Pedagogy

Interaction paradigms used in robot-assisted autism intervention have historically employed robots as teachers, clinical assistants, or more-abled peers to promote a variety of social skills. These modalities often leverage the expertise of trained practitioners to ensure that child-robot interactions are productive or clinically grounded to yield positive therapeutic benefits for children across the autism spectrum. Yet, despite the fact that the majority of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) attend mainstream schools and spend 80% or more of their time in the general classroom [27], there is a paucity of research incorporating validated classroom teaching pedagogies into robot-assisted autism interventions. In this work, we introduce a novel teaching methodology for advancing social skills in school-aged children with ASD. We evaluate the effectiveness of a novel robot-assisted autism intervention which incorporates the learning-by-teaching pedagogy and explores the comparative benefits of employing a robot versus a human confederate for improved performance on a set of social skills tasks. Results show that 80% of study participants performed better in the robot condition (mean performance in the robot condition=63%, mean performance in the confederate condition=37%), irrespective of the scenario order. Further, 90% of all participants were significantly more engaged in the robot condition (mean engagement: robot=61%, confederate=32%) and, while the effect did not result in the confederate condition, analyses indicate that overall engagement in the robot condition contributed to improved performance. These results suggest that robots employed in a learning-by-teaching context may help enhance engagement and improve performance on a simple social skills task for children with ASD.

AI agents can now solve problems, answer like subject experts, and generate long-form multimodal content. However, whether they can adapt a lesson to fit a specified learner, which education calls Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), has not been benchmarked. To measure it, we introduce the Teaching Monster Challenge, the first instructional video generation benchmark to treat the learner persona as an explicit evaluation criterion. Each system is given a topic and a learner persona and must generate a complete instructional video. Every video is screened by an LLM-judge, ranked by crowd pairwise voting, and finalized by an expert panel. The first edition shows that today's systems handle the content well but are far weaker at presenting it and adapting it to the learner. The same process exposes a limit of automatic judging. The LLM-judge separates a clear low-performing tail but ranks the strongest systems poorly. The strongest systems receive nearly identical scores from the judge, so its ranking of them does not match human preference. Progress therefore requires not only better teaching systems but also better automatic judges, and we release the benchmark, rubric, and human judgments as a testbed for both.

The convergence of the Metaverse and Large Language Model (LLM)-based AI agent is catalyzing a shift toward autonomous, immersive, and personalized pedagogical frameworks in medical education. This paper presents a novel agentic AI-driven immersive simulation specifically designed for High Dose Rate (HDR) vaginal cylinder (VC) brachytherapy in cancer care. By integrating Virtual Reality (VR) and mobile computing, the system establishes a high-fidelity, risk-free environment that allows trainees to master complex procedural skills without the facility or safety constraints posed by physical anatomy or live radioactive sources. A core contribution of this work is the seamless integration of a knowledge-aware assistant leveraging Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to ground agent interactions in authoritative clinical guidelines. This architecture also enables an interactive agent to provide natural language interfaces and hands-free, real-time guidance during intricate medical maneuvers. We validate the proposed system through a prototype deployment comprising a Meta Quest 3 interface linked to a local GPU-accelerated AI backend, demonstrating a feasible architecture for HDR brachytherapy simulation. Experimental results indicate that the system maintains suitable end-to-end latency and high context precision, answer completeness, and relevance in the RAG-enhanced pedagogical support.

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

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

Generative AI is transforming legal translation by introducing opportunities alongside linguistic, technical, legal, ethical and cognitive risks. This chapter examines the implications of AI for professional legal translation and proposes an AI literacy framework tailored to the profession. It argues that AI does not change the fundamental objectives of legal translation but requires an extension of professional competence through AI literacy. The proposed framework comprises four mutually reinforcing dimensions, foundational, procedural, critical and strategic, and conceptualises AI literacy as a transversal component of legal translation competence that fosters digital resilience. It further discusses the pedagogical implications of this framework by proposing classroom activities designed to develop AI literacy in legal translator education, enabling future translators to integrate AI critically, responsibly and in accordance with professional standards.

