Generative AI in Education

This chapter explores the evolution of data-driven hint generation for intelligent tutoring systems (ITS). The Hint Factory and Interaction Networks have enabled the generation of next-step hints, waypoints, and strategic subgoals from historical student data. Data-driven techniques have also enabled systems to find the right time to provide hints. We explore further potential data-driven adaptations for problem solving based on behavioral problem solving data and the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs).

This study examines how students integrate generative artificial intelligence (AI) into design projects through the lens of the SuperSkillsStack framework, which identifies four key human competencies for effective human-AI collaboration: Agency, Domain Knowledge, Imagination, and Taste. As generative AI increasingly transforms creative practice, design education must consider how human capabilities are cultivated alongside technological tools. Using qualitative thematic analysis, this study analyzes reflective writings from 80 student design teams participating in a human-centered design course. The findings show that students primarily used AI during the early stages of the design process, including brainstorming, information synthesis, and problem framing. However, students consistently relied on human judgment to interpret contextual information, validate AI-generated outputs, and refine design solutions. Domain knowledge derived from field observations enabled students to detect inaccuracies in AI suggestions, while taste played a critical role in evaluating and selecting meaningful ideas. The results suggest that generative AI functions primarily as a cognitive accelerator rather than a replacement for human creativity. The study highlights the importance of cultivating higher-order human capabilities to support effective human-AI collaboration in design education.

This paper introduces the "Trilingual Triad" framework, a model that explains how students learn to design with generative artificial intelligence (AI) through the integration of Design, AI, and Domain Knowledge. As generative AI rapidly enters higher education, students often engage with these systems as passive users of generated outputs rather than active creators of AI-enabled knowledge tools. This study investigates how students can transition from using AI as a tool to designing AI as a collaborative teammate. The research examines a graduate course, Creating the Frontier of No-code Smart Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), in which students developed domain-specific custom GPT systems without coding. Using a qualitative multi-case study approach, three projects - the Interview Companion GPT, the Urban Observer GPT, and Buddy Buddy - were analyzed across three dimensions: design, AI architecture, and domain expertise. The findings show that effective human-AI collaboration emerges when these three "languages" are orchestrated together: domain knowledge structures the AI's logic, design mediates human-AI interaction, and AI extends learners' cognitive capacity. The Trilingual Triad framework highlights how building AI systems can serve as a constructionist learning process that strengthens AI literacy, metacognition, and learner agency.

Can targeted user training unlock the productive potential of generative artificial intelligence in professional settings? We study this question using a randomized experiment in which 164 law students completed an issue-spotting examination under one of three conditions: no GenAI access, optional access to a large language model (LLM), or LLM access with a brief training intervention. Untrained LLM access proved counterproductive: relative to participants without any LLM access, untrained users wrote significantly shorter answers, committed more case misstatements, and scored marginally lower, though most differences fall short of conventional significance. Training reversed this pattern. Trained participants adopted the LLM at higher rates (41% vs. 26%; p = 0.044), scored 0.27 grade points higher than untrained users--roughly one fine grade--(p = 0.027), and stated applicable rules more accurately (p = 0.014). Principal stratification analysis suggests training operates primarily through adoption rather than effectiveness--the adoption lower bound (1.06) exceeds the effectiveness upper bound (0.42) at strict mean dominance--though confidence intervals are wide. More broadly, these findings challenge the view that GenAI primarily benefits lower-skilled workers: without training, higher-ability practitioners opt out while lower-ability users adopt but unproductively. Realizing GenAI's productivity gains requires investment in both access and instruction.

Student Personas (SPs) are emerging as infrastructure for educational LLMs, yet prior work often relies on ad-hoc prompting or hand-crafted profiles with limited control over educational theory and population distributions. We formalize this as Theory-Aligned and Distribution-Controllable Persona Generation (TAD-PG) and introduce HACHIMI, a multi-agent Propose-Validate-Revise framework that generates theory-aligned, quota-controlled personas. HACHIMI factorizes each persona into a theory-anchored educational schema, enforces developmental and psychological constraints via a neuro-symbolic validator, and combines stratified sampling with semantic deduplication to reduce mode collapse. The resulting HACHIMI-1M corpus comprises 1 million personas for Grades 1-12. Intrinsic evaluation shows near-perfect schema validity, accurate quotas, and substantial diversity, while external evaluation instantiates personas as student agents answering CEPS and PISA 2022 surveys; across 16 cohorts, math and curiosity/growth constructs align strongly between humans and agents, whereas classroom-climate and well-being constructs are only moderately aligned, revealing a fidelity gradient. All personas are generated with Qwen2.5-72B, and HACHIMI provides a standardized synthetic student population for group-level benchmarking and social-science simulations. Resources available at https://github.com/ZeroLoss-Lab/HACHIMI

