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

Jul 28, 2026cs.AI

AIriskEval-edu Demo: Auditing of Pedagogical Risks in Educational Explanations

We present AIriskEval-edu Demo, a platform that audits the pedagogical quality of instructional explanations and provides explainable audit results. The platform evaluates an explanation against a rubric covering five dimensions of pedagogical risk: factual accuracy, depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. For each dimension, it returns a binary decision and a confidence score. Detected risks also include a natural-language rationale and, except for Depth and Completeness, a localized evidence span. The platform integrates GPT-5.5 through an external API and a self-hosted Llama 3.1 8B evaluator that runs on consumer-grade GPUs. The local evaluator is fine-tuned on AIriskEval-edu, a dataset of K-12 instructional explanations with risk and explainability annotations. The platform operates in two modes: in AI mode, both evaluators assess stored explanations generated under six simulated teacher profiles, each representing a distinct pedagogical behavior and potential risk; in human mode, the local evaluator audits user-written explanations in real time. The local evaluator outperforms GPT-5.5 on most reported metrics, offering educational institutions a practical way to keep audited content within their own infrastructure.

Javier Irigoyen, Roberto Daza, Francisco Jurado +5

BiometricsAI, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain · GHIA, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain · Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), Spain

Generative AI in Education Explainability Evaluation Language Model Auditing Explanation Evaluation

Jul 24, 2026cs.HC

Beyond Perspectives: A Trio-Ethnography of Interpretation Evolution in LLM-Supported Programming Education

Generative AI is reshaping programming education, yet educators often infer students' AI-supported learning from classroom observations alone. This experience report presents a trio-ethnography involving two computing educators with different teaching philosophies and one undergraduate computer science student to examine how these interpretations evolve through dialogue. Across three conversations, the educators reflected on students' AI use, discussed changes to programming pedagogy, and revisited their assumptions after engaging with the student's lived experiences. Rather than simply confirming or contradicting the educators' perspectives, the student's narratives revealed learning processes that were largely invisible in the classroom, prompting both educators to reconsider assumptions about AI use, assessment, transparency, and programming instruction. We argue that trio-ethnography offers a valuable reflective approach for helping computing educators move beyond observable student behaviors toward a richer understanding of AI-supported learning and for informing instructional adaptation in the era of generative AI.

Jennie Ren, Jordan H. McDowell, Kyrie Zhixuan Zhou

Mercer University United States · University of Texas at San Antonio United States

Computer Science Education Programming Education Generative AI in Education

Jul 24, 2026cs.RO

Teachy Mini: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Knowledge-Based Generative Social Robot for Higher Education

Generative social robots (GSRs) powered by large language models offer new possibilities for personalized tutoring in higher education, but also introduce risks related to misinformation, missing transparency, or reinforcing incorrect student responses. Prior work identified knowledge-based design (KBD) requirements that define the informational prerequisites for GSRs to manifest responsible and effective tutoring behavior in higher education. In this paper, we operationalized selected KBD requirements in the Reachy Mini robot platform through system prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, and stateful prompt orchestration. As a result, we present Teachy Mini, a GSR tutoring system that was developed using KBD. To test the system, we conducted a preliminary evaluation study. Participants (N = 24) completed a robot-guided learning session about research methodologies. They learned either with Teachy Mini or with a control version that did not follow KBD principles. Teachy Mini was perceived as significantly more aligned with responsible tutoring behavior than the control robot. Moreover, a manipulation check illustrated that Teachy Mini used personalization, slide-grounded explanations, Socratic questioning, affective support, and learner-anchored feedback more consistently than the control robot. No significant between-condition differences were found in system acceptance, intrinsic motivation, or learning effectiveness, although exploratory analyses suggested a positive effect of KBD on objective learning gains when accounting for learner preferences. Overall, the study offered an initial implementation and preliminary evaluation of KBD for GSR tutoring, indicating that KBD can shape responsible robot behavior and potentially increase learning effectiveness in robot-supported learning.

