Generative AI in Education

Despite universal GenAI adoption, students cannot distinguish task performance from actual learning and lack skills to leverage AI for learning, leading to worse exam performance when AI use remains unreflective. Yet few interventions teaching students to prompt AI as a tutor rather than solution provider have been validated at scale through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To bridge this gap, we conducted a semester-long RCT (N=979) with four ICAP framework-based instructional conditions varying in engagement intensity with a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-test and surveys. Mixed methods analysis results showed: (1) All conditions significantly improved prompting skills, with gains increasing progressively from Condition 1 to Condition 4, validating ICAP's cognitive engagement hierarchy; (2) for students with similar pre-test scores, higher learning gain in immediate post-test predict higher final exam score, though no direct between-group differences emerged; (3) Our interventions are suitable and scalable solutions for diverse educational contexts, resources and learners. Together, this study makes empirical and theoretical contributions: (1) theoretically, we provided one of the first large-scale RCTs examining how cognitive engagement shapes learning in prompting literacy and clarifying the relationship between learning-oriented prompting skills and broader academic performance; (2) empirically, we offered timely design guidance for transforming GenAI classroom policies into scalable, actionable prompting literacy instruction to advance learning in the era of Generative AI.

Higher education students are increasingly using generative AI in their academic work. However, existing institutional practices have not yet adapted to this shift. Through semi-structured interviews with 23 college students, our study examines the environmental and social factors that influence students' use of AI. Findings show that institutional pressure factors like deadlines, exam cycles, and grading lead students to engage with AI even when they think it undermines their learning. Social influences, particularly peer micro-communities, establish de-facto AI norms regardless of official AI policies. Campus-wide ``AI shame'' is prevalent, often pushing AI use underground. Current institutional AI policies are perceived as generic, inconsistent, and confusing, resulting in routine noncompliance. Additionally, students develop value-based self-regulation strategies, but environmental pressures create a gap between students' intentions and their behaviors. Our findings show student AI use to be a situated practice, and we discuss implications for institutions, instructors, and system tool designers to effectively support student learning with AI.

This work introduces EduEVAL-DB, a dataset based on teacher roles designed to support the evaluation and training of automatic pedagogical evaluators and AI tutors for instructional explanations. The dataset comprises 854 explanations corresponding to 139 questions from a curated subset of the ScienceQA benchmark, spanning science, language, and social science across K-12 grade levels. For each question, one human-teacher explanation is provided and six are generated by LLM-simulated teacher roles. These roles are inspired by instructional styles and shortcomings observed in real educational practice and are instantiated via prompt engineering. We further propose a pedagogical risk rubric aligned with established educational standards, operationalizing five complementary risk dimensions: factual correctness, explanatory depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. All explanations are annotated with binary risk labels through a semi-automatic process with expert teacher review. Finally, we present preliminary validation experiments to assess the suitability of EduEVAL-DB for evaluation. We benchmark a state-of-the-art education-oriented model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) against a lightweight local Llama 3.1 8B model and examine whether supervised fine-tuning on EduEVAL-DB supports pedagogical risk detection using models deployable on consumer hardware.

Although large language models (LLMs) show promise for generating educational feedback, it remains unclear how feedback should be designed (e.g., tone and coverage) to support answer revision and learner evaluations across learner profiles. We define six feedback designs for multiple-choice biology questions, including a baseline design and five variants with additional feedback elements, and conduct an empirical study with 321 high school students. We evaluate feedback using immediate revision performance and six subjective evaluation criteria, and analyze differences in subjective evaluations across learner profiles based on personality traits. Our results show that presenting task-relevant information clearly is associated with better immediate revision performance and is favorably evaluated across learner profiles, while we observe descriptive differences in evaluation patterns, particularly for informational novelty and affective framing. These findings support further investigation of personalized LLM feedback design.