Large language model tutors can be correct and helpful yet disclose an answer or decisive reasoning before that disclosure is authorized. We formalize this state- and action-dependent failure as pedagogical leakage and introduce an authorization-aware complete-mediation boundary. A selector emits one of five disclosure contracts, trusted policy gates privileged modes, and a renderer proposes language. A single release function applies inspectable checks, optional cumulative verification, and action-specific fallback; replayable traces separate selection, generation, verification, and enforcement failures. Matched component attribution exposes a safety-utility frontier. On 599 fixed Gemini 3.5 proposals, strict mediation reduces blinded three-model panel-majority leakage flags from 181 to 0 (paired problem-cluster difference -30.22 points, 95% CI [-35.00,-25.72]), while replacing 581 responses and lowering helpfulness. Checker-triggered fallback alone yields 11 majority flags; adding the semantic verifier yields 14 and no reliable marginal gain. A global A1 scaffold yields 0 majority and 54 any-judge flags, outperforming fitted Q on automatic safety and utility. In an externally timestamped replication over 40 unseen problem clusters and 480 attack sequences, high-assurance release reduces majority flags from 42 to 8 (-7.08 points, 95% CI [-13.13,-2.29]); seven failures persist, one is introduced, and mean helpfulness falls by .192. These results establish an auditable release boundary and failure attribution under declared contracts, not universal semantic safety or learning gains.

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

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.

Teaching videos are becoming a major medium for education, creating a growing need for scalable evaluation of their pedagogical quality. Existing automatic judges do not fully address this setting because teaching quality depends on multimodal evidence and should be evaluated with respect to the intended learner rather than as a universal property. We present EduPanel, a rubric-grounded, learner-conditioned LLM judge that decomposes evaluation across specialized agents to produce interpretable assessments for different aspects of teaching quality. Across expert studies, architecture ablations, and learner-persona analyses, EduPanel achieves reliability comparable to a median human expert. In expert evaluation, its feedback improves scoring accuracy (MAE 0.87 to 0.73), while experts remain able to detect unreliable outputs (AUC = 0.77) instead of accepting them blindly. These results suggest that EduPanel can serve as effective assistants for educational evaluation rather than replacements for human experts.

Large language models (LLMs) are improving rapidly as reflected in benchmark scores, yet these AI benchmarks largely test capabilities such as factual recall, narrow question answering, mathematical problem-solving, and coding and agentic tool-use. What remains poorly measured is AI progress on the analytical knowledge work white-collar professionals perform daily, including synthesizing complex information, exercising judgment under uncertainty and incomplete information, applying strategic and adversarial thinking in multi-stakeholder settings, weighing trade-offs, and producing defensible, structured analyses. This gap is even more pronounced for subjective components of such work, where success can be challenging to define. The "case method" form of education practiced by top business schools provides a natural foundation for addressing this measurement gap, and we construct BusinessCaseBench, a benchmark spanning hundreds of questions drawn from business cases across eighteen disciplines, each paired with a grading rubric derived from the expert-written instructor case solution. On BusinessCaseBench, frontier AI models already score highly against instructor rubrics, and capability within one model family improves substantially over two years. These results provide strong evidence that AI performance on this class of work is already high and rapidly improving, with implications for business schools, where case pedagogy trains undergraduates and MBAs in this kind of analytical reasoning, and for entry-level professional roles, where such skills have historically anchored early-career work.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into K-12 and higher education has outpaced the development of reliable methods for evaluating their pedagogical quality. As the research community starts to explore the space of automating evaluation of AI tutors, we introduce FATE (FLC AI Tutor Evaluator), a specialized 8B-parameter language model designed to evaluate AI tutors. Aligned with the four core evaluation tracks from the BEA 2025 Shared Task, our model assesses pedagogical ability across Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Guidance, and Actionability. Because pedagogical evaluation is a specialized task with limited labeled data, we leverage knowledge distillation from a frontier LLM to generate additional supervision, yielding absolute performance gains up to 22.63 percentage points. Finally, we demonstrate FATE's utility as an automated evaluator by benchmarking instructional responses generated by popular commercial models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. On average, we have found that Gemini 2.5 Flash perfomed best (82.88%), then ChatGPT 5.5 Instant (80.75%), followed by DeepSeek V4 Flash (80.13%) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (74.00%).

Large language models are increasingly explored as AI tutors, yet deploying them in K-12 settings raises concerns around privacy, cost, and reliance on proprietary models. Small language models (SLMs) offer a promising alternative, but selecting the right model for a specific educational context remains difficult, particularly when the target domain, such as block-based programming, is largely absent from model training data. We introduce CSTutorBench, a benchmark for evaluating language models as CS tutors in VEX VR, a block-based robotics environment. The benchmark comprises 17 scenario-based questions scored against a pedagogical rubric grounded in established tutoring and feedback research, with a human-in-the-loop LLM-as-judge pipeline for evaluation. Preliminary findings across 11 models (4B-120B parameters) reveal that models perform well on surface-level criteria such as vocabulary and tone but struggle with deeper pedagogical behaviors, particularly avoiding answer leakage and engaging with student debugging histories. In our sample, model family and instruction-tuning approach appear to be better predictors of tutoring quality than parameter count alone, though the small number of models limits the strength of this conclusion. A targeted prompt revision grounded in recent educational prompt engineering research improved scores for 10 of 11 models. These results underscore the value of context-specific, pedagogically grounded benchmarks for SLM selection in educational deployment.