Stephan Vonschallen, Karim Kaufmann, Dominique Oberle +2

Institute of Information Systems, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland · Center for Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University, Germany

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education Social Robotics

Jul 22, 2026cs.CY

Did Alice Do Wrong? Cross-Cultural Differences in Student Perceptions of Generative AI Use in University Computing Education

The rise of generative AI (GenAI) in higher education has prompted urgent debates surrounding academic integrity and ethical use. This study examines cross-cultural differences in student perceptions of GenAI use, comparing responses from students at Canadian and South Korean universities. Using a scenario-based survey administered in Fall 2024, we analyzed how students judged the ethicality and rule compliance of AI-assisted coding practices. Results reveal that Canadian students were consistently more likely to perceive the use of GenAI as both unethical and against institutional policies compared to Korean students, despite functionally identical institutional policies. Statistical analysis, including Mann-Whitney U tests and correlation coefficients, demonstrated significant differences across nearly all scenarios. Analysis of the factors used in generating scenarios indicated that the amount of AI-generated code incorporated into assignments most strongly influenced ethical judgments. Findings were interpreted through Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework, suggesting that cultural factors such as power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance significantly shape students' ethical reasoning regarding GenAI. Our results contribute to the growing body of evidence emphasizing that equitable AI integration in education must be culturally responsive, taking into account diverse conceptions of academic integrity. We advocate for the development of nuanced AI-use guidelines that are sensitive to local cultural contexts while upholding fundamental principles of academic honesty. This study highlights the need for ongoing cross-cultural research to inform ethical AI policies and support responsible GenAI use in global higher education settings.

Brian Harrington, Irina Zlotnikova, Gayathri Nadarajan +1

University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada · School of Pure and Applied Sciences, Botswana International University of Science and Technology, Palapye, Botswana · Sungkyunkwan University, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of) +1

Computer Science Education Generative AI in Education Responsible AI

Jul 17, 2026cs.CL

Cost-efficient generative AI summarization for scalable automated essay scoring in educational assessment

Automated essay scoring (AES) enables scalable assessment and timely feedback but remains challenged by transformer input-length limitations, which can cause information loss when processing long essays. This study proposes a generative AI-assisted summarization framework to improve long-form essay representation while maintaining scoring reliability. Using the ASAP 2.0 dataset, we generate controlled-length summaries with three GPT-5 variants (GPT-5, GPT-5 mini, and GPT-5 nano) and use them as inputs for downstream AES models. To preserve original writing signals, handcrafted linguistic features extracted from full essays are integrated with summary representations to form a hybrid framework. The approach is evaluated in terms of scoring performance, summarization quality, and computational cost. Scoring reliability is measured using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), while summary quality is assessed through lexical overlap, semantic similarity, information retention, and redundancy metrics. Results show that GPT-5 mini achieves the highest agreement with human ratings, whereas GPT-5 produces the strongest summarization quality. Summary quality decreases for higher-scoring essays, indicating that more complex writing is more difficult to compress without information loss. These findings reveal trade-offs among model capacity, summary fidelity, cost efficiency, and preservation of educational constructs. This study provides an initial controlled evaluation of GPT-based summarization for AES and identifies important baselines and ablation studies required for future generalization. Overall, generative AI summarization offers a promising approach for scalable writing assessment while requiring careful validation of information preservation and fairness.

Haowei Hua

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Generative AI in Education Automated Essay Scoring Text Summarization

Jul 16, 2026cs.HC

When AI Blurs the Boundaries of Contribution: An Empirical Study of Authorship Calibration

The broad adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI, raises pressing questions about how users interact with these systems to produce new content. In this paper, we introduce the concept of authorship calibration, defined as users awareness of their actual authorship when interacting with AI. Using the CoAuthor dataset, we empirically examine how authorship calibration varies across users and how it relates to their frequency of AI use. Our results reveal high variability: users relying heavily on AI tend to misjudge their authorship, whereas those using AI less frequently exhibit more accurate authorship calibration. These findings suggest that AI can obscure users perception of their own authorship. In learning contexts, miscalibration can affect metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies, ultimately impacting learning outcomes. Fostering authorship calibration then appears essential for promoting responsible and educationally meaningful AI integration.

Célina Treuillier, Denis Lalanne

Human-IST Institute, University of Fribourg · Fribourg, SWITZERLAND

Generative AI in Education Human-AI Co-Creation

Jul 15, 2026cs.AI

Measuring How Students Rely on Generative AI in Academic Writing: Development and Multi-Source Validation of the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS)

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.