Discussions of AI in education focus predominantly on student-facing tools -- chatbots, tutors, and problem generators -- while the potential for the same infrastructure to support instructors remains largely unexplored. We describe Stan, a suite of tools for an undergraduate chemical engineering thermodynamics course built on a data pipeline that we develop and deploy in dual roles: serving students and supporting instructors from a shared foundation of lecture transcripts and a structured textbook index. On the student side, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline answers natural-language queries by extracting technical terms, matching them against the textbook index, and synthesizing grounded responses with specific chapter and page references. On the instructor side, the same transcript corpus is processed through structured analysis pipelines that produce per-lecture summaries, identify student questions and moments of confusion, and catalog the anecdotes and analogies used to motivate difficult material -- providing a searchable, semester-scale record of teaching that supports course reflection, reminders, and improvement. All components, including speech-to-text transcription, structured content extraction, and interactive query answering, run entirely on locally controlled hardware using open-weight models (Whisper large-v3, Llama~3.1 8B) with no dependence on cloud APIs, ensuring predictable costs, full data privacy, and reproducibility independent of third-party services. We describe the design, implementation, and practical failure modes encountered when deploying 7--8 billion parameter models for structured extraction over long lecture transcripts, including context truncation, bimodal output distributions, and schema drift, along with the mitigations that resolved them.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly present in higher education, yet their adoption has been largely student-driven, requiring instructors to respond to technologies already embedded in classroom practices. While some faculty have embraced GenAI for pedagogical purposes such as content generation, assessment support, and curriculum design, others approach these tools with caution, citing concerns about student learning, assessment validity, and academic integrity. Understanding faculty perspectives is therefore essential for informing effective pedagogical strategies and institutional policies. In this paper, we present findings from a focus group study with 29 STEM faculty members at a large public university in the United States. We examine how faculty integrate GenAI into their courses, the benefits and challenges they perceive for student learning, and the institutional support they identify as necessary for effective and responsible adoption. Our findings highlight key patterns in how STEM faculty engage with GenAI, reflecting both active adoption and cautious use. Faculty described a range of pedagogical applications alongside concerns about student learning, assessment, and academic integrity. Overall, the results suggest that effective integration of GenAI in higher education requires rethinking assessment, pedagogy, and institutional governance in addition to technical adoption.

Educational games can foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and motivation, yet instructors often find it difficult to design games that reliably achieve specific learning outcomes. Existing authoring environments reduce the need for programming expertise, but they do not eliminate the underlying challenges of educational game design, and they can leave non-expert designers reliant on opaque suggestions from AI systems. We designed a controlled natural language framework-based web tool that positions language as the primary interface for LLM-assisted educational game design. In the tool, users and an LLM assistant collaboratively develop a structured language that maps pedagogy to gameplay through four linked components. We argue that, by making pedagogical intent explicit and editable in the interface, the tool has the potential to lower design barriers for non-expert designers, preserves human agency in critical decisions, and enables alignment and reflections between pedagogy and gameplay during and after co-creation.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers scalable support for formative feedback, yet most AI-generated feedback relies on task-specific rubrics authored by domain experts. While effective, rubric authoring is time-consuming and limits scalability across instructional contexts. Learning progressions (LP) provide a theoretically grounded representation of students' developing understanding and may offer an alternative solution. This study examines whether an LP-driven rubric generation pipeline can produce AI-generated feedback comparable in quality to feedback guided by expert-authored task rubrics. We analyzed AI-generated feedback for written scientific explanations produced by 207 middle school students in a chemistry task. Two pipelines were compared: (a) feedback guided by a human expert-designed, task-specific rubric, and (b) feedback guided by a task-specific rubric automatically derived from a learning progression prior to grading and feedback generation. Two human coders evaluated feedback quality using a multi-dimensional rubric assessing Clarity, Accuracy, Relevance, Engagement and Motivation, and Reflectiveness (10 sub-dimensions). Inter-rater reliability was high, with percent agreement ranging from 89% to 100% and Cohen's kappa values for estimable dimensions (kappa = .66 to .88). Paired t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences between the two pipelines for Clarity (t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; t2 = 0.84, p2 = .399), Relevance (t1 = 0.28, p1 = .782; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), Engagement and Motivation (t1 = 0.50, p1 = .618; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), or Reflectiveness (t = -0.45, p = .656). These findings suggest that the LP-driven rubric pipeline can serve as an alternative solution.