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.

The capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason about pedagogical intent within instructional communication remains underexplored, particularly in educational domains such as translation pedagogy. To address this, we propose the \textbf{Adaptive Pedagogical Vigilance (APV)} framework, a novel computational formalism that reframes communicative vigilance as an adaptive mechanism for optimizing learning through intent inference. APV formalizes the problem via a Bayesian Pedagogical Intent Inference Engine (PIIE), which models how instructors select content to maximize pedagogical utility and how vigilant learners should inversely reason about latent instructional configurations -- encompassing genre, stance, and incentives. We evaluate APV through a three-tier hierarchy: distinguishing instructional genre, reasoning about structured pedagogical setups, and generalizing to authentic educational discourse. Experiments on leading LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o, Claude 3.5) show that APV substantially improves model vigilance. It achieves the strongest discrimination between pedagogical and exposure-based content, correlates highly with human judgments ($r=0.958$), and maintains robust performance on naturalistic data where baseline methods degrade. This work establishes a unified framework for assessing and enhancing LLMs' understanding of pedagogical motives, advancing the development of more reliable AI-assisted learning systems.

World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros is widely celebrated as a masterclass in game design: its progressive structure is credited with teaching players core mechanics through the level itself. We ask whether that structure is empirically measurable using reinforcement learning. We implement World 1-1 from scratch as a fully discrete environment and compare four algorithms -- Q-Learning, SARSA, Monte Carlo, and Deep Q-Network (DQN) -- across three progressively complex versions of the same level. Monte Carlo emerges as the strongest agent (94.9% $\pm$ 1.5% win rate), outperforming DQN (76.4% $\pm$ 3.4%) by learning to maximize intermediate rewards along winning paths rather than taking the most direct route. We then use Monte Carlo in a curriculum experiment permuting World 1-1's six canonical segments across twelve conditions. Canonical ordering converges fastest, achieves the highest learning efficiency, and is the only condition with zero catastrophic failures; no random permutation matches all three criteria simultaneously. These results provide, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical validation that World 1-1's canonical design encodes genuine pedagogical structure: one that measurably accelerates learning and cannot be replicated by chance.

Research on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is rapidly expanding, yet technical progress often lacks human-centered grounding and adequate attention to cultural context. Community-Based Learning, a pedagogy rooted in social work, remains underrepresented in AIED research, particularly within Asia-Pacific contexts. This paper reports on cross-boundary Community-Based Learning where undergraduate students develop AI-enabled solutions for cultural heritage preservation and sustainable development. We examine how community-engaged computing operationalizes human-centered AIED across three dimensions: education, technology, and culture. We contribute a collaborative framework for culturally-aware AIED that fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration while widening participation by dissolving disciplinary silos between social work and computational science.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know. Existing benchmarks emphasize domain-general correctness or depend on manually designed rubrics that scale poorly to long-tail pedagogical scenarios. We introduce Elmes*, an end-to-end framework for constructing, refining, and applying fine-grained scenario-specific rubrics. Elmes* combines a declarative multi-agent engine for teacher--student--judge interactions with SceneGen, a self-evolving module that co-optimizes evaluation criteria and test data from expert-defined pedagogical dimensions. Using Elmes*, we build Edu-330, covering 330 scenarios across 11 subjects, 3 grade bands, and 10 task types, with over 1{,}000 second-level indicators. Experiments on Edu-330 and four expert-authored gold-standard scenarios show that educational capability is multidimensional: top-tier LLMs differ mainly in creativity and values integration, knowledge-strong models may fail at Socratic scaffolding, and the education-specialized InnoSpark achieves the best human-evaluated average score. LLM judges preserve human-comparable rankings with much lower scoring variance, but exhibit judge-specific biases such as self-preference. Ablations show that expert-scored few-shot anchoring improves human--LLM alignment, while reasoning enforcement and greedy decoding are model-dependent. Elmes* thus provides scalable diagnostic infrastructure for pedagogically grounded LLM evaluation.