Shahin Hossain, Tukhbita Afroz Nawmi

Generative AI in Education Psychometric Validation

Jul 15, 2026cs.AI

Earthquaker-AI: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework with Rubric-Based Assessment for Primary School Earthquake Education

This paper presents Earthquaker-AI, a hybrid educational framework building upon a previously implemented educational robotics project by integrating a conversational AI assistant based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation. It aims to enhance earthquake preparedness and conscious action among primary-school students. The system extends the award-winning STEM project Earthquaker moving from mechanical simulation with Lego WeDo2 to cognitive and metacognitive processing. The robotics component uses Lego WeDo2 automation to simulate seismic response, letting students interact with sensors and actuators as tangible representations of protective actions. The assistant operates as a guided learning mechanism aligning student responses with safety guidelines, while providing rubric-based verbal feedback that supports self-regulated learning and calmness under emergency conditions. Earthquaker-AI follows a progressive learning trajectory aligned with cognitive development. In early grades, the focus is on basic recognition of safety actions through multiple-choice questions, assessed via a two-dimensional rubric. In middle grades, students identify correct action sequences through multiple-choice questions, evaluated via a three-axis rubric. In upper grades, the approach shifts to verbal production, requiring short written responses assessed via a four-dimensional rubric that includes clarity of expression. The dialogic module uses RAG to match student queries semantically with official guidelines, generating safe, accurate responses. Experimental evaluation shows high groundedness and accuracy, with a low hallucination rate. Overall, Earthquaker-AI combines hands-on engagement, information processing, and reflective practice. Combining robotics, rubrics, and AI promotes technological literacy, self-regulation, and responsible use of digital systems, contributing to early crisis-management skills.

Xanthi Kokkinou, Chaido Mizeli, Nafsika Koulaxidou +2

Primary Education of Larissa, Larissa, Greece · International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece

Generative AI in Education Robotics Education

Jul 15, 2026cs.CL

High-Order Question Generation in a Multilingual Educational Context

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill that helps learners move beyond simple memorization. One way to develop this skill is through high-order questioning. However, crafting such questions remains a challenge for educators, and classroom practices tend to rely on low-order questions. Large Language Models have demonstrated strong capabilities in generating high-order questions, especially when guided by prompts based on Bloom's Taxonomy. Yet, existing research has largely centered on this framework and focused only on English. This study addresses these gaps by introducing prompts grounded in two alternative frameworks: Claim-Evidence-Reasoning and Divergent Questioning within a multilingual context using Basque, Spanish, and English. Results indicate that while both an open-source and a proprietary model rather effectively generate questions in all three languages, only about half of the answerable questions are recognized by teachers as high-order. A positive finding is that the alternative frameworks produce structurally and conceptually varied questions, suggesting they could complement each other and provide viable alternatives to Bloom's Taxonomy.

Suna-Şeyma Uçar, Itziar Aldabe, Nora Aranberri +1

HiTZ Basque Center for Language Technology Ixa NLP Group, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU · LT3, Language and Translation Technology Team, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Prompting Generative AI in Education

Jul 14, 2026cs.CY

A Comparative Analysis of Institutional and Course Generative AI Policies within Higher Education: Implications for Instruction in Computing Education

With the increased use of generative AI (GenAI) applications such as ChatGPT, higher education institutions (HEIs) have released a range of guidelines and policies to direct adoption within their institutions. In computer science (CS) courses GenAI adoption is especially high and the implications for student learning are significant. At the same time, instructors have also been forced to address the use of GenAI as students have started to use it for a range of functions. Currently, comparative analysis of guidance provided by institutions and its uptake in instruction is lacking. In this paper we bridge this gap by comparing institutional and computing course level guidance to better understand this terrain. We utilize secondary analysis of institutional and course syllabi guidelines from higher education institutions in the U.S. classified as research-intensive. Our findings reveal that although institutional guidance is more pro-use, at the course-level the uptake is still guarded. We discuss the implications and propose an instructor-centered framework to guide future adoption of GenAI.

Amrita Ganguly, Aditya Johri, Nora McDonald +3

George Mason University Fairfax, VA, USA · Montgomery College Rockville, MD, USA

Computer Science Education Generative AI in Education AI Governance

Jul 14, 2026cs.CY

A Longitudinal Analysis of Public Discourse on AI Ethics in Education Using Twitter Data