The capabilities of generative AI in mathematics education are rapidly evolving, posing significant challenges for research to keep pace. Research syntheses remain scarce and risk being outdated by the time of publication. We present a Living Meta-Analysis (LIMA) on the effects of generative AI-based interventions for learning mathematics. We update the literature base every two months and apply a cumulative Bayesian multilevel meta-regression model. This paper reports results from the fifth version, including 34 studies, 7 of which were newly included since the fourth version. Results indicate an increasingly positive effect (g = 0.57, CrI [0.36, 0.79]) and no evidence in favor of a publication bias. Moderator analyses indicate that effects vary by integration mode and intervention duration: Larger effects were observed when generative AI supplemented teacher instruction and in longer interventions. Moderate evidence for stronger effects was observed in studies involving younger learners and more recent technology. For other moderators, evidence is still inconclusive.

Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly adopted in design education, yet evaluating its educational value through final outcomes provides an incomplete picture. This study compares two ecologically plausible workflows in an architectural conceptual design task: GenAI-assisted image generation and ArchDaily-based precedent search. The comparison concerns complete workflows rather than the isolated contributions. Thirty-six students completed a two-phase design task, first designing independently and then revising with their assigned workflow. Eight judges rated design performance, while participants reported task-specific and general creative self-efficacy and cognitive load after each phase. Difference-in-differences analyses showed no significant overall differences between the GenAI and precedent-search workflows in design performance, cognitive workload, or task-specific creative self-efficacy. Beyond these null overall effects, three patterns were observed. General creative self-efficacy showed a significant relative decline under the GenAI workflow. A subgroup analysis suggested higher revision-phase performance among novice students using GenAI than among those using precedent search (F (1,32) = 4.303, p = 0.046). However, this exploratory interaction should be interpreted cautiously due to low rating reliability, small subgroup cells, and imprecise estimation. Third, exploratory prompt analyses suggested that iterative, task-specific prompting strategies (CD3, CD6) were associated with cognitive load reductions at the uncorrected level, but neither association survived multiple-comparison correction. Overall, the GenAI workflow did not produce uniform gains. Its educational value may depend on pedagogical framing, learner characteristics, and human-AI interaction structure, underscoring the need to preserve creative agency and develop prompt literacy.