Existing AI-generated video quality assessment (AIGVQA) methods mainly focus on global perceptual realism and coarse text-video alignment, while overlooking a critical requirement in educational scenarios: concept correctness. In early mathematics education, subtle errors in numerical quantities, geometric relations, or spatial configurations may fundamentally alter the conveyed knowledge despite visually plausible generation. To address this problem, we introduce EduAVQABench, the first benchmark for concept-aware educational AIGV assessment, containing 1,130 videos generated by ten state-of-the-art T2V models together with over 310,650 fine-grained human annotations spanning perceptual quality and semantic alignment. Built upon this benchmark, we further propose EduVQA, a concept-aware AIGVQA framework equipped with a Structured 2D Mixture-of-Experts (S2D-MoE) architecture. By jointly modeling fine-grained concept assessment and overall quality prediction through shared experts and adaptive two-dimensional routing, EduVQA effectively captures subtle concept-level inconsistencies overlooked by conventional global scoring methods. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EduVQA consistently outperforms existing AIGVQA approaches across both perceptual and semantic evaluation tasks while exhibiting strong generalization capability on unseen benchmarks. Code and dataset will be publicly available at: https://github.com/EduVQA/EduVQA.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant potential in AI mathematical tutoring, yet current evaluations often rely on simplistic metrics or narrow pedagogical scenarios, failing to assess comprehensive, multi-turn teaching effectiveness. In this paper, we introduce KMP-Bench, a comprehensive K-8 Mathematical Pedagogical Benchmark designed to assess LLMs from two complementary perspectives. The first module, KMP-Dialogue, evaluates holistic pedagogical capabilities against six core principles (e.g., Challenge, Explanation, Feedback), leveraging a novel multi-turn dialogue dataset constructed by weaving together diverse pedagogical components. The second module, KMP-Skills, provides a granular assessment of foundational tutoring abilities, including multi-turn problem-solving, error detection and correction, and problem generation. Our evaluations on KMP-Bench reveal a key disparity: while leading LLMs excel at tasks with verifiable solutions, they struggle with the nuanced application of pedagogical principles. Additionally, we present KMP-Pile, a large-scale (150K) dialogue dataset. Models fine-tuned on KMP-Pile show substantial improvement on KMP-Bench, underscoring the value of pedagogically-rich training data for developing more effective AI math tutors.

Writing is a foundational literacy skill that underpins effective communication, fosters critical thinking, facilitates learning across disciplines, and enables individuals to organize and articulate complex ideas. Consequently, writing assessment plays a vital role in evaluating language proficiency, communicative effectiveness, and analytical reasoning. The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made it increasingly easy to generate coherent, high-quality essays, raising significant concerns about the authenticity of student-submitted work. This chapter first provides an overview of the current landscape of detectors for AI-generated and AI-assisted essays, along with guidelines for their responsible use. It then presents empirical analyses to evaluate how well detectors trained on essays from one LLM generalize to identifying essays produced by other LLMs, based on essays generated in response to public GRE writing prompts. These findings provide guidance for developing and retraining detectors for practical applications.