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (GenAI) into education presents significant opportunities to enhance teaching and learning, while raising ethical concerns about the responsible use of these technologies in educational settings. Understanding how the public perceives and debates these issues is increasingly important for educators, institutions, and policymakers seeking to integrate AI responsibly and equitably. Social media platforms, where such debates unfold frequently and at scale, offer a valuable lens for capturing large-scale, real-time public reactions to key developments as they emerge. In this study, we analyse five years (2019-2024) of discourse on Twitter (now X) to trace the evolving public conversation around AI ethics in education, paying particular attention to the release of ChatGPT as a pivotal moment that reshaped the nature and tone of that discourse. Using BERT-based topic modelling and SetFit sentiment analysis to identify dominant themes and track sentiment over time, we find that the discourse has been predominantly positive across the observation period, with negative sentiment concentrated around specific ethical controversies. More recently, anxieties about academic integrity and the broader implications of generative AI have come to dominate the conversation. Rather than reflecting a polarized debate, public discourse appears pragmatic and largely receptive to AI integration, though accompanied by growing calls for ethical oversight and institutional accountability. By providing a longitudinal account of public sentiment surrounding AI ethics in education, this study informs educators, institutions, and policymakers an empirically grounded understanding of public expectations, informing the development of responsible, transparent, and equitable approaches to AI integration across educational contexts.

Akriti Bagale, Nafisa Mehjabin, Ali Ünlü +1

Information Sciences and Technology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA · School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

AI in Education Generative AI in Education

Jul 13, 2026cs.CL

Automated Textbook Auditing with Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Ensuring the quality of educational materials requires more than standard proofreading: textbooks must be audited for factual accuracy, domain-specific technical correctness, and linguistic quality simultaneously -- a task that general-purpose grammar checkers cannot address. We present \textbf{AI Textbook Auditor}, a modular multi-agent pipeline for automated quality assurance of educational materials across subject domains. The system accepts a textbook PDF and produces a structured, human-reviewable report via two analysis tracks: a \textbf{Factual and Technical Track} in which an ensemble of specialized LLM agents detects factual inaccuracies, code errors, incorrect definitions, and conceptual inconsistencies, augmented with web search for humanities domains; and a \textbf{Grammar Track} operating PDF-natively to preserve diacritical encoding. A \textbf{Judge Agent} filters false positives using domain-specific rules before presenting findings to a human reviewer. The pipeline supports two ingestion modes -- vision-native page rendering and PyMuPDF text extraction -- and is domain-adaptable via custom prompts encoding subject-specific error taxonomies. We demonstrate the system on two Romanian upper-secondary textbooks: a CS textbook (56 technical findings across seven categories, with an expert-validated precision of 62.5%) and a history and social sciences textbook (72 findings spanning factual errors, ideological bias, and grammar). The system is designed as a triage tool that reduces the manual effort of locating candidate issues, with human expert validation required before any editorial action.

Ciprian Cristescu, Adrian-Marius Dumitran, Angela-Liliana Dumitran +1

University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania · Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Bucharest, Romania

AI Agent Auditing Generative AI in Education Automated Fact-Checking Multi-Agent Systems

Jul 13, 2026cs.CL

When the Target Domain Changes: AI-Mediated Construct Drift in High-Stakes English Language AssessmenW

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

Yi Gui

Measurement Incorporated

Educational Assessment Generative AI in Education Psychometric Validation

Jul 12, 2026cs.SE

Commenting with Copilot: A Taxonomy and Multi-Year Analysis of Student Code-Generation Specifications

As AI code tools become integrated into programming environments, students increasingly describe intended behavior in natural language and rely on these tools to generate code, shifting emphasis from code writing to specification. Yet little is known about the comments students write as specifications in AI-assisted programming tasks. We analyze a four-year dataset of undergraduate programming submissions and reflections from tasks in which students wrote comments to guide code generation and refined solutions using test-case feedback. We introduce a taxonomy spanning three dimensions: comment type, code expression level, and code construct. Using automated classification, we examine how these dimensions vary across attempts and how students describe the process in their reflections. Our findings show that students mostly wrote natural-language What comments, shifted toward How comments for more procedural constructs, and focused more on verifying generated code than on repeatedly rewriting comments.