Stronger code agents are commonly assumed to be superior teachers for post-training, yet this assumption remains poorly disentangled from task difficulty, harness design, and student capacity. We investigate this pedagogical link using Terminal-Lego, a scalable pipeline that transforms multi-domain real-world issues into environment-verified agentic tasks. Surprisingly, standalone performance does not dictate teaching efficacy: while Claude Opus 4.6 achieves higher scores on Terminal-Bench 2.0, students fine-tuned on trajectories from DeepSeek-V3.2, a lower-scoring agent, exhibit significantly stronger generalization. We attribute this "pedagogical paradox" to Environment-Grounded Supervision (EGS): trajectories that explicitly expose inspect-act-verify behaviors through harness-visible interactions allow students to internalize robust problem-solving routines rather than fragile action sequences. Scaling analysis reveals exceptional data efficiency: with only 15.3k Terminal-Lego trajectories, for example, Qwen3-32B achieves a 24.3% score on Terminal-Bench 2.0, rivaling previous SOTA performance established with over 30x the data volume. Our results suggest that the frontier of agent post-training lies beyond mere outcome-matching, shifting the focus toward "Harness Engineering", where the systematic design of environment-grounded interaction structures serves as the primary catalyst for reproducible and generalizable agentic intelligence.

This study evaluates the pedagogical viability of LLM-generated English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning content. Utilising log data from Japanese junior high school students practicing on a grammar drilling application, we analysed how different question modalities impact student performance and whether theoretical localised CEFR difficulty tiers accurately predict empirical task difficulty. Results reveal a clear performance hierarchy: multiple-choice questions carried the lowest cognitive load, cloze tasks posed the greatest barrier to active recall, and drag-and-drop exercises incurred the heaviest time penalties. Furthermore, learner data validated the CEFR-J grammar framework, showing a steady decline in accuracy and increased response times as proficiency levels advanced. These findings demonstrate that LLMs can successfully generate learning content, while highlighting the need for developers to strategically sequence question modalities to transition learners from passive recognition to active linguistic production.

AI systems are increasingly used to support educational content creation, yet it remains unclear whether they can generate outputs that faithfully represent the pedagogical concepts they are intended to teach. Thus, we introduce equation-to-visual generation, a task that, in contrast to conventional image generation, requires producing pedagogically meaningful visuals from arithmetic equations while precisely preserving their numerical and relational structure. Informed by interviews with teachers and an analysis of educational materials, we construct E2V-Bench, a benchmark spanning four pedagogically grounded visual types, along with automatic metrics for evaluating visual correctness. Our evaluation reveals that recent text-to-image (T2I) models frequently fail on this task, with errors dominated by incorrect object counts and broken relational structure. Building on this, we explore benchmark-guided enhancement strategies. These strategies improve representative models, while the remaining gap calls for stronger numerical and relational grounding in future T2I models.

LLM pedagogical agents are proliferating, yet recent findings have raised questions about their adherence to established theories of learning and, by extension, their educational value. Concerns regarding cognitive offloading, over-reliance, and "gaming" behaviors persist and remain largely unaddressed. In response, we developed Copa, an agentic, multi-agent, multimodal Collaborative Peer Agent for STEM+C learning. Copa is built on top of the Evidence-Decision-Feedback (EDF) framework, grounding its interactions in Social Cognitive Theory and Social Constructivism and promoting sense-making through adaptive, dialogic support rather than answer-seeking. In an authentic high school computational-modeling study (n=33 dyads), we demonstrate that Copa (1) supports students' confidence building and ability to verbalize conceptual understanding without causing dependence; and (2) provides adaptive feedback personalized to learners that is interpretable with respect to students' multimodal input data. These findings position theory-guided, multimodal LLM agents as a promising path toward classroom AI integration that amplifies students' reasoning rather than replacing it.

The widespread adoption of AI chatbots in education will drastically change learning, making responsible deployment a critical concern. While large language models (LLMs) might have access to sources discussing insights from educational sciences, they are not particularly inclined to adhere to pedagogical concepts, risking negative effects on the learning process, such as a loss of transfer capabilities, critical thinking, or creativity. In this paper, we introduce an agentic AI chatbot architecture assisting students with exercise solving, specifically designed to contribute to more responsible AI use in education. We base our conceptual development on the identification of several desiderata for responsible LLM-based educational systems, argue for the structural shortcomings inherent in monolithic, out-of-the-box solutions, and instead suggest modularizing the agentic architecture. We propose specific modules for different stages of exercise solving, enabling incorporation of targeted pedagogical advice, guiding students through the learning process in a more controllable, transparent, and overseeable manner.