AI-based chatbots have the potential to accelerate learning and teaching, but may also have counterproductive consequences without thoughtful design and scaffolding. To better understand teachers' perspectives on large language model (LLM)-based chatbots, we conducted a study with 11 teams of middle school teachers using chatbots for a science and computational thinking activity within a block-based programming environment. Based on a qualitative analysis of audio transcripts and chatbot interactions, we propose three profiles: explorer, frustrated, and mixed, that reflect diverse scaffolding needs. In their discussions, we found that teachers perceived chatbot benefits such as building prompting skills and self-confidence alongside risks including potential declines in learning and critical thinking. Key design recommendations include scaffolding the introduction to chatbots, facilitating teacher control of chatbot features, and suggesting when and how chatbots should be used. Our contribution informs the design of chatbots to support teachers and learners in middle school coding activities.

Interactive articles help readers engage with complex ideas through exploration, yet creating them remains costly, requiring both domain expertise and web development skills. Recent LLM-based agents can automate content creation, but naively applying them yields uncontrollable and unverifiable outputs. We present ViviDoc, a human-agent collaborative system that generates interactive educational documents from a single topic input. ViviDoc introduces a multi-agent pipeline (Planner, Executor, Evaluator) and the Document Specification (DocSpec), a human-readable intermediate representation that decomposes each interactive visualization into State, Render, Transition, and Constraint components. The DocSpec enables educators to review and refine generation plans before code is produced, bridging the gap between pedagogical intent and executable output. Expert evaluation and a user study show that ViviDoc substantially outperforms naive agentic generation and provides an intuitive editing experience. Our project homepage is available at https://vividoc-homepage.vercel.app/.

The rapid advancements in large language models and generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities are making their broad application in the high-stakes testing context more likely. Use of generative AI in the scoring of constructed responses is particularly appealing because it reduces the effort required for handcrafting features in traditional AI scoring and might even outperform those methods. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the differences in the feature-based and generative AI applications in constructed response scoring systems and propose a set of best practices for the collection of validity evidence to support the use and interpretation of constructed response scores from scoring systems using generative AI. We compare the validity evidence needed in scoring systems using human ratings, feature-based natural language processing AI scoring engines, and generative AI. The evidence needed in the generative AI context is more extensive than in the feature-based scoring context because of the lack of transparency and other concerns unique to generative AI such as consistency. Constructed response score data from a large corpus of independent argumentative essays written by 6-12th grade students demonstrate the collection of validity evidence for different types of scoring systems and highlight the numerous complexities and considerations when making a validity argument for these scores.

This chapter examines the potential of generative AI in enhancing science literacy across the K-16+ grade span, including its benefits as well as the conceptual and practical challenges that doing so presents. It begins with a discussion of what defines science literacy in the era of AI, including how AI has changed science and the demand for future citizens to be scientifically literate when AI is applied in their careers and lives. The chapter further discusses why science literacy presents such a challenge in K-16+ educational settings. It then develops an argument for the type of architecture needed for AI to assist in solving the problem by bringing coherence to the teaching, learning, and assessment of science knowledge and reasoning. Components of this architecture are illustrated with respect to the AI tools and capabilities needed for design and implementation. The chapter concludes with a consideration of what has been learned regarding both science literacy and AI, as well as what remains to be learned, including the research and development (R&D) needed, and the generalizability of this science literacy case to other disciplinary learning and knowledge domains.

Grading in large undergraduate STEM courses often yields minimal feedback due to heavy instructional workloads. We present a large-scale empirical study of AI grading on real, handwritten single-variable calculus work from UC Irvine. Using OCR-conditioned large language models with structured, rubric-guided prompting, our system produces scores and formative feedback for thousands of free-response quiz submissions from nearly 800 students. In a setting with no single ground-truth label, we evaluate performance against official teaching-assistant grades, student surveys, and independent human review, finding strong alignment with TA scoring and a large majority of AI-generated feedback rated as correct or acceptable across quizzes. Beyond calculus, this setting highlights core challenges in OCR-conditioned mathematical reasoning and partial-credit assessment. We analyze key failure modes, propose practical rubric- and prompt-design principles, and introduce a multi-perspective evaluation protocol for reliable, real-course deployment. Building on the dataset and evaluation framework developed here, we outline a standardized benchmark for AI grading of handwritten mathematics to support reproducible comparison and future research.