Nasser Giacaman, Valerio Terragni, Paul Denny +1

University of Auckland · Auckland, New Zealand · University of New South Wales +1

Computer Science Education Code Generation Generative AI in Education

Jul 10, 2026cs.AI

Exploring Agentic Workflows for Generating High Quality Math Visual Aids

Mathematical diagrams play a crucial role in K 12 education, both as problem components and as scaffolding for student comprehension. However, current AI tools, including Large Language Models (LLMs), struggle to reliably generate accurate and pedagogically sound visual diagrams, even when provided with detailed descriptions. A significant gap therefore remains in the reliable generation of diagrams for middle school mathematics. To address this, we introduce an agentic workflow that enables LLM agents to evaluate the quality of generated visuals and use this feedback to iteratively improve their outputs. This self improvement loop aims to enhance the accuracy and educational appropriateness of AI generated diagrams. Our research investigates two questions. First, can LLMs accurately generate quality assurance questions for a visual aid given specific criteria for visual quality? Second, given valid quality assurance questions, can Vision Language Models effectively evaluate generated K 12 visual aids and use the resulting feedback to improve them iteratively? We conduct an exploratory evaluation of our agentic workflow and identify key areas for improvement, including stronger spatial reasoning and more comprehensive coverage of diagram features in the generated quality assurance questions. Our results provide preliminary evidence that this approach can improve the reliability and educational value of AI generated mathematical diagrams.

Rizwaan Malik, Ashna Khetan, Isabel Sieh +1

Stanford Graduate School of Education · Department of Computer Science

Agentic Workflows LLM Agent Self-Improvement Generative AI in Education Image Generation Evaluation

Jul 2, 2026cs.CL

AIriskEval-edu: New Dataset for Risk Assessment in AI-mediated K-12 Educational Explanations

This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12. The dataset comprises 1,639 explanations from 170 curated ScienceQA questions, covering science, language arts, and social sciences. For each question, the dataset includes an explanation written by a human teacher alongside 11 explanations generated by LLM-simulated teacher profiles associated with distinct pedagogical risks. We propose a comprehensive risk rubric aligned with established educational standards that covers five complementary dimensions: factual precision, depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. A key contribution is the addition of 785 explanations with structured explainability annotations, including risk localization and risk description. The annotations are produced through a semi-automatic process with expert teacher validation. Finally, we present validation experiments comparing state-of-the-art proprietary models with a lightweight local Llama 3.1 8B model in both the pedagogical risk detection and the explainability assessment. These experiments evaluate whether supervised fine-tuning on AIriskEval-edu-db2 enables a locally deployable model to approach or outperform stronger frontier models while preserving privacy in educational auditing and assessment tasks.

Javier Irigoyen, Roberto Daza, Francisco Jurado +5

BiometricsAI, Universidad Aut´onoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain · GHIA, Universidad Aut´onoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain · Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), Spain

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Auditing Educational Assessment Generative AI in Education Explainability Evaluation Generative AI Evaluation

Jun 30, 2026cs.AI

Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy: Detecting Epistemic Aims and Processes in Student-AI Co-Programming

Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly in programming contexts where learners must construct queries, evaluate and validate AI-generated outputs, and regulate problem-solving strategies. This study introduces the conceptual framework of Epistemic AI Literacy (EAIL), reframing AI literacy as a process-oriented epistemic phenomenon that emerges through dynamic human-AI interactions across different domains. Drawing on the AIR (epistemic aims, ideals and reliable epistemic processes) framework, this study examines how epistemic aims and epistemic processes are enacted in GenAI-supported co-programming activities and explores scalable approaches for operationalizing these constructs in interaction data. Using a large dialogue dataset of human-AI co-programming, this study identifies observable dimensions of epistemic aims (i.e., mastery-oriented aims) and epistemic processes (i.e., outsourcing, explanation seeking, verification seeking, prompt monitoring, and epistemic justification). The results reveal a prevalent lack of EAIL, with 78.8% of student-GenAI interactions relying on non-mastery-oriented aims and less reliable epistemic strategies like outsourcing and verification-seeking. Conversely, only 11.1% of interactions showed high epistemic engagement, where mastery-oriented aims were coupled with advanced epistemic strategies like epistemic justification in a more reliable epistemic process.