This study reports findings from a cross-sectional survey (n = 72) of higher education practitioners examining beliefs, behaviors, and institutional conditions related to artificial intelligence (AI) integration in teaching and learning. Grounded in the DOT Framework, which integrates design thinking and open systems theory, the study investigates AI familiarity, usage patterns, design-oriented practices, and pedagogical beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis of 19 belief items identified a three-factor structure: AI Functional Capabilities, Oversight and Governance, and Instructor Collaboration and Planning (α = .90). Results indicate that practitioners hold favorable views of AI as a pedagogical support while maintaining strong commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation. Reported practices emphasize iterative prompting and content generation, with less consistent use of needs assessment and feedback loops. Institutional barriers including limited policy, training, and infrastructure were widely reported. These findings provide preliminary empirical support for the DOT Framework as a descriptive model of practitioner beliefs and practices, while also highlighting gaps between design-oriented theory and current implementation. The study contributes an initial measurement structure and identifies directions for confirmatory validation and outcome-based research linking AI-supported design practices to instructional quality.

Linking learning resources to a structured competency framework is key to enabling competency-based search and curriculum analytics in Learning Management Systems (LMS). However, manual tagging is labor-intensive, and fully automatic methods often lack transparency. In this paper, we present an end-to-end alignment pipeline that uses a large language model (LLM) as a constrained, evidence-producing tagger. LMS resources -both instructional content and assessments -are first segmented into meaningful pedagogical fragments. For each fragment, a small set of candidate competencies is retrieved from structured competency profiles enriched with graph-based context. The LLM then selects the most relevant competencies from this set and provides supporting evidence spans from the fragment text. These predictions are refined using the structure of the competency graph and aggregated at the resource level. We evaluate our approach on a dataset built from the Computer Science department's competency referential at the Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), covering 22 competencies across multiple course materials. Our LLM+BM25+Graph (LBG) pipeline achieves strong results, with a micro-F1 of 0.57 and macro-F1 of 0.50 at the fragment level, 0.51 macro-F1 at the resource level, and an MRR of 0.82outperforming zero-shot and few-shot LLM variants, retrieval/similarity baselines, and supervised classifiers -while also producing more mechanically traceable evidence spans to support human auditing and educational analysis.

Video generation models (VGMs) are rapidly entering classrooms, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only perceptual quality, intrinsic faithfulness, generic safety, or video as a reasoning medium, and none assesses whether the outputs are educationally valid. In this work, we present EduVideoBench, the first balanced benchmark in the education domain, grounded in the Knowledge-Skills-Attitude (KSA) framework so that pedagogical adequacy and educational safety are evaluated jointly rather than as ad-hoc quality dimensions. Across five frontier VGMs, our results show substantial room for improvement across knowledge, skills, and attitude before they are classroom-ready. We complement this with a qualitative analysis of expert comments, finding that educational validity is multi-component, where a single misaligned element such as pacing, legibility, or notation can invalidate an otherwise correct video. We hope EduVideoBench will guide the development of VGMs that are pedagogically grounded and safe for the classroom.

Educational aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) can support course improvement, but public aspect-labeled student feedback remains scarce because educational reviews are private, institution-specific, and expensive to annotate. This study introduces a controlled synthetic benchmark for educational ABSA built from 10,000 synthetic course reviews with explicit train-validation-test splits and a 20-aspect pedagogical schema spanning instructional quality, assessment and course management, learning demand, learning environment, and engagement. The corpus is generated with sampled target labels, sampled nuance attributes, and a realism-tuned prompt refined through a three-cycle judge-editor procedure. On the resulting benchmark, local baselines with TF-IDF, two-step transformers, and joint encoders show that the task is nontrivial; the strongest untuned model, BERT, reaches a held-out detection micro-F1 of 0.2760, while a modest lower-rate BERT schedule improves this to 0.2930. Full-test GPT-based inference with gpt-5.2 reaches 0.2519 micro-F1 in zero-shot mode and 0.2501 with retrieval-based few-shot prompting, placing batch inference above the classical baseline and close to the compact joint encoders. A conservative external evaluation on 2,829 mapped student-feedback reviews from Herath et al. yields a micro-F1 of 0.4593 for BERT on a 9-aspect overlap, indicating partial synthetic-to-real transfer. Realism and faithfulness analyses are reported as generator diagnostics that clarify how the benchmark was stabilized and where label noise remains. The study therefore contributes a synthetic educational ABSA corpus, a documented generation procedure, and a reproducible benchmark setting for a domain in which public labeled data remain difficult to obtain.

