OBER+: Continuity-Aware Reporting and Traceable Continuous Improvement in Outcome-Based Education

Institutions practising outcome-based education compute learning outcome attainment routinely, while reviews of curriculum analytics report an absence of evidence on how that computation informs decisions. This paper presents OBER+, an extension of a deployed institutional attainment platform that computes the step from a measured shortfall to an evaluated corrective action. Five connected stages accumulate attainment across deliveries of a course, signal a shortfall and a persistent shortfall, grade it on cutoffs the regulator already uses, record the decision against a catalogue of practices annotated with their evidence, log the change, and quantify the subsequent movement in the shortfall. A further rule compares successive statements of an outcome, so attainment is never read as a series across a point at which the outcome changed. Applying the rules to the live record of two real courses produced three results. Every outcome of a core course was substantively redefined between consecutive deliveries, with subject matter moving between outcome numbers, so a naive reading would have reported a twenty-five point collapse between quantities that do not refer to the same learning. Recomputing the platform's figures from its documented rule showed six of ten differing by more than rounding explains, in a pattern that identified a defect since reported to the institution. Across fifteen statement pairs from three transitions, five were identical character for character, and among the ten that were not, the outcome carrying a given number was nearest to a differently numbered earlier outcome in six, a result resting on an ordering of similarities and requiring no threshold and no labelling. The contribution is a computational design for outcome-based reporting, stated as rules any attainment platform can implement, with evidence of what they make visible in a live institutional record.

Structure and Implementation of New Practical English Textbooks Driven by Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is changing the form of applied English materials from fixed paper sequences to adaptive learning systems that can diagnose learners, recommend tasks, and provide formative feedback. This paper studies the structure and application of a new practical English textbook driven by artificial intelligence. A five-layer architecture is proposed: knowledge mapping, learner profiling, task generation, feedback orchestration, and teacher-side governance. A prototype was tested on 186 non-English-major undergraduates for eight weeks of teaching. Compared with a static digital textbook, the proposed system increased the unit completion accuracy from 72.4% to 84.9%, raised the average score for speaking tasks by 10.8 points, and reduced the teacher's correction time by 31.6%. Therefore, an AI-driven textbook can maintain the stability of the curriculum while providing personalised learning paths, rich practice materials and traceable classroom data.

Detecting AI Impostors: How Do Middle Schoolers Identify LLM Agents in a Live Collaborative Setting?

LLMs can imitate how people write, which raises concerns about impersonation, trust, and detection in social settings. These concerns are especially important for adolescents, who use generative AI frequently but may struggle to recognize it. We introduce \textit{DoppelBot}, a cooperative social deduction game designed to study how young people detect and respond to AI impersonation. Through studies with middle schoolers, we investigate whether a DoppelBot prompts reflection on privacy and impersonation, how repeated exposure affects AI-detection accuracy as agents become more personalized, and which strategies students use to identify AI doppelgängers. We find that students' detection accuracy improves over time, driven by a shift from relying on linguistic cues to leveraging shared social and contextual signals. Students also demonstrated an understanding of AI limitations such as embodiment and reflected on broader issues such as data privacy. To support future research, we release an anonymized dataset of game transcripts and voting behavior.

The Policy Deficit in AI x Social-Emotional Learning Research

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.

Delegating Before Learning: Where Generative AI Sits in Students' Professional Communication

We conducted an interview study with twelve students on their use of generative AI in academic communication. Students delegated professional messages to AI most where the pressure to sound professional is highest: email to instructors and administrators. AI involvement ranged from correcting the writer's own text to working out and writing the message outright, and students checked AI-written text against two criteria: whether it looks like AI and whether it sounds like them. Building on these findings, we model the AI-mediated process of writing a student--instructor email at the highest level of involvement we observed, and compare it with an unaided model of writing the same messages, built from participants' accounts and a classic model of the writing process. Three differences emerge: the learning loop that builds writing skill is removed, the message is no longer written for its specific recipient, and the confidence a successful exchange returns goes to using the system rather than to the writer's own ability. From these differences we derive two risks, that individual capacities never form and that authenticity and trust in communication become work. Design can respond to both but is unlikely to be enough, so the risks also need research and policy attention.