Generative AI offers new opportunities for individualized and adaptive learning, e.g., through large language model (LLM)-based feedback systems. While LLMs can produce factually correct feedback for relatively straightforward conceptual tasks, delivering high-quality feedback for tasks that require advanced domain expertise, such as physics problem solving, remains a substantial challenge. This study presents the design and implementation of an LLM-based feedback system for physics problem solving grounded in evidence-centered design and reports a first evaluation within the German Physics Olympiad. Participants rated the usefulness and correctness of the generated feedback for each implemented problem. The collected ratings indicate that the feedback was generally perceived as useful and highly correct. However, an in-depth analysis revealed that the feedback contained errors in 20% of cases; errors that often went unnoticed by the students. We discuss the risks associated with uncritical reliance on LLM-based feedback and outline potential directions for generating more adaptive and reliable LLM-based feedback in the future.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in education, posing significant challenges for teachers adapting to these changes. GenAI offers unprecedented opportunities for accessibility, scalability and productivity in educational tasks. However, the automation of teaching tasks through GenAI raises concerns about reduced teacher agency, potential cognitive atrophy, and the broader deprofessionalisation of teaching. Drawing findings from prior literature on AI in Education, and refining through a recent systematic literature review, this chapter presents a conceptualisation of five levels of teacher-AI teaming: transactional, situational, operational, praxical and synergistic teaming. The framework aims to capture the nuanced dynamics of teacher-AI interactions, particularly with GenAI, that may lead to the replacement, complementarity, or augmentation of teachers' competences and professional practice. GenAI technological affordances required in supporting teaming, along with empirical studies, are discussed. Drawing on empirical observations, we outline a future vision that moves beyond individual teacher agency toward collaborative decision-making between teachers and AI, in which both agents engage in negotiation, constructive challenge, and co-reasoning that enhance each other's capabilities and enable outcomes neither could realise independently. Further discussion of socio-technical factors beyond teacher-AI teaming is also included to streamline the synergy of teachers and AI in education ethically and practically.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping educational practice, challenging long held assumptions about teaching and learning. This article integrates conceptual perspectives from recent books (Genesis by Eric Schmidt, Henry Kissinger and Craig Mundie, CoIntelligence by Ethan Mollick, and The Inevitable by Kevin Kelly) with empirical insights from popular AI podcasts and Anthropic public releases. We examine seven key domains: emotional support, creativity, contextual understanding, student engagement, problem solving, ethics and morality, and collaboration. For each domain, we explore AI capabilities, opportunities for transformative change, and emerging best practices, drawing equally from theoretical analysis and real world observations. Overall, we find that AI, when used thoughtfully, can complement and enhance human educators in fostering richer learning experiences across cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions. We emphasize an optimistic yet responsible outlook: educators and students should actively shape AI integration to amplify human potential in creativity, ethical reasoning, collaboration, and beyond, while maintaining a focus on human centric values.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT are transforming the educational landscape, prompting reconsideration of traditional assessment practices. In parallel, universities are exploring alternatives to in-person, closed-book examinations, raising concerns about academic integrity and pedagogical alignment in uninvigilated settings. This study systematically investigates the performance of GenAI on typical mathematics questions from across a first-year mathematics curriculum. Adopting an empirical approach and utilising current examination questions as a proxy for course content, we generate, transcribe, and blind-mark GenAI submissions to eight undergraduate mathematics assessments, spanning the entirety of the first-year curriculum. By combining independent GenAI responses to individual questions, we enable a meaningful evaluation of GenAI performance, both at the level of modules and across the first-year curriculum. We find that GenAI attainment is at the level of a first-class degree, though current performance can vary between modules. Further, we find that GenAI performance is remarkably consistent when viewed across the entire curriculum, significantly more so than that of students in invigilated examinations. Our findings evidence the pressing need for redesigning assessments in mathematics in the era of generative artificial intelligence.

Generative AI (GenAI) is entering K-12 classrooms, but its default culture does not always fit local teaching. Existing accounts either treat this misfit as macro-level structural bias or examine it through single-case studies; neither captures how much work teachers must do to make outputs usable across tasks. This exploratory, theory-building qualitative study introduces cultural distance, the gap between GenAI's default cultural repertoire and the situated demands of teachers' practice. Through interviews with 30 K-12 teachers who frequently use GenAI, 10 each from South Africa, Taiwan, and the United States, we identified three levels defined by the effort teachers invested and whether it yielded a usable output: low (minor edits), mid (sustained prompting and revision), and high (structural gaps rooted in unsupported languages, undigitized knowledge, or policy filters that no teacher effort can close). We present cultural distance as a promising framework requiring further examination and draw implications for designers, policymakers, and educators.

Students increasingly use the assistance of large language models (LLMs) in their academic writing. While slight assistance (e.g., grammar and style correction, as well as feedback) is permitted under most institutional policies, it is usually forbidden to offload entire writing tasks to LLMs. Unfortunately, current approaches to LLM-generated text detection predominantly assume a binary distinction between human-written and LLM-generated text, ignoring the breadth of realistic human-AI collaboration practices and limiting the validity of detection systems for educational assessment. In this paper, we propose a contribution-aware evaluation framework for LLM-based detection systems in education. We introduce a scale of eight student contribution levels that model realistic writing scenarios ranging from fully human-written texts to LLM-assisted revisions to fully LLM-generated and adversarially humanized texts. Institutional policies regarding LLM use can then be translated to thresholds of acceptable LLM assistance on this scale. We further present Generative Essay Detection in Education (GEDE), a novel benchmark dataset comprising more than 900 human-written and over 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks and all contribution levels. Using this benchmark, we conduct a systematic evaluation of four state-of-the-art zero-shot and supervised detection methods across policy boundaries, contribution levels, generative models, out-of-distribution data, and text length. We show that most detectors struggle to accurately classify texts at intermediate student contribution levels, in particular LLM-assisted revisions of human-written texts. Such errors pose a substantial risk of false accusations, indicating that current text detection systems are (still) unsuitable to reliably support the enforcement of institutional policies regarding LLM assistance in education.