Mengqian Wu

™McGill University, Quebec, Canada

AI Literacy Generative AI in Education Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Jun 27, 2026cs.HC

Exploring the Value of Diverse LLM Explanations in Introductory Programming

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Seth Bernstein, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen +4

Temple University Philadelphia, PA, United States · University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand · Aalto University Espoo, Finland

Programming Education Generative AI in Education

Jun 27, 2026cs.CY

Four Types of LLM Reliance and Their Predictors Among Undergraduate Writers: A Mixed-Methods Study at a Minority-Serving R1 University

Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them. Existing instruments assess reliance solely by frequency of use, a measure that, as this study shows, inadvertently rewards dependence on AI rather than recognizing students' own intellectual contribution. Conducted at a public minority-serving university and grounded in the AI Literacy Framework, Expectancy-Value Theory, and Biggs's Presage-Process-Product model, the study drew on 382 undergraduates, 14 interviews, and 396 open-ended survey responses. Four distinct reliance types were identified and confirmed: Strategic (34.3%), Instrumental (30.9%), Dialogic (30.4%), and Dependent (4.5%). Students' value and cost beliefs predicted the intensity of their reliance on LLMs, whereas their AI literacy predicted the type of reliance they adopted, indicating that differentiated support is needed. Notably, Strategic users, those who engaged AI most deliberately, scored lowest on standard outcome measures. This pattern reflects a limitation of current instruments, which index AI's contribution rather than writing quality, thereby penalizing students who show the greatest independent thinking. Analysis also revealed an additional group, roughly 13%, who declined to use AI for ethical rather than practical reasons, and who existing frameworks overlook. These findings carry implications for AI literacy programs, the measurement of student learning outcomes, and equitable AI policy at minority-serving institutions.

Shahin Hossain

School of Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Baltimore, MD, USA

AI Literacy Generative AI in Education

Jun 23, 2026cs.HC

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on academic development of Chinese students in humanities and social sciences

Generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) is reshaping learning in higher education, with particularly pronounced implications for the humanities and social sciences(HSS), where learning outcomes are commonly expressed through written and interpretive forms that align closely with GenAI's capabilities. Yet, systematic evidence on the educational impacts of GenAI on HSS students remains limited. Addressing this gap, this study draws on a large-scale survey of HSS students in China to examine its role in academic development. Guided by relevant learning theories, this study focuses on four dimensions: patterns of use, effects on learning processes and academic performance, challenges associated with GenAI use, and preferred approaches to curricular integration. We found that more than half perceived enhanced learning motivation, independent thinking and creativity, although a substantial minority reported little change or even decline. Comparatively, a notably larger majority reported academic performance gains, although these gains may partly reflect limitations in conventional assessment practices. The study identifies variations in perceived learning and performance improvements among students with differing durations of GenAI experience, along with observable disciplinary differences and modest gender differences. While an overwhelming majority valued the importance of ethical considerations, only slightly more than half were satisfied with privacy protection. Limited accuracy and overreliance emerged as the most pressing concerns reported by students. Students favored partial or optional curricular integration supported by practice-oriented training, and widely recognized GenAI's significance for their future professional development. Grounded in student perspectives, this study offers evidence-based recommendations for the responsible and pedagogically meaningful integration of GenAI

Lei Fan, Fangxue Liu

Design School, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, 215123, China · School of Computer Science and Informatics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

AI in Education Generative AI in Education Human-AI Collaboration

Jun 22, 2026cs.AI

AI-Assisted Help-Seeking Trajectories in Programming Education from an SRL-Informed Perspective

Generative AI tools provide novice programmers with instant, personalized support, but also raise concerns about whether AI use supports or bypasses students' regulation of problem-solving. Existing work has largely focused on correctness, usability, or overall usage frequency, with less attention to how student--AI help-seeking unfolds. This study addresses this gap by analyzing AI-assisted help-seeking trajectories in university-level programming. Using an SRL-informed analytical framework that links prompt-level help-seeking codes to conceptual, implementation, debugging, and reflective forms of support, we analyzed 1,290 task-specific student prompts linked to 17,190 code submissions from 71 students in introductory Python programming courses. Specifically, we examined how help-seeking interactions were structured across turns and attempts, and how trajectory patterns related to task scores and the number of code submissions. Results indicate that many students primarily used AI for reactive troubleshooting rather than for planned, self-regulated problem-solving. Although trajectory patterns were not associated with significant differences in task scores, they differed substantially in the number of code submissions required. These findings suggest that the educational significance of AI support lies not only in whether students use AI, but in how their help-seeking trajectories develop during programming problem-solving.