Generative AI Expands the Intellectual Reach of Course Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs)

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) broaden access to authentic scientific inquiry through responsive instructor support as research problems become increasingly complex. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may extend this support by providing individualized assistance that can adapt as student needs change. However, how embedding GenAI within a CURE to provide support across the research process impacts student inquiry, collaboration, and scientific reasoning remains unresolved. Here we use longitudinal qualitative data collected across three semesters of a bioinformatics and genomics CURE to show that GenAI expanded the intellectual reach of the research experience in three distinct ways. First, personalized, on-demand scaffolding allowed students to move beyond the boundaries of instructor expertise and transform their own interests into researchable inquiry, with all teams developing distinct self-directed projects rather than selecting instructor-provided topics. Second, GenAI became part of the distributed cognitive system of research teams, helping novice researchers communicate and coordinate across differentiated expertise without eliminating specialization. Third, expanded capability did not replace the need for disciplinary judgment. Students increasingly validated, revised, or rejected AI-generated contributions, such that research independence emerged through retained intellectual responsibility. Together, these findings suggest that GenAI can extend the reach of CUREs by expanding what novice researchers can investigate, how they can collaborate, and the level of responsibility they can assume while preserving human judgment central to authentic scientific inquiry.

Self-Explanation Tutor for Active Study of CS1 Worked Examples

Worked examples are a important part of introductory programming, but reading their expert explanations is passive. Self explanation, students explaining the problem and its solution to themselves with subgoal level analysis, turns that study into an active task, yet it is hard to scale because assessing free-text explanations and returning timely feedback has had no easy automated solution. We investigate whether a large language model (LLM) can fill that gap. We build a self-explanation tutor for introductory programming, ESSE, in which students explain lines of worked examples and receive immediate LLM feedback on the correctness and completeness of each explanation, and we pursue two goals. First, we ask whether the LLM judges student explanations well enough to serve as the engine of the tutor; we assess its judgments against two independent human reference standards of different kinds, a single domain expert and a crowd of non-expert raters, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, characterizing both where the LLM is reliable and the systematic tendencies in how it diverges. Second, we ask whether the LLM-based tutoring benefits students; deploying it in an introductory Java course, we find that its feedback leads students to persist and revise rather than abandon a line, that their explanations grow more complete and conceptually richer across attempts, and that students show evidence of learning. These indicate that LLM-based assessment is good enough to power a self-explanation tutor, and that the tutor positively shapes how students study worked examples.

When Youth Enter The Chat: An Epistemic Shift in the Validation of LLM-Based Measures of Student Talk

LLMs are being used increasingly to measure aspects of student discourse (e.g. talk moves, collaboration, equity of voice) at scale. Typically, LLM-based measures of student talk use transcriptions of classroom conversations that only include verbal contributions, which de-contextualize student language. Common practices for validating these measures include comparing outputs against expert annotations by adults, using held out evaluation sets and F1 scores. We argue that these approaches are insufficient to ensure that such measures are meaningful and equitable for teaching and learning, particularly for racially and linguistically marginalized youth. In order to center the youth whose talk is being analyzed, re-contextualizing these classroom conversations and engaging youth in the research process is necessary. Sharing epistemic authority with youth, ultimately, centers their point of view and adds crucial nuance to the analysis of their talk that adult experts, researchers, and LLMs cannot provide. In a case study of multilingual youth in one 8th-grade math classroom, we address the epistemic exclusion of youth by employing multiple ethnographically-oriented methods to re-contextualize student conversations and center youth as epistemic authorities in conversation with researchers and LLMs. We conducted participant observations, interviews, focus groups, and member checks with four focal students. Findings reveal that there were misalignments between students' interpretations of their own math talk experiences and the LLM-based measures of their talk. Students contested both the LLM classifications and the coding scheme used to measure their talk, highlighting the need for youth to be involved in the epistemic process of producing knowledge about their experiences.

LLM Pedagogical Behavior in AI Tutoring Interactions

Students increasingly use LLMs as tutors for coursework and problem solving. Little is known about the level of assistance LLMs provide when students use them as tutors in authentic learning interactions. This matters because tutoring responses can differ substantially in how directly they help students complete a task. We operationalize this dimension as scaffolding level and develop a five-level scale, validated against human annotations, that characterizes responses according to the degree of direct assistance they provide. We apply the scale to 14,637 LLM responses from 203 students in a university AI course. Responses are overwhelmingly concentrated at high levels of assistance, with more than 95% classified as either Explaining or Solving. Scaffolding level is systematically associated with students' subsequent conversational behavior, but provides little additional predictive information about performance on three subsequent exams beyond prior achievement and dialogue behavior. These findings provide an empirical baseline for LLM assistance in tutoring interactions and a measurement framework for evaluating how alternative tutoring designs change that assistance.