This study examined how high school students with different motivational profiles use generative AI tools in math and writing. Through K-means clustering analysis of survey data from 6,793 Mexican high school students, we identified three distinct motivational profiles based on self-concept and perceived subject value. Results revealed distinct domain-specific AI usage patterns across students with different motivational profiles. Our findings challenge one-size-fits-all AI integration approaches and advocate for motivationally-informed educational interventions.

GenAI has a potential to enhance the learning and teaching processes in engineering education. For instance, GenAI feedback on students' task performance can be effective depending on when such feedback is provided. However, little is known about how engineering faculty and instructors discover such potential within the scope of their instruction when they try out the technology for the first time. To this end, this study purported to describe an engineering instructor's and seven teaching assistants' initial experiences of integrating GenAI into their undergraduate engineering course and the corresponding changes in students' formative exercise performance. An embedded descriptive single case study design was employed. The corresponding research data included four interviews conducted at the beginning, middle and end of an academic semester, and students' formative exercise performance. Overall, after GenAI integration, students' formative exercise performance increased, and a critical and reflective practice of learning about how to integrate GenAI into instruction provided informative insights. Still, technology integration stayed at the level of replacing other instructional methods or increasing the efficiency of solving coding problems. It turned out to be exciting and surprising for students to be able to use GenAI in course work even though their use of the technology weakened over time. Our findings suggest that engineering teaching staff's initial experimental experiences with GenAI integration can be informative and provide context-specific practical insights. Therefore, it is reasonable for higher education institutions to encourage such experiences especially when there is a lot of unknown regarding an emerging technology.

Conversational AI tools have been rapidly adopted by students and are becoming part of their learning routines. This widespread use comes amid ongoing concerns about the reliability of AI-generated responses and the appropriate role of AI in education. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model, we examine how students' perceptions of conversational AI, including its usefulness, ease of use, trustworthiness, enjoyment, and social influence, relate to their intentions to use these tools for learning. We investigate both the direct and indirect relationships among these perceptions to understand how they are associated with students' behavioral intentions. Using survey data from 229 students and partial least squares structural equation modeling, we found that perceived usefulness was the strongest direct predictor of intention, followed by perceived enjoyment. Perceived ease of use, trust, and subjective norms did not have significant direct associations with intention. However, trust and subjective norms had significant total indirect associations, while perceived enjoyment had both significant direct and indirect associations. The model explained 70.2% of the variance in behavioral intention. These findings suggest that students' intentions to use conversational AI are associated less directly with effort-related considerations and more with perceived usefulness and affective experience. They also highlight the importance of understanding what students perceive as valuable in conversational AI interactions, particularly when designing tools intended to encourage engagement while supporting learning.

There are growing promises that Large Language Models (LLMs) can support students' learning by providing explanations, feedback, and guidance. However, despite their rapid adoption and widespread attention, there is still limited empirical evidence regarding the pedagogical skills of LLMs. This article presents a comparative study of popular LLMs, namely, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini, acting as teaching agents. An evaluation protocol was developed, focusing on three pedagogical strategies: Examples, Explanations and Analogies, and the Socratic Method. Six human judges conducted the evaluations in the context of teaching the C programming language to beginners. The results indicate that LLM models exhibited similar interaction patterns in the pedagogical strategies of Examples and Explanations and Analogies. In contrast, for the Socratic Method, the models showed greater sensitivity to the pedagogical strategy and the initial prompt. Overall, ChatGPT and Gemini received higher scores, whereas DeepSeek obtained lower scores across the criteria, indicating differences in pedagogical performance across models.

While advancements in Text-to-Video (T2V) generative AI offer a promising path toward democratizing content creation, current models are often optimized for visual fidelity rather than instructional efficacy. This study introduces PedaCo-Gen, a pedagogically-informed human-AI collaborative video generating system for authoring instructional videos based on Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML). Moving away from traditional "one-shot" generation, PedaCo-Gen introduces an Intermediate Representation (IR) phase, enabling educators to interactively review and refine video blueprints-comprising scripts and visual descriptions-with an AI reviewer. Our study with 23 education experts demonstrates that PedaCo-Gen significantly enhances video quality across various topics and CTML principles compared to baselines. Participants perceived the AI-driven guidance not merely as a set of instructions but as a metacognitive scaffold that augmented their instructional design expertise, reporting high production efficiency (M=4.26) and guide validity (M=4.04). These findings highlight the importance of reclaiming pedagogical agency through principled co-creation, providing a foundation for future AI authoring tools that harmonize generative power with human professional expertise.