Boxuan Ma, Huiyong Li, Gen Li +3

Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. · Research Institute for Information Technology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. · Faculty of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. +1

Programming Education Generative AI in Education

Jun 19, 2026cs.CL

Towards Pedagogically Aligned LLM Tutors for Math Mistake Remediation

Large language models have strong potential for use in intelligent tutoring systems, but they often fail to follow effective pedagogical strategies, such as guiding students without revealing final answers. We study the application of a two-stage alignment pipeline for math mistake remediation, combining supervised fine-tuning on tutoring dialogs with Direct Preference Optimization on synthetic preference pairs. We construct a dataset that integrates existing tutoring corpora with synthetic data generated along pedagogical dimensions, such as scaffolding and factuality, and study different input configurations that incorporate solution correctness and gold answers. Experiments show that this approach improves both factual accuracy and pedagogical quality over base models and existing tutoring models. Human evaluation further indicates that our best model is competitive with a strong proprietary baseline, while providing additional benefits in terms of openness, transparency, and reproducibility. Our results highlight the effectiveness of preference-based pedagogical alignment, while also revealing challenges in reliably evaluating tutoring quality.

Kseniia Petukhova, Tien Dat Nguyen, Ekaterina Kochmar

Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence

LLM Alignment Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education Instruction Tuning

Jun 18, 2026cs.AI

Learning to Prompt: Improving Student Engagement with Adaptive LLM-based High-School Tutoring

LLMs can personalize education, although current static-prompt tutoring systems struggle to adapt to diverse academic disciplines. We develop and test a system with subject-aware prompting, based on 14 pedagogical features (e.g., tutor scaffolding, student understanding) extracted from raw transcripts. We first train a prompt routing model in a simulation environment, and then deploy it for online adaptation with actual high-school students. The simulation benchmark shows the router outperforming two static baselines (

0.694

vs.

0.647

and

0.64

,

p<0.001

). A/B testing (

N=656

conversations from 359 students) shows sim-to-real transfer where the model switches from analytical to scaffolding learning strategies. Our adaptive prompt selection mechanism improves instructional efficiency, maintains pedagogical quality and reduces interactions by around 3 turns (

p=0.007

). While a greedy router achieves a comparable exercise conversion rate with the baseline (

19.1\%

vs.

19.6\%

), a stochastic router that samples strategies leads to a higher conversion rate (

28.1\%

).

Po-Chin Chang, Nicholas Hogan, Aske Plaat +1

Leiden University · FutureWhiz

Prompt Learning Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education

Jun 17, 2026cs.CY

ELEVATE: Designing Human-Centered GenAI Virtual Tutors for Scalable and Inclusive Education

The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), and in particular Large Language Models (LLMs), is reshaping educational practice, while intensifying ethical debate about its adoption. To date, the dominant paradigm remains cloud-based and text-only chatbot: a centralized service that offers limited pedagogical control, weak transparency over knowledge sources, and non-trivial risks for privacy and regulatory compliance. This model also presumes continuous connectivity and recurring API costs, creating structural barriers for many institutions, reinforcing existing digital divides. At the same time, educational interaction with LLM can benefit from multimodal cues and embodied presence, requiring interfaces that move beyond text-only tutoring. In this work, we propose ELEVATE (Efficient LLM Education with Virtual Avatar Teaching Engine), a framework to develop efficient GenAI-driven avatar tutors governed by epistemic infrastructures. ELEVATE integrates LLM-driven dialogue with embodied 3D avatars for multimodal interaction and adopts a local-first execution model enabling deployment on consumer-grade hardware. The framework formalizes a three-stratum design that separates (i) a student-facing virtual avatar interaction layer, (ii) a local GenAI execution and multimodal synthesis core, and (iii) a teacher-facing governance layer. We implemented and evaluated a working prototype deployed in a real-world educational curriculum. The system runs on standard PCs and smartphones, and we provide system-level performance evidence to show responsive interaction under realistic hardware constraints. Finally, we discuss sociotechnical and pedagogical implications for responsible adoption, positioning ELEVATE as a scalable pathway for privacy-preserving and inclusive GenAI tutoring across heterogeneous school environments.

Lorenzo Stacchio, Michele Giordano, Daniele Berardini +2

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generative AI in Education Human-Centered AI Embodied AI

Jun 16, 2026cs.CY

Engagement Intensity as a Learner-Modeling Signal for Adaptive AI Ethics Instruction

Adaptive AI ethics instruction in graduate research training benefits from intake measures that reflect differences in prior LLM experience. Prior coursework or workshop attendance is an obvious candidate, but it is not clear whether it is associated with pre-instruction ratings on key AI perception items. We compare three candidate intake features, self-reported usage frequency, self-rated LLM familiarity, and prior AI education, across five baseline perception outcomes in 93 bioscience graduate and postdoctoral trainees enrolled in a required research ethics course. Usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five outcomes, self-rated familiarity with three, and prior AI education with none. A threshold-like pattern at the lower end of the scale is most visible for training interest and accuracy trust rather than appearing as a uniform gradient across all five outcomes. In a short intake survey, reported LLM use is more consistently associated with these perceptions than prior coursework or workshops, with self-rated familiarity serving as a secondary indicator. These results suggest that simple pre-instruction behavioral signals can inform lightweight intake profiling for adaptive AI ethics education.

