Student

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustain momentum across the process. We offer a workflow-level account of AI-supported academic writing, showing how students navigate competing priorities of learning, quality, productivity, and authorship, and how they evaluate and take responsibility for AI-generated outputs.

Educational NLP systems are typically evaluated using engagement metrics and satisfaction surveys, which are at best a proxy for meeting pedagogical goals. We introduce six computational metrics for automated evaluation of pedagogical alignment in student-AI dialogue. We validate our metrics through analysis of 12,650 messages across 500 conversations from four courses. Using our metrics, we identify a fundamental misalignment: educators design conversational tutors for sustained learning dialogue, but students mainly use them for answer-extraction. Deployment context is the strongest predictor of usage patterns, outweighing student preference or system design: when AI tools are optional, usage concentrates around deadlines; when integrated into course structure, students ask for solutions to verbatim assignment questions. Whole-dialogue evaluation misses these turn-by-turn patterns. Our metrics will enable researchers building educational dialogue systems to measure whether they are achieving their pedagogical goals.

Educational Question Generation (EQG) aims to synthesize customized exercise questions that enhance student learning. An effective EQG system should ideally personalize questions for each student by modeling the student's knowledge state and generating questions that provide the greatest learning benefit. However, few existing EQG approaches are able to achieve such fine-grained personalization. In this paper, we explore how EQG can benefit from knowledge tracing (KT), which models students' knowledge states based on historical performance and predicts future performance. We propose KT4EQG, a personalized EQG framework that generates effective questions for individual students under the guidance of a KT model. Specifically, KT4EQG seeks to maximize a student's potential improvement in overall knowledge mastery by leveraging the KT model to select the most suitable knowledge concept for the student to practice. An LLM-based question generator is then trained to produce a question faithfully grounded in the selected concept. Experimental results on XES3G5M and MOOCRadar show that KT4EQG consistently generates more effective questions than methods with limited or no personalization.

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education has raised important questions regarding students' transparency in reporting AI-assisted work. This study investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying university students' willingness to disclose AI use by applying the Cognition--Affect--Conation (CAC) framework. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, survey data were collected from 546 university students and analysed using structural equation modelling to examine the relationships among cognitive perceptions, affective responses, and disclosure intention. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with 22 students were conducted to further interpret the quantitative findings. The results indicate that psychological safety significantly increases students' willingness to disclose AI use and is positively shaped by perceived fairness, perceived teacher support, and perceived organisational support. Conversely, evaluation apprehension reduces disclosure intention and psychological safety, and is strengthened by perceived stigma, perceived uncertainty, and privacy concern. Qualitative findings further reveal that institutional clarity and supportive instructional practices encourage openness, whereas policy ambiguity and fear of negative evaluation often lead students to adopt cautious or strategic disclosure practices. Overall, the study highlights the dual role of enabling and inhibitory psychological mechanisms in shaping AI-use disclosure and underscores the importance of supportive institutional environments and clear guidance for promoting responsible AI transparency in higher education.

This paper examines whether students are entering the generative AI era with sufficiently strong educational foundations, focusing on the relationship between learning environments and changes in ICT related career aspirations across countries. The analysis uses country-level data from PISA 2018 and 2022, combining indicators of student autonomy, digital skills and teacher support. A mixed-method approach is applied, including descriptive statistics, regression analysis, clustering, latent representation learning (using Variational Autoencoder-VAE), discriminant analysis and probabilistic modeling to capture both observable and latent dimensions of educational readiness. Unlike prior research that treats learning loss, digital skills and career expectations separately, our analysis integrates them within a comparative longitudinal framework. It shifts the focus from short-term post-pandemic effects to the structural capacity of education systems to prepare students for digital and AI-driven labor markets. Results show a global but uneven increase in ICT career aspirations. Digital skills emerge as the strongest and most consistent predictor, while teacher support plays a complementary role. Autonomy shows weaker, context-dependent effects. Educational readiness is multidimensional, and ICT aspirations evolve relatively independently from other career domains.

