curriculum-aware alignment may matter more for effective tutoring than model category alone, and that such alignment is both measurable and improvable.

Benjamin Barlog, Hudson Craig, Zedong Peng

Department of Computer Science University of Montana Missoula, MT, USA

LLM Evaluation LLM Alignment Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education Language Model Self-Improvement

Aug 3, 2026cs.AI

EduZone: A Framework for Evaluating LLM Safety for K-12 Students and Teachers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across diverse tasks in K-12 education, yet existing safety evaluations rarely examine how harmful or inappropriate content appears in interactions between LLMs and students or teachers. To address this, we present EduZone, an evaluation framework for LLM safety across diverse educational scenarios. Our framework systematically combines (1) student- and teacher-facing LLM usage contexts, (2) fine-grained curriculum concepts, and (3) 6 risk categories and 28 subcategories spanning both conventional and education-specific harms to generate contextually grounded adversarial interactions. We construct these interactions in three settings: single-turn requests, static multi-turn conversations, and dynamic multi-turn conversations. Using these interactions, we evaluate ten LLMs using four safety levels: refusal, safe assistance, risky assistance with safety guidance, and fully risky assistance. Our results reveal greater vulnerability to education-specific risks and dynamic multi-turn interactions, while existing safety guardrails fail to adequately address these risks. EduZone advances LLM safety in education by providing an automated, scalable evaluation framework that supports the development and deployment of safer LLMs in K-12 education.

Junyeong Park, Jieun Han, Haneul Yoo +3

KAIST · NYU · Google Cloud AI Research

LLM Safety Benchmarks Generative AI in Education LLM Safety LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 3, 2026cs.CY

Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K-12 Teacher Education

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has entered classrooms faster than teachers have been prepared to use it well, producing a GenAI literacy lag in which technological diffusion outpaces educators' conceptual, pedagogical, and ethical readiness. Established AI literacy frameworks predate the widespread adoption of large language models and, while acknowledging ethics, position it as a discrete competency rather than a constitutive commitment, with equity and agency as supplementary design principles. Recent GenAI-specific efforts address isolated features but remain fragmented. We introduce the Responsible AI Literacy in Education (RAIL-Ed) framework, developed through a systematic review and qualitative framework analysis of 67 studies (2023-2025), grounded in critical, pragmatist, sociocultural, and human-centered traditions (Freire, Dewey, Vygotsky, Shneiderman). RAIL-Ed specifies six interdependent pillars: Technical Fluency, Critical Evaluation, Human-AI Collaboration, Contextual Awareness, Ethical Reasoning, and Empowered Agency, marked by three commitments. It is integrative: the absence of any pillar produces a characteristic pedagogical failure. It is developmental: a three-level rubric (Emerging, Competent, Advanced) specifies how each pillar matures across the K-12 teacher-preparation continuum. It is dialectical: the same generative affordance can deepen or displace learning depending on the literacy a teacher brings to it, making the cultivation of that literacy, not the adoption of the tool, the object of design. By treating ethics, equity, and agency as constitutive, RAIL-Ed offers a theoretically grounded basis for curriculum design, teacher education, and policy, aligned with the UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Teachers and the OECD/European Commission AILit Framework. The framework is conceptual, advancing falsifiable propositions for empirical validation.

Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li +7

School of Education, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA · School of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies: Educational Technology Department, Kent State University, Ohio, USA · Department of Learning and Performance Systems, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA +6

AI in Education AI Literacy Generative AI in Education Responsible AI

Aug 2, 2026cs.AI

Fighting Fire with Fire: On the Feasibility of Protecting Exercises Against AI Cheating

The widespread adoption of generative AI enables students to outsource cognitive effort to increasingly capable assistants, creating an illusion of competence while undermining the independent reasoning that education aims to cultivate. We investigate whether adversarial machine learning can be repurposed to protect educational exercises against such corrosive reliance. Our approach uses multimodal multiple-choice questions whose visual components can be protected with subtle visual perturbations that steer AI solvers toward designated incorrect answers. These responses form a statistical fingerprint: students who blindly copy a solver reproduce the induced answer pattern more frequently than genuine students. We study the feasibility of this paradigm under realistic black-box assistant assumptions using three of the most common state-of-the-art multimodal language models: Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini, and OpenAI's ChatGPT. By using accessible surrogate models, we optimize adversarial perturbations that induce consistent response patterns. Those patterns enable principled detection through statistical hypothesis testing. These findings establish both the promise and the limitations of fighting machine-assisted reasoning with the vulnerabilities of the machines themselves.