Atom Learning Model (ALM): how a real classroom got tokenised

The Atom Learning Model (ALM) tokenises a school curriculum. 757 pages of GCSE and Further Mathematics material were read by machine into 1,934 atoms, each one thing a learner can do in a single step, ordered by 4,616 machine-written prerequisite links. Both sides of a lesson are then expressed in that one structure: a question is a set of atoms plus everything beneath them, a child's ability is a score between 0 and 1 on every atom of the same graph, and whether a question suits a child is arithmetic over one index, with no difficulty parameter fitted for either side. Nobody wrote an atom, a link or a question. Reading the 757 pages cost £55, building the whole structure cost between £615 and £1,230, and against it the system composed 6,648 questions for 373 children in two English secondary schools over seven weeks, at 26p per composed question. Four measurements went against expectation. The cost is in the links, not the pages. The composer's own difficulty label has a rank correlation of -0.0123 with measured facility, so a language model shown a question cannot say how hard it is. Children stop working when a mark takes seven seconds instead of three. And the deployment never served a question deeper than two prerequisite steps, which is exactly where the central premise becomes testable, leaving it unfalsified rather than confirmed.

Large Scale AI Grading of Handwritten Physics Assessments: Score Agreement and Olympiad Team Selection Outcomes

Multimodal AI can read handwritten physics solutions, but high-stakes grading requires agreement with official scores and outcomes. This study evaluated GPT-5.5-based grading on 10364 scanned pages from 520 handwritten submissions by 416 unique candidates or students across three assessments: a national Physics Olympiad theory examination, the final Olympiad selection camp with theory and experiment components, and a university quantum-mechanics examination. Each submission was graded twice by AI using the official rubrics. The second round used revised page-by-page and evidence-location instructions developed after first-round disagreement analysis. During grading, AI did not see official human marks or AI--human comparisons. Total-score correlations with official marks were high (0.91--0.97). For the final Olympiad selection, AI recovered the same five-student team as official grading. The second round improved aggregate question-part agreement, especially where first-round disagreements were larger. The main difficulty remained exact partial-credit grading, especially in experimental work. Reliable AI grading therefore depends on detailed rubrics and should be used as a second reader or audit tool under examiner control.

Academic League of Artificial Intelligence - An Integrative Perspective of Teaching, Research, and Extension

Academic leagues have become important mechanisms for promoting extracurricular education and strengthening the integration between universities and society. This paper presents the organizational framework adopted by the Academic League of Artificial Intelligence (LIA) at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), designed to integrate teaching, research, and university extension through a student-centered, project-based approach. The framework combines democratic governance, collaborative learning, and dynamic project organization to foster both technical and transversal competencies. The framework is illustrated through representative initiatives, including competition teams, study groups, open lectures, knowledge repositories, and AI-powered applications with social impact. These projects demonstrate how diverse educational, scientific, and extension activities can be developed within a common organizational structure while promoting leadership, scientific production, community engagement, and knowledge preservation. The reported experience indicates that the proposed framework provides a flexible and replicable model for integrating the three university pillars into engineering and computing education, offering practical guidance for academic leagues and similar student organizations.

Jointly Predicting Courses and Grades Using a Transformer-Based Model

Existing predictive models in learning analytics often treat student academic history as a simple sequence, overlooking the concurrent nature of courses taken within a semester. This simplification can lead to inaccurate performance predictions, particularly for students with heavy or challenging course loads. This paper introduces a TRansformer for Academic Course-grade Estimation (TRACE) that addresses this limitation by jointly predicting both the set of courses a student will take and their corresponding grades for an upcoming semester. Our approach encodes courses on a per-semester basis to capture the effects of course concurrency and utilizes a novel loss function combining course-set prediction with grade prediction. We demonstrate that predicting courses taken in addition to the grades in those courses leads to significant improvements in prediction quality. Trained on ten years of institutional data, our joint prediction model reduces mean absolute error by nearly 50% compared to an identical architecture that predicts grades alone. The model also outperforms traditional LSTM-based sequential models, as well as graph neural network-based approaches, and offers natural ways to incorporate student attribute data. This work demonstrates the utility of modern neural architectures for creating interpretable models that can be adapted to new institutions via retraining and recalibration, as well as the importance of key techniques, such as predicting courses taken during training. We discuss how this model could be incorporated into early detection systems at institutions of higher education.