The democratization of Large Language Models has given rise to vibe coding, where novice programmers prioritize semantic intent over syntactic implementation. Without pedagogical guardrails, we argue this is fundamentally misaligned with cognitive skill acquisition. Drawing on Kirschner's distinction between cognitive offloading and outsourcing, unrestricted AI encourages novices to outsource the intrinsic cognitive load required for schema formation rather than merely offloading extraneous load. This accumulation of epistemic debt creates fragile experts: developers whose high functional utility masks critically low corrective competence. To quantify and mitigate this debt, we conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=78) using a custom Cursor IDE plugin backed by Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Participants were recruited via Prolific and UserInterviews.com to represent AI-native learners. We compared three conditions: manual (control), unrestricted AI (outsourcing), and scaffolded AI (offloading). The scaffolded condition employed a novel Explanation Gate -- a real-time LLM-as-a-Judge framework enforcing a teach-back protocol before generated code could be integrated. Results reveal a collapse of competence: both AI groups significantly outperformed the manual control on functional utility (p < .001) and did not differ from each other (p = .64), yet unrestricted AI users suffered a 77% failure rate on a subsequent 30-minute AI-blackout maintenance task, vs. only 39% in the scaffolded group. Qualitative analysis suggests successful vibe coders naturally self-scaffold, treating AI as a consultant rather than a contractor. We discuss implications for AI-generated software maintainability and propose that future learning systems must enforce metacognitive friction to prevent mass production of unmaintainable code. Replication package: https://github.com/sreecharansankaranarayanan/vibecheck

We evaluate GPTutor, an LLM-powered tutoring system for an undergraduate discrete mathematics course. It integrates two LLM-supported tools: a structured proof-review tool that provides embedded feedback on students' written proof attempts, and a chatbot for math questions. In a staggered-access study with 148 students, earlier access was associated with higher homework performance during the interval when only the experimental group could use the system, while we did not observe this performance increase transfer to exam scores. Usage logs show that students with lower self-efficacy and prior exam performance used both components more frequently. Session-level behavioral labels, produced by human coding and scaled using an automated classifier, characterize how students engaged with the chatbot (e.g., answer-seeking or help-seeking). In models controlling for prior performance and self-efficacy, higher chatbot usage and answer-seeking behavior were negatively associated with subsequent midterm performance, whereas proof-review usage showed no detectable independent association. Together, the findings suggest that chatbot-based support alone may not reliably support transfer to independent assessment of math proof-learning outcomes, whereas work-anchored, structured feedback appears less associated with reduced learning.

Providing scaffolding through educational chatbots built on Large Language Models (LLM) has potential risks and benefits that remain an open area of research. When students navigate impasses, they ask for help by formulating impasse-driven questions. Within interactions with LLM chatbots, such questions shape the user prompts and drive the pedagogical effectiveness of the chatbot's response. This paper focuses on such student questions from two datasets of distinct learning contexts: formative self-study, and summative assessed coursework. We analysed 6,113 messages from both learning contexts, using 11 different LLMs and three human raters to classify student questions using four existing schemas. On the feasibility of using LLMs as raters, results showed moderate-to-good inter-rater reliability, with higher consistency than human raters. The data showed that 'procedural' questions predominated in both learning contexts, but more so when students prepare for summative assessment. These results provide a basis on which to use LLMs for classification of student questions. However, we identify clear limitations in both the ability to classify with schemas and the value of doing so: schemas are limited and thus struggle to accommodate the semantic richness of composite prompts, offering only partial understanding the wider risks and benefits of chatbot integration. In the future, we recommend an analysis approach that captures the nuanced, multi-turn nature of conversation, for example, by applying methods from conversation analysis in discursive psychology.

We introduce ACE-TA, the Agentic Coding and Explanations Teaching Assistant framework, that autonomously routes conceptual queries drawn from programming course material to grounded Q&A, stepwise coding guidance, and automated quiz generation using pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs). ACE-TA consists of three coordinated modules: a retrieval grounded conceptual Q&A system that provides precise, context-aligned explanations; a quiz generator that constructs adaptive, multi-topic assessments targeting higher-order understanding; and an interactive code tutor that guides students through step-by-step reasoning with sandboxed execution and iterative feedback.