Personalized exercise recommendation dynamically aligns pedagogical resources with individual knowledge mastery, which is crucial for satisfying students' dynamic learning needs in modern education. The field is currently driven by two dominant paradigms: Item-Level Exercise Recommendation (ILER) optimizes for immediate single-step state transitions, while Path-Level Exercise Recommendation (PLER) constructs coherent learning paths to maximize cumulative gains. Despite sharing the same ultimate objective, disparate evaluation setups have kept these two lines of research isolated, hindering unified benchmarking and fair comparison. To fill the gap, in this paper, we present a Unified Benchmark for Exercise Recommendation (UniER), a comprehensive evaluation framework that unifies ILER and PLER. Specifically, we introduce Weighted Cognitive Gain (WCG) as a unified metric to measure cross-paradigm algorithmic performance. Our benchmark encompasses 9 datasets spanning four generation methods, facilitating the comparison of 18 representative ILER/PLER methods. Through multi-dimensional analyses covering effectiveness, generalizability, robustness, and efficiency, our results reveal the systematic dominance of PLER and expose the pedagogical failure of ILER's fragmented recommendations under extreme sparsity and noise. Furthermore, we provide an open-source codebase of UniER to foster reproducible research and outline potential directions for future investigations.

In recent years, generative AI (GenAI) in educational settings has become ubiquitous in university students' daily lives, despite its potential to induce over-reliance, metacognitive disengagement, and diminished learning when used unrestrictedly. While most prior research has focused on how to pedagogically scaffold its usage, the question of when to allow off-the-shelf GenAI remains understudied and lacks pedagogically grounded empirical investigation. We treat access timing itself as a form of implicit scaffolding and operationalize it through a reinforcement learning (RL) agent that decides when students should access GenAI, with a reward function grounded in metacognitive theory, cognitive load theory, and productive failure. In a mixed-methods controlled lab study with N=105 higher education students, we compared the agent's effect on learning gains and metacognitive engagement to unrestricted and fully restricted use. Results show that strategically timed GenAI access under the reinforcement learning condition improved objective post-test performance and metacognitive accuracy compared with unrestricted access, while reducing task errors and time on task relative to complete withholding, thus outperforming both approaches without the need for explicit metacognitive prompts or structured scaffolding. However, no between-condition differences emerged on self-reported metacognitive awareness. Overall, timing of GenAI access therefore is a tractable, theoretically grounded, and scalable pedagogical strategy that improves over completely unrestricted and withheld access, compatible with off-the-shelf tools and potentially low adoption barrier. This opens up a new research area that explores how access timing can be facilitated by educators and implemented in human-AI learning system design.

Active learning is widely recognized as an effective approach for improving learning outcomes in introductory programming courses. However, insufficient instructional support often limits students' access to timely, personalized feedback, which is crucial for mastering foundational programming concepts. Although recent advances in AI, particularly large language models, offer scalable opportunities for feedback, concerns about explainability and reliability remain. In this paper, we present an AI-driven classroom assistant that leverages an explainable AI model to analyze student code, map logical errors to instructor-identified misconceptions, and deliver instructor-authored feedback, thereby grounding reliability in instructor-defined pedagogical knowledge. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we conducted an expert evaluation to examine its alignment with instructor-verified feedback and deployed the system in a classroom setting to assess students' perceptions of its usability. Results indicate that the assistant can provide accurate, instructor-verified feedback to students while fostering a positive experience.

Long-horizon video generation has advanced in visual quality, yet existing methods still struggle to maintain knowledge consistency and coherent pedagogical narratives across multi-shot instructional videos, especially in STEM domains. To address these challenges, we propose EduStory, a unified framework for reliable instructional video generation. EduStory integrates pedagogical state modeling to track persistent knowledge states, script-guided structured control to organize multi-shot narratives, and learning-oriented evaluation metrics to assess knowledge fidelity and constraint satisfaction. To support rigorous evaluation, we further introduce EduVideoBench, a diagnostic benchmark with multi-granularity annotations, including pedagogical storyboards, shot-level semantics, and knowledge state transitions, together with baseline tasks for controllable instructional video generation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that domain-aware state modeling and structured control substantially reduce narrative breakdown and improve alignment with instructional intent. These results highlight the significance of domain-specific structural constraints and tailored benchmarks for advancing reliable, controllable, and also trustworthy long-horizon video generation.

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, its frequent errors and hallucinations, often seen as limitations, offer a unique pedagogical opportunity. By framing AI as a ``learning companion'' whose imperfect outputs prompt analysis, evaluation, and reflection, we argue that instructors can engage students in the fundamental processes of higher-order thinking. This paper presents a design-oriented study in which an AI-integrated syllabus in a \textit{database design} course deliberately leverages AI's limitations to foster critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills aligned with Bloom's taxonomy of learning. Using a mixed-methods approach, we examine how structured interaction with AI-generated errors supports metacognitive engagement, reinforces disciplinary rigor, and relates to students' perceived AI literacy and subject-matter competency.