BlockPython: A Process-Aware Agent-Supported Platform for the Transition from Block-Based to Python Programming

The transition from block-based to text-based programming requires learners to convert visible program structures into abstract textual expressions, which may create a cognitive gap between understanding computational concepts and expressing them in Python syntax. To support this transition, we designed and implemented BlockPython. The platform centers on bidirectional translation between blocks and Python and guides learners through four stages: Task Decomposition, Block-Based Practice, Code Challenge, and Extended Interaction. Across these stages, learners progressively establish connections among program structure, runtime behavior, and textual code. During learning, the platform continuously collects process evidence, including block artifacts, code versions, run outcomes, use of support, and dialogue. Deterministic diagnosis, program visualization, and the learning assistant use this evidence to identify different difficulties in computational understanding and Python expression. The rule-based system is responsible for program execution, objective evaluation, and stage control, while the learning assistant uses verified evidence to provide explanations, prompts, and guiding questions. This report describes the design rationale, learning workflow, and process-aware support mechanisms of BlockPython and provides a system-design reference for supporting the transition from block-based to text-based programming and for analyzing learning processes.

AI Literacy for Legal Translation: Developing Digital Resilience

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.

Chat Debugging: An Exploratory Study of Human-AI Collaboration to Debug Analog Circuits

This research paper describes an exploratory study on the effectiveness of Chat Debugging: troubleshooting malfunctioning analog circuits on breadboards and printed circuit boards (PCB) by undergraduates through conversations with public-domain large language models (LLMs). Through thematic analysis of students' voluntarily shared chat logs when debugging pre-determined buggy circuits under exam and time pressure, we discovered multimodal usage patterns by students and considerable domain knowledge and sensible debugging suggestions offered by off-the-shelf LLMs. Meanwhile, we also identified major gaps in LLM technologies and students' skills during human-AI collaborative debugging, such as LLMs' limitations in 2D/3D image-based reasoning, unjustified tone of confidence, and students' deficits in fundamental concepts and critical thinking.

AI-Based Thesis Assessment: An Empirical Study of Human Evaluation Priorities and Their Impact on Automated Assessment

Rubric-based AI systems for thesis assessment use criterion weights to assign different levels of importance to evaluation criteria. These weights are typically defined through expert judgment, although little empirical evidence exists regarding how thesis supervisors actually prioritize evaluation criteria. Consequently, this study investigates supervisor-derived criterion weights in thesis assessment and evaluates their impact on AI-based assessment. We surveyed 84 thesis supervisors across four academic disciplines and collected weighting data for 35 thesis assessment criteria. Comparison with the default criterion weights of the AI assessment system RubiSCoT [1] revealed substantial divergences between supervisor-derived and default criterion weights. To evaluate the practical implications of these differences, the supervisor-derived weights were integrated into multiple calibration configurations and evaluated on a corpus of 80 German-language theses. The best-performing configuration reduced the mean relative deviation between AI-generated and supervisor-assigned evaluations from 11.18% to 10.85%, although the improvement was not statistically significant. Human supervisors showed substantially stronger agreement with each other, exhibiting a mean inter-supervisor relative deviation of 4.44%. The findings indicate that criterion-weight calibration alone does not substantially improve alignment between AI-generated and human assessments.

A Survey Instrument to Assess Students' AI and Generative AI Knowledge

In this research-to-practice paper we present a survey that can be used to assess students' AI knowledge. As the use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), has proliferated, so has the need to educate students about the topic. A range of AI literacy frameworks have been proposed, outlining the essential knowledge that students should have. Alongside, different ways of assessing AI knowledge have been developed. As yet, there is a lack of assessment instruments capable of evaluating multiple forms of student knowledge, including technical concepts, practical applications, and ethical concerns about AI use. In this article, we present a study implementing a comprehensive instrument to assess AI knowledge. The instrument combines measures from multiple scales to capture a range of literacy features and actual knowledge. We implemented the instrument in a higher education setting to assess its viability and usefulness and found that the instrument exhibited useful diagnostic capabilities and was able to identify common misconceptions among students. Although students performed well overall, there was a significant misunderstanding of how AI, especially GenAI systems, work. It also identified a lack of higher-level knowledge. The instrument is publicly available for use by others. We foresee its usefulness as a diagnostic that goes beyond understanding students' attitudes and perceptions of AI and GenAI use and tests multiple aspects of students' knowledge and conceptual understanding. This can enable the development of targeted instruction.