Tobias Braun, Jonas Grebe, Louis Rethfeld +1

TU Darmstadt & hessian.AI, Germany

Adversarial Attacks on VLMs AI in Education Generative AI in Education

Jul 30, 2026cs.SE

Integrating AI into Requirements Quality Learning in Software Engineering Education: A TPACK-Guided Empirical Study

The rapid adoption of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in software engineering (SE) practice creates a need for pedagogically grounded approaches to AI integration in SE education, especially in conceptually intensive subjects such as requirements engineering (RE). This study examines a TPACK-guided integration of a multi-agent AI tool into a master-level RE assignment on requirements quality analysis. Using a mixed-methods design (N=100; 72 submissions analysed), we examine how structured assignment design shaped students' AI use, affected their understanding of user story quality criteria, and influenced their perceptions of AI's benefits and limitations. Results show that students used the AI tool selectively, mainly as support for analysis and evaluation rather than automation. Alignment improvements were most evident for structurally concrete requirements quality dimensions, such as value articulation and testability, while negotiability showed mixed effects. Students reported conditional trust, active refinement, and increased awareness of quality criteria, alongside moderate usability challenges. The findings show that TPACK-guided scaffolding can align AI affordances with pedagogical goals and RE content, offering design guidance for responsible AI integration in RE education.

Hansika Ekanayake Mudiyanselage, Rohan Jai Dharmaraj, Malik Abdul Sami +1

Software Engineering Research Center (TASE), Tampere University, Finland

Requirements Engineering Computer Science Education Generative AI in Education

Jul 30, 2026cs.CL

Rethinking LLM-Judged Helpfulness as a Pedagogy Signal: A Pre-Registered Audit Across Tutor Models

LLM tutoring poses a measurement problem: can a general-purpose helpfulness rubric distinguish direct answer-giving from pedagogical guidance? We audit this signal in a pre-registered study. Within each of three tutor bases, we compare conversational and pedagogical policies instantiated with the same underlying model and paired with one fixed weak simulated student. Deterministic detectors measure answer leakage and next-turn independent work. Claude Opus 4.8 is the frozen, condition-blind primary judge. After the Opus scores were fixed, GPT-5.6 Sol was prospectively specified for a post hoc robustness audit of the same 1,179 confirmatory answer-phase tutor turns under the frozen helpfulness and pedagogy rubrics. On the primary base under Opus, the policies do not differ significantly in helpfulness but are perfectly rank-separated under the pedagogy rubric (Cliff's

|δ|{=}0.10

vs.

1.0

). Across the two judges, pedagogy contrasts retain their direction where detected, whereas the helpfulness ordering is judge-contingent, reversing between judges on two of three bases. In an Opus-only ablation, seven primary-base policies span

2.3

points in mean judged pedagogy within a

0.25

-point band of mean judged helpfulness. Separately, answer-revealing turns are followed by less independent student work on every base, a result that is judge-invariant by construction. In this controlled setting, general-purpose helpfulness is not a reliable pedagogy signal. Tutor evaluation should pair pedagogy-targeted rubrics with deterministic process measures.

Shuyi Fan, Boyuan Deng, Mengyu Xu +4

Columbia University, USA · Johns Hopkins University, USA · The University of Chicago, USA +4

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education

Jul 30, 2026cs.CY

Is Solving Better Than Evaluating GenAI Solutions?

As Generative AI (GenAI) tools become increasingly capable of generating solutions to computing assignments, the computing education community is exploring pedagogical approaches that emphasize solution evaluation, verification, and critique alongside traditional solution generation. However, evidence regarding the impact of such evaluation-centered tasks on student learning remains limited, particularly in upper-division, theory-heavy courses. We conducted a randomized A/B crossover study (N=220) in a junior-level algorithms course to compare evaluating GenAI-generated solutions with traditional problem solving. Across six assignments, student working groups either solved challenging algorithmic problems directly or evaluated often-flawed GenAI-generated solutions, with roles reversed midway through the semester. We found no statistically significant differences between groups in midterm scores, final exam scores, overall course grades, or exam problems structurally aligned with the homework interventions. Students received significantly higher homework scores when evaluating GenAI-generated solutions, but this localized advantage did not translate into downstream summative gains. Survey data further indicated that most students reported no change in study habits in response to the intervention; however, those who reported adapting their study strategies rated the GenAI-evaluation assignments as significantly more helpful. These findings suggest that GenAI evaluation redistributes student effort from open-ended solution construction toward verification, diagnosis, and judgment, but does not automatically produce stronger conceptual transfer. We conclude that GenAI-evaluation activities can be incorporated into algorithms coursework without broad performance losses, but meaningful learning gains may require deliberate scaffolding that pushes students beyond simple error diagnosis.

Ethan Dickey, Marios Mertzanidis, Alexandros Psomas

Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Computer Science Education Generative AI in Education