We present an end-to-end self-hosted (API-free) pipeline, where API-free means that lecture content is not sent to any external LLM service, that converts lecture PDFs into multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using a local LLM plus deterministic quality control (QC). The pipeline is designed for black-box minimization: LLMs may assist drafting, but the final released artifacts are plain-text question banks with an explicit QC trace and without any need to call an LLM at deployment time. We run a seed sweep on three short "dummy lectures" (information theory, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics), collecting 15 runs x 8 questions = 120 accepted candidates (122 attempts total under bounded retries). All 120 accepted candidates satisfy hard QC checks (JSON schema conformance, a single marked correct option, and numeric/constant equivalence tests); however, the warning layer flags 8/120 items (spanning 8 runs) that expose residual quality risks such as duplicated distractors or missing rounding instructions. We report a warning taxonomy with concrete before->after fixes, and we release the final 24-question set (three lectures x 8 questions) as JSONL/CSV for Google Forms import (e.g., via Apps Script or API tooling) included as ancillary files under anc/. Finally, we position the work through the AI to Learn (AI2L) rubric lens and argue that self-hosted MCQ generation with explicit QC supports privacy, accountability, and Green AI in educational workflows.

In recent years, corpus-driven AI methods, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), have seen widespread use in education. While on the surface their abilities look promising for tasks ranging from generating assessment materials to simulating student performance, we should be aware of the subtle nuances of their frequentist nature that might be affecting their behaviour. In this work, we focus on the aspect of corpus frequency in the context of creating high-quality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), specifically asking: What if corpus prevalence were enough to identify the correct answer to an MCQ? We propose a computational method of assessing corpus prevalence of MCQ options in large text corpora leveraging textual embeddings using both expert- and machine-generated MCQ sets. The key finding, across three large question sets, is that correct answers, independently of the question stem, are significantly more available than incorrect options. Specifically, using Wikipedia as the retrieval corpus, we find that always selecting the most prevalent option leads to scores up to 9.0% above the random-guess baseline. We also find that MCQ distractors generated by LLMs often show similar patterns of prevalence compared to expert-created options, despite the LLMs' frequentist nature and their training on large collections of textual data. Moreover, we find that corpus prevalence does not necessarily correlate with how recognisable terms are to humans. This highlights the need to better understand how corpora are used in AI-driven methods for education, whether applied directly or indirectly via LLMs.

Despite growing interest in using LLMs to generate feedback on students' writing, little is known about how students respond to AI-mediated versus human-provided feedback. We address this gap through a randomized controlled trial in a large introductory economics course (N=354), where we introduce and deploy FeedbackWriter - a system that generates AI suggestions to teaching assistants (TAs) while they provide feedback on students' knowledge-intensive essays. TAs have the full capacity to adopt, edit, or dismiss the suggestions. Students were randomly assigned to receive either handwritten feedback from TAs (baseline) or AI-mediated feedback where TAs received suggestions from FeedbackWriter. Students revise their drafts based on the feedback, which is further graded. In total, 1,366 essays were graded using the system. We found that students receiving AI-mediated feedback produced significantly higher-quality revisions, with gains increasing as TAs adopted more AI suggestions. TAs found the AI suggestions useful for spotting gaps and clarifying rubrics.

This study investigates generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) usage of university students who study alongside their professional career. Previous literature has paid little attention to part-time students and the intersectional use of GenAI between education and business. This study examines with a grounded theory approach the characteristics of GenAI usage of part-time students. Eleven students from a distance learning university were interviewed. Three causal and four intervening conditions, as well as strategies were identified, to influence the use of GenAI. The study highlights both the potential and challenges of GenAI usage in education and business. While GenAI can significantly enhance productivity and learning outcomes, concerns about ethical implications, reliability, and the risk of academic misconduct persist. The developed grounded model offers a comprehensive understanding of GenAI usage among students, providing valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and developers of GenAI tools seeking to bridge the gap between education and business.