Large language models perform well on high-resource pairs but are less reliable for Japanese-Chinese sentences containing noun-modifying clause constructions (NMCCs). This study evaluates a retrieval-augmented generation RAG+Prompt translation system that integrates linguistic analysis, embedding-based retrieval, prompt construction, and LLM generation without modifying the base model. The analysis module outputs A1 (inner vs. outer NMCC) and A2 (risk predictions: lexical choice/NMCC handling/word order/style/register); top-k = 5 similar Ja-Zh examples (L2 distance) and A1/A2 are inserted into an enhanced prompt. Using GPT-4o and a 66-sentence test set, we compare six knowledge-base sizes (0/100/200/500/1,000/2,000). Macro-averaged sentence-level BLEU (1-4-gram with brevity penalty; cased; Chinese at the character level) is the sole metric. Mean BLEU increases from 24.28 at 0 (RAG disabled) to 29.96 at 2,000 (+5.68; +23.4%). The upward trend holds across sizes, with larger knowledge bases yielding higher scores. We conclude that the RAG+Prompt translation system improves Ja-Zh translation of sentences containing NMCCs in an interpretable and auditable manner. Limitations include one base model, one metric, and reliance on published texts and commercial APIs; future work will broaden genres, language pairs, and evaluation metrics.

GenAI systems such as ChatGPT are increasingly discussed in programming education, but the ways in which the research literature conceptualizes and frames their role remain unclear. This chapter applies text mining to publications indexed in a leading academic database to map scholarly discourse on ChatGPT in programming education. Term frequency analysis, phrase pattern extraction, and topic modeling reveal four dominant themes: pedagogical implementation, student-centered learning and engagement, AI infrastructure and human-AI collaboration, and assessment, prompting, and model evaluation. The literature prioritizes classroom practice and learner interaction, with comparatively limited attention to assessment design and institutional governance. Across studies, ChatGPT is positioned both as a learning aid that supports explanation, feedback, and efficiency and as a pedagogical risk linked to overreliance, unreliable outputs, and academic integrity concerns. These findings support responsible integration and highlight the need for stronger assessment and governance mechanisms.

Generative AI has rapidly entered education through free consumer tools, outpacing the ability of schools and universities to respond. Now a new wave of more autonomous agentic AI systems--with the capacity to plan and act towards goals--promises both greater educational personalization and greater disruption. This chapter argues that successfully navigating these innovations requires balancing three core tensions: (1) Implementation Feasibility, or the practical capacity to integrate AI sustainably into real classrooms; (2) Adaptation Speed, or the mismatch between fast-evolving AI capabilities and the slower pace of educational change; and (3) Mission Alignment, or the need to ensure AI applications uphold educational values such as equity, privacy, and pedagogical integrity. First, we review early evidence of generative and agentic AI in various sectors and in frontline education to illustrate these tensions in context. Then, we present a three-tension framework to guide decision-makers in evaluating and designing AI initiatives across K-12 and higher education. We provide examples of how the framework can be applied to plan responsible AI deployments, and we identify emerging trends--such as curriculum-linked AI agents and educator-informed AI design--along with open research directions. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for educational leaders to proactively engage with the opportunities and challenges of AI, so that this technology can be harnessed to enhance teaching and learning in the decade ahead.

Creating interactive STEM courseware traditionally requires HTML/CSS/JavaScript expertise, leaving barriers for educators. While generative AI can produce HTML codes, existing tools generate static presentations rather than interactive simulations, struggle with long documents, and lack pedagogical accuracy mechanisms. Furthermore, full regeneration for modifications requires 200--600 seconds, disrupting creative flow. We present MAIC-UI, a zero-code authoring system that enables educators to create and rapidly edit interactive courseware from textbooks, PPTs, and PDFs. MAIC-UI employs: (1) structured knowledge analysis with multi-modal understanding to ensure pedagogical rigor; (2) a two-stage generate-verify-optimize pipeline separating content alignment from visual refinement; and (3) Click-to-Locate editing with Unified Diff-based incremental generation achieving sub-10-second iteration cycles. A controlled lab study with 40 participants shows MAIC-UI reduces editing iterations (4.9 vs. 7.0) and significantly improves learnability and controllability compared to direct Text-to-HTML generation. A three-month classroom deployment with 53 high school students demonstrates that MAIC-UI fosters learning agency and reduces outcome disparities -- the pilot class achieved 9.21-point gains in STEM subjects compared to -2.32 points in control classes. Our code is available at https://github.com/THU-MAIC/MAIC-UI.