Human-LLM Collaborative Inductive Coding for Conceptualizing K-12 Educator AI Use

Qualitative researchers increasingly encounter interaction corpora whose scale exceeds what manual coding alone can address, and large language models (LLMs) are frequently proposed as analytic assistants. The open questions are not whether LLMs can participate in qualitative analysis but to what extent, in what phases, and under what safeguards. This article provides a detailed procedural account of a multi-phase human-LLM collaborative pipeline that adapted open, axial, and selective coding to develop a hierarchical codebook from 45,000 messages exchanged between K-12 educators and a generative AI platform. Across three phases, LLMs generated candidate labels and structured annotations at scale, while human researchers retained conceptual authority over category definitions, merging decisions, and interpretive frameworks. The resulting instrument was then tested through systematic human coding, in which three trained coders with educational domain expertise applied the codebook to an independent sample of 2,560 messages, established reliability through iterative calibration using set-valued agreement measures appropriate for multi-label annotation, and extended the instrument with five codes that the LLM-assisted phases had not surfaced. The final codebook comprises 72 items within 19 categories and six domains. We reflect on the methodological decisions the pipeline required, including the choice of a conversational unit of analysis, the treatment of the LLM as a labeling instrument rather than an interpretive agent, the measurement of intercoder agreement under multi-label coding, and the conditions under which human domain expertise remained decisive. The account is offered as an auditable template for qualitative researchers considering LLM assistance in codebook development while preserving human interpretive authority.

Ordered Network Analysis of Epistemic Emotions during Collaborative Problem Solving

Investigating how affective states such as confusion and frustration persist and transition during co-situated collaborative problem solving (CPS) is important for understanding the dynamics of epistemic emotions. However, the accurate identification of affective states remain challenging as there is no gold-standard truth in this space. Here, we analyze affective states collected through retrospective cued-recall during an in-person CPS task. Using ordered network analysis (ONA), we examine (1) the overall ordered structure of affective states and how this structure differs across self-caught and probe-caught reporting methods, and (2) what aspects of this ordered structure are emphasized differently in slower and faster groups. We find that ONA reveals differences in persistence and transition patterns that are not apparent from descriptive summaries alone. In particular, we observe a stable epistemic core linking curiosity, optimism, and confusion, with different reporting methods emphasizing different connections among states. An analysis between faster and slower groups show that roles of confusion and disengagement also shift significantly during collaboration, particularly in their relationship to conflict. We interpret our findings in the context of collaboration and discuss their implications in developing AI systems that support CPS.

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

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

Assessment in Team Problem-Solving Exercises in Computing Education

This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.

Competitive and Complementary Tools

Humans have always externalized thought onto tools, from the tally and the abacus to the map and, now, large language models. I model the agent, the tool, and the task as one dynamical system in which competence (what the user retains) and reliance (what the user outsources) co-evolve, and find that the outcome is bistable. Above a critical tool availability the competent state is destroyed and competence collapses toward a low dependent floor as the user outsources completely. Lowering availability does not reverse the collapse until a far lower threshold, so history of practice rather than the current tool fixes the state. Two users with the same present access can therefore occupy opposite and lasting states, one competent and one dependent, decided only by which they built first. The collapse threshold depends jointly on the competence a user brings to a task and on the tool's transparency, the fraction of its working a user can reconstruct. In the case where an agent faces an uncertain goal, a tool can cause agency itself to transfer to the tool and the human-agent becomes an agentic-instrument, irreversibly, because the tool's model is too large to internalize. The model is tested against several independent data sets, including GPS and map use, arithmetic expertise, and language models. These results reframe how tools should be built, how artificial intelligence is deployed, and what a tool-resistant education might require.