Collaborative partnerships play a crucial role in inquiry-oriented education. However, most learning partners are currently assigned through experience-driven heuristics or rule-based machine assistants, which often result in limited knowledge expansion and low adaptability. To address these challenges, this study introduces InqEduAgent, an LLM-empowered generative agent framework designed to simulate and select adaptive learning partners for inquiry-based learning. InqEduAgent integrates a Gaussian process-augmented matching mechanism to model the cognitive and evaluative characteristics of learners, allowing adaptive partner selection based on prior knowledge patterns. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that InqEduAgent consistently achieves superior performance across diverse learning scenarios and large language model configurations. This study advances human-AI collaborative learning by enabling intelligent pairing between human- and AI-based learning partners, and contributes to adaptive user modeling and personalized recommendation within Web-based educational environments.

Evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutor feedback before deployment requires anticipating student engagement, typically assessed through real interaction data. We introduce ParaStudent, a fine-tuning framework for simulating novice programming revisions to support AI tutor evaluation. Compared with prompted baselines, ParaStudent's revisions more closely match real student code distributions across functional, stylistic, and semantic metrics. Our best variant achieves AUCs of 0.80 for both feedback relevance and successful uptake when distinguishing streams with real engagement above versus at or below the median, while prompted baselines remain near chance on successful uptake. These findings demonstrate the promise of simulated engagement for pre-deployment feedback triage.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to generate formative feedback and instructional hints in English, making them increasingly relevant for AI-assisted education. However, their ability to provide effective instructional support across different languages, especially for mathematically grounded reasoning tasks, remains largely unexamined. In this work, we present the first large-scale simulation of multilingual student-tutor interactions using LLMs. A stronger model plays the role of the tutor, generating feedback in the form of hints, while a weaker model simulates the student. We explore 352 experimental settings across 11 typologically diverse languages, four state-of-the-art LLMs, and multiple prompting strategies to assess whether language-specific feedback leads to measurable learning gains. Our study examines how student input language, tutor feedback language, model choice, and language resource level jointly influence performance. Results show that English hints are generally preferred, even by multilingual student LLMs, with few exceptions that lead to improved student learning outcomes. These findings offer practical insights for developing multilingual, LLM-based educational tools that are both effective and inclusive.