Yongkyung Oh, Lynn Talton, Alex Bui

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA

AI in Education Generative AI in Education Adaptive Learning

Jun 16, 2026cs.AI

FairTutor: Equity-Aware Pedagogical LLM Routing for Budget-Constrained AI Tutoring

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.

Qingyang Xu

Independent researcher, Shanghai, China

Intelligent Tutoring Systems AI in Education Algorithmic Fairness Cost-Aware Inference Generative AI in Education LLM Routing

Jun 16, 2026cs.CY

Toward AI-Resilient Assessment in Computer Science Courses in an AI-Native World

AI-native course assessments in senior computer science courses and related fields should grade students by \emph{AI-resilient skill}: the ability to achieve outcomes beyond a strong AI baseline. Such assessments should allow students to use AI freely, while reducing the extent to which greater private AI budget or more intensive AI use, by itself, becomes a grading advantage. This paper proposes a minimal formal framework for this goal. The framework specifies a real task, an executable evaluator, a declared AI-native Pareto frontier, and a grading rule based on Pareto surplus. The central claim is simple: Pareto surplus provides a measurable, protocol-relative certificate that a submitted artifact achieves a tradeoff not already supplied by the declared AI baseline, and grading by this surplus is AI-resilient with respect to that baseline. Interpreting surplus as evidence of student skill requires the surrounding assessment protocol--for example, design reports, ablations, prompt traces, oral checks, or reproducibility explanations--but the grading certificate itself is behavioral and executable. The framework is then extended to practical complications, including self-improving AI loops, budget neutrality, server-mediated feedback, and prompt-based red teaming. As a concrete instantiation, we describe an AI-resilient approximate-membership assignment centered on Bloom filters for COMP 480/580 at Rice University, designed to test whether students can improve beyond AI-generated implementations.

Anshumali Shrivastava

Department of Computer Science, Rice University

Computer Science Education Educational Assessment AI in Education Generative AI in Education Automated Grading

Jun 15, 2026cs.HC

Using AI in engineering education: a balancing act, driven by clear purpose

Based on a questionnaire of 100 higher-education students, predominantly from engineering-related fields, and a critical review of recent literature, this chapter examines how students use and perceive Large Language Models (LLMs) in engineering education. Students primarily value LLMs for writing support, conceptual clarification, coding assistance, and brainstorming, while simultaneously expressing concerns about inaccuracies, bias, overreliance, academic integrity, and the burden of verification. Through an analysis of two dominant metaphors, namely LLMs as an "oracle" and as a "tutor," the chapter shows how these systems cultivate expectations of authority, expertise, and personalized learning that often exceed their actual capabilities. The chapter further argues that students' attachment to the promises of efficiency and personalized support reflects a form of "cruel optimism," where the perceived benefits of LLMs often depend on the very skills, vigilance, and expertise that students are still developing. Overall, the chapter argues for a purpose-driven and context-sensitive approach to AI integration in engineering education, emphasizing critical AI literacy, reflective assessment design, pedagogical caution, and consideration of broader ethical and environmental impacts.

Olya Kudina

TU Delft, The Netherlands · Optentia Unit, North-West University, South Africa

AI in Education Generative AI in Education LLM Reliability

Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Helpfulness: A Teaching-over-Solving Diagnostic for Measuring Educational Impact in LLM Tutors

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.

Junyi Yao, Zihao Zheng, Baichuan Li

Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA · Department of Operations Research and Engineering Management, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

LLM Evaluation Intelligent Tutoring Systems Educational Assessment Generative AI in Education

Jun 14, 2026cs.CL

Contaminated Collaboration: Measuring Gender Bias Transfer in LLM-Assisted Student Writing

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.

Ariyan Hossain, Kazi Kamruzzaman Rabbi, Farig Sadeque +1

Brac University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Gender Bias in Language Models Generative AI in Education Human-AI Interaction Language Model Bias Evaluation