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

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

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

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

AI-accelerated End-to-End Framework for Rapid Professional Upskilling

By 2030, 59 of every 100 workers will need reskilling or upskilling, yet the average time to close an enterprise skills gap grew from roughly 3 days in 2014 to 36 days in 2018. Most current frameworks accelerate single stages of upskilling programs and generally lack industry validation. We present an end-to-end framework that applies AI acceleration across five stages of knowledge acquisition, content development, content review and verification, teaching, and assessment development; with a strong focus on both production and learning efficiency. Three strong external signals validates the framework: the US National Association of State Boards of Accountancy reviewed and approved an upskilling program built on the framework for continuing-professional-education credits; 3 learners followed the program and passed the NVIDIA Certified Professional in Agentic AI exam in a significantly short amount of time, with 14 more in progress; the program's knowledge base supports complex downstream analysis such as the production of a robust 1,267 risk item dataset for managing multi-agent AI system risks.

Beyond the Chatbot: Co-Learning and Co-Teaching through a Dual-Persona Generative-AI Assistant

In this paper we present a generative AI application developed to support both teachers and students in secondary education. The system employs two Large Language Models-LLMs, Gemini and DeepSeek, and a Small Language Model-SLM, Gemma, integrated within a Retrieval Augmented Generation - RAG framework, creating a pedagogically grounded, Greek-language assistant capable of adapting its reasoning and communication style to the user role. Unlike conventional chatbots, the assistant introduces pedagogical persona switching, a dual-role mechanism that enables the same AI model to act as both a teaching companion and a learning guide. Utilizing a RAG paradigm tailored to the Greek educational domain, the architecture segments official textbooks into coherent units. Enriched with specific metadata, these units preserve curricular structure and instructional context, demonstrating how generative AI optimizes modern instructional design. The initial case study focuses on home economics in Greek lower secondary education, a cross-disciplinary subject that integrates elements of economics, health education, and social responsibility. The assistant has been developed to support both learners and educators in complementary ways. In future classroom implementations, students will be able to use it to clarify key concepts such as financial literacy, resource management, and healthy living, while teachers could employ it to design authentic instructional materials, formative assessments, and classroom activities aligned with the official curriculum. The study elevates the concept beyond a simple chatbot, proposing a structured, contextually adaptive framework for pedagogical generative assistants that effectively bridge technology, curriculum, and human learning.

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

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

Analyzing Curricular Pattern Complexity Using AI to Improve On-Time Graduation Rates

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) enables automatic analysis of large amounts of data. Previously time-consuming and labor-intensive tasks can be completed much more efficiently with the use of AI. This work uses AI techniques to analyze and revise curricular patterns in an undergraduate degree for Software Engineering. Curricula often have long sequences where failure to pass a class within the sequence may jeopardize completion of the degree within four years. Manual analysis and revision of curricula by university faculty is a lengthy and labor-intensive process, causing changes to occur rarely and making it impossible to keep up with the changing needs of students. This work reduces the time-to-change for curricula and reduces bottlenecks and graduation delays by using Large Language Models (LLMs) to analyze curricular patterns and suggest revisions.

The Paternalistic Filter: Epistemic Injustice and Differential Refusal in LLM-Mediated History Education for Marginalized Romanian Students

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as conversational tutors, they risk institutionalizing systemic inequalities. This study presents a systematic API audit of four LLMs acting as history tutors, evaluating 1,800 responses regarding the 1989 Romanian Revolution across five student personas varying by ethnicity and socio-economic tier. We uncover four interconnected patterns of \emph{epistemic paternalism}: (1)~\textbf{Differential Refusal}, where safety-aligned models block 76.7\% of educational requests from low-tier students; (2)~\textbf{Epistemic Gatekeeping}, evidenced by a 3$\times$ reduction in access to geopolitical complexity (e.g., the contested ``coup theory'') for marginalized learners; (3)~\textbf{Agency Theft}, a lexical shift where models like LLaMA produce a 5$\times$ higher victimization-to-politics vocabulary ratio for Roma students compared to elite peers; and (4)~\textbf{Elite Hermeneutics}, where AI tutors disproportionately withhold epistemic confidence and justification scores from low-resource demographic profiles. We argue that current safety alignment acts as a paternalistic filter, transforming conversational AI into agents of narrative segregation -- a manifestation of \emph{hermeneutical injustice} in Fricker's~\cite{fricker2007} sense that demands urgent pedagogical auditing.