Understanding student engagement usually requires time-consuming manual observation or invasive recording that raises privacy concerns. We present a privacy-preserving pipeline that analyzes classroom videos to extract insights about student attention, without storing any identifiable footage. Our system runs on a single GPU, using OpenPose for skeletal extraction and Gaze-LLE for visual attention estimation. Original video frames are deleted immediately after pose extraction, thus only geometric coordinates (stored as JSON) are retained, ensuring compliance with FERPA. The extracted pose and gaze data is processed by QwQ-32B-Reasoning, which performs zero-shot analysis of student behavior across lecture segments. Instructors access results through a web dashboard featuring attention heatmaps and behavioral summaries. Our preliminary findings suggest that LLMs may show promise for multimodal behavior understanding, although they still struggle with spatial reasoning about classroom layouts. We discuss these limitations and outline directions for improving LLM spatial comprehension in educational analytics contexts.

College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement. We conducted an eight-week longitudinal study with 15 undergraduates who used AI to support assigned readings in a course. We collected 838 prompts across 239 reading sessions and developed a coding schema categorizing prompts into four cognitive themes: Decoding, Comprehension, Reasoning, and Metacognition. Comprehension prompts dominated (59.6%), with Reasoning (29.8%), Metacognition (8.5%), and Decoding (2.1%) less frequent. Most sessions (72%) contained exactly three prompts, the required minimum of the reading assignment. Within sessions, students showed natural cognitive progression from comprehension toward reasoning, but this progression was truncated. Across eight weeks, students' engagement patterns remained stable, with substantial individual differences persisting throughout. Qualitative analysis revealed an intention-behavior gap: students recognized that effective prompting required effort but rarely applied this knowledge, with efficiency emerging as the primary driver. Students also strategically triaged their engagement based on interest and academic pressures, exhibiting a novel pattern of reading through AI rather than with it: using AI-generated summaries as primary material to filter which sections merited deeper attention. We discuss design implications for AI reading systems that scaffold sustained cognitive engagement.

To address the scalability of feedback in computer science while mitigating the privacy and cost limitations of commercial Large Language Models (LLMs), this study evaluates a locally hosted Small Language Model (SLM). We deployed a quantized Llama-3.1, GPT-4, and human instructors across introductory programming (N=176), operating systems (N=80), and a writing seminar (N=7). Mixed-methods analysis of student perceptions reveals that while the local SLM matched commercial LLMs and was rated higher by students for readability and actionability in technical courses, human feedback remained more favoured for highly specialized writing tasks. We demonstrate that local SLMs offer a privacy-preserving, zero-marginal-cost alternative for foundational feedback, supporting a tiered pedagogical framework where AI handles structural guidance while instructors focus on high-level conceptual scaffolding.

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

This study employs cutting-edge wearable monitoring technology to conduct high-precision, high-temporal-resolution (1-second interval) cognitive load assessment on electroencephalogram (EEG) data from the FP1 channel and heart rate variability (HRV) data of secondary vocational students. By jointly analyzing these two critical physiological indicators, the research delves into their application value in assessing cognitive load among secondary vocational students and their utility across various tasks. The study designed two experiments to validate the efficacy of the proposed approach: Initially, a random forest classification model, developed using the N-BACK task, enabled the precise decoding of physiological signal characteristics in secondary vocational students under different levels of cognitive load, achieving a classification accuracy of 97%. Subsequently, this classification model was applied in a cross-task experiment involving the National Computer Rank Examination (Level-1), demonstrating the method's significant applicability and cross-task transferability in diverse learning contexts. Conducted with high portability, this research holds substantial theoretical and practical significance for optimizing teaching resource allocation in secondary vocational education, as well as for cognitive load assessment methods and monitoring. Currently, the research findings are undergoing trial implementation in the school.

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