The use of chatbots equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings has increased in recent years, showing potential to support teaching and learning. However, their adoption has raised concerns about academic integrity, students' ability to problem-solve independently, and potential underlying biases. To better understand students' perspectives on these benefits and risks, a survey was conducted at a large public university in the United States, collecting 262 responses from undergraduate students. Through thematic analysis, students' perceived benefits and risks of AI chatbots in education were identified and categorized into themes. The results identified perceived benefits related to feedback and study support, instructional capabilities, and access to information. Students also expressed concerns about academic integrity, information accuracy, loss of critical thinking skills, and overreliance on AI, alongside ethical issues involving data privacy, system bias, environmental impact, and the preservation of human interaction. While student perceptions align with previously discussed benefits of AI in education, they also highlight concerns about distinguishing between human- and AI-generated work and the broader ethical implications of these technologies. To address students' concerns regarding academic integrity and information reliability, institutions can establish clear policies regarding AI use and develop curricula around AI literacy. With these in place, practitioners can effectively develop and implement educational systems that leverage AI's potential in areas such as immediate feedback and personalized learning support. This approach can enhance the quality of students' educational experiences while preserving the integrity of the learning process with AI.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini have a crucial impact on academic research and teaching. Empirical data on how students perceive the increasing influence of AI, which different types of tools they use, what they expect from them in their daily academic tasks, and their concerns regarding the use of AI in their studies are still limited. The manuscript presents findings from a quantitative survey conducted among sports students of all semesters in Germany using an online questionnaire. It explores aspects such as students' usage behavior, motivational factors, and uncertainties regarding the impact of AI tools on academia in the future. Furthermore, the social climate in sports studies is being investigated to provide a general overview of the current situation of the students in Germany. Data collection took place between August and November 2023, addressing all sports departments at German universities, with a total of 262 students participating. Our Findings indicate that students have a strong interest in using AI tools in their studies, expecting them to improve their overall academic performance, understand the complexity of scientific approaches, and save time. They express confidence that the proliferation of AI will not compromise their critical thinking skills. Moreover, students are positive about integrating more AI-related topics into the curriculum and about lecturers adopting more AI-based teaching methods. However, our findings also show that students have concerns about plagiarism, lecturer preparedness and their own skills and future skill development.

The rapid adoption of generative AI has created new opportunities for teaching, learning, and quality assurance. Existing applications, however, remain largely student-facing, with comparatively limited attention to institution-level needs. This paper presents a course intelligence platform deployed across more than 100 universities and serving over 10,000 instructors in China. By linking competency requirements, knowledge structures, teaching activities, and assessment evidence, it establishes a shared foundation for knowledge organization, instructional design, learning assessment, and quality evaluation. The course evaluation module is examined as a representative institution-facing application of the platform, which integrates national evaluation standards, structured educational evidence, customized prompting strategies, and domain-adapted LLMs to generate quantitative scores and qualitative feedback. A case study involving 100 authentic university courses is conducted to evaluate its alignment with expert judgments and the interpretability of its outputs. Statistical analyses show substantial agreement between AI-generated assessments and expert ratings, while qualitative results highlight the credibility of the feedback. The findings further suggest that AI-assisted evaluation requires not only capable models but also structured domain knowledge and transparent criteria. In this context, human ratings should be treated as an informative reference rather than an error-free gold standard, and the objective is to achieve consistent, interpretable, and defensible judgments instead of merely replicating expert scores.

Generative AI, particularly Language Models (LMs), has the potential to transform real-world domains with societal impact, particularly where access to experts is limited. For example, in education, training novice educators with expert guidance is important for effectiveness but expensive, creating significant barriers to improving education quality at scale. This challenge disproportionately harms students from under-served communities, who stand to gain the most from high-quality education. We introduce Tutor CoPilot, a novel Human-AI approach that leverages a model of expert thinking to provide expert-like guidance to tutors as they tutor. This study is the first randomized controlled trial of a Human-AI system in live tutoring, involving 900 tutors and 1,800 K-12 students from historically under-served communities. Following a preregistered analysis plan, we find that students working with tutors that have access to Tutor CoPilot are 4 percentage points (p.p.) more likely to master topics (p<0.01). Notably, students of lower-rated tutors experienced the greatest benefit, improving mastery by 9 p.p. We find that Tutor CoPilot costs only $20 per-tutor annually. We analyze 550,000+ messages using classifiers to identify pedagogical strategies, and find that tutors with access to Tutor CoPilot are more likely to use high-quality strategies to foster student understanding (e.g., asking guiding questions) and less likely to give away the answer to the student. Tutor interviews highlight how Tutor CoPilot's guidance helps tutors to respond to student needs, though they flag issues in Tutor CoPilot, such as generating suggestions that are not grade-level appropriate. Altogether, our study of Tutor CoPilot demonstrates how Human-AI systems can scale expertise in real-world domains, bridge gaps in skills and create a future where high-quality education is accessible to all students.