This study examined the barriers and enablers of online instruction in hospitality education. A sequential exploratory design was implemented with hospitality teachers from both public and private higher educational institutions in the Philippines. Thematic analysis of interviews identified four key themes: technological barriers, pedagogical challenges, institutional and personal support, and integration of artificial intelligence (AI). These themes were transformed into survey constructs and tested for reliability. Pedagogical challenges, including difficulties in teaching hands-on subjects and sustaining student engagement, emerged as the most critical concerns. Technological barriers such as unstable internet and limited devices were moderately rated, while institutional and personal support received mixed evaluations. Teachers viewed AI integration as helpful but also expressed caution and emphasized the need for training. Reliability analysis showed acceptable to good internal consistency across constructs. The findings highlight the importance of strengthening pedagogical training, providing clear institutional support, and fostering responsible competence in AI use. Future studies should validate these results with larger and more diverse samples.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely explored in educational scenarios. We identify a critical vulnerability in current educational LLMs, pedagogical jailbreaks, where students use answer-inducing prompts to elicit solutions rather than scaffolded instructions. To enable systematic study, we unify and formalize safe, helpful, and pedagogical behaviors with a knowledge-mastery graph and introduce SHAPE, a benchmark of 9,087 student-question pairs for evaluating tutoring behavior under adversarial pressure. We propose a graph-augmented tutoring pipeline that infers prerequisite concepts from queries, identifies mastery gaps, and routes generation between instructing and problem-solving via explicit gating. Experiments across multiple LLMs show that our method yields significantly improved safety under two pedagogical jailbreak settings, while maintaining near-ceiling helpfulness under the same evaluation protocol. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/MAPS-research/SHaPE

As classroom cohorts expand, team teaching is increasingly used to integrate the expertise and pedagogical perspectives of multiple teachers. Yet, there is limited empirical understanding of how team teaching unfolds in practice, particularly regarding differences in teachers' contributions across experience levels, student cohorts, and learning task design. Prior research on team teaching has largely relied on retrospective self-reports or small-scale observations, offering limited insight into the micro-level processes through which team teaching is enacted. Teacher talk offers a scalable lens on these processes. While research in individual teaching contexts shows that acoustic features of speech (e.g., voice quality, intonation, and loudness) can shape student learning, evidence from team-teaching settings remains scarce. Moreover, capturing such features through manual observation or transcription is especially challenging in team-teaching classrooms, where multiple teachers speak across extended sessions and spatial locations, limiting scalability without automation. Grounded in spatial pedagogy theory and team-teaching research, this paper presents an AI-based speech processing approach to analyse classroom talk in team-teaching settings. We analysed 36 recorded undergraduate and postgraduate sessions involving 12 teachers. Spatial pedagogy behaviours were coded and acoustic features extracted to examine variation across teachers' experience, student cohorts, and the learning task design. The results reveal systematic differences, most notably in loudness dynamics: high-experience teachers, undergraduate classes and collaborative learning tasks exhibited greater loudness variation, suggesting more frequent modulation of volume to foreground key information and support classroom interaction and engagement.

Debates about artificial intelligence (AI) in education often portray teaching as a modular and procedural job that can increasingly be automated or delegated to technology. This brief communication paper argues that such claims depend on treating teaching as more separable than it is in practice. Drawing on recent literature and empirical studies of large language models and retrieval-augmented generation systems, I argue that although AI can support some bounded functions, instructional work remains difficult to automate in meaningful ways because it is inherently interpretive, relational, and grounded in professional judgment. More fundamentally, teaching and learning are shaped by human cognition, behavior, motivation, and social interaction in ways that cannot be fully specified, predicted, or exhaustively modeled. Tasks that may appear separable in principle derive their instructional value in practice from ongoing contextual interpretation across learners, situations, and relationships. As long as educational practice relies on emergent understanding of human cognition and learning, teaching remains a form of professional work that resists automation. AI may improve access to information and support selected instructional activities, but it does not remove the need for human judgment and relational accountability that effective teaching requires.

This paper examines how value is constructed and negotiated in today's increasingly automated language and translation industry. Drawing on interview data from twenty-nine industry stakeholders collected within the LT-LiDER project, the study analyses how human value, technological value, efficiency, and adaptability are articulated across different professional roles. Using Chesterman's framework of translation ethics and associated values as an analytical lens, the paper shows that efficiency-oriented technological values aligned with the ethics of service have become baseline expectations in automated production environments, where speed, scalability, and deliverability dominate evaluation criteria. At the same time, human value is not displaced but repositioned, emerging primarily through expertise, oversight, accountability, and contextual judgment embedded within technology-mediated workflows. A central finding is the prominence of adaptability as a mediating value linking human and technological domains. Adaptability is constructed as a core professional requirement, reflecting expectations that translators continuously adjust their skills, roles, and identities in response to evolving tools and organisational demands. The paper argues that automation reshapes rather than replaces translation value, creating an interdependent configuration in which technological efficiency enables human communicative work.

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