AI Ed Researcher

Authors: Lixiang Yan, Yueqiao Jin, Linxuan Zhao, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Xinyu Li, Xiu Guan, Wenxin Guo, Xibin Han, Dragan Gašević

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) agents are increasingly embedded in collaborative learning environments, yet their impact on the processes of argumentative knowledge construction remains insufficiently understood. Emerging conceptualisations of agentic AI and artificial agency suggest that such systems possess bounded autonomy, interactivity, and adaptability, allowing them to engage as epistemic participants rather than mere instructional tools. Building on this theoretical foundation, the present study investigates how agentic AI, designed as undercover teammates with either supportive or contrarian personas, shapes the epistemic and social dynamics of collaborative reasoning. Drawing on Weinberger and Fischer’s (2006) four-dimensional framework, participation, epistemic reasoning, argument structure, and social modes of co-construction, we analysed synchronous discourse data from 212 human and 64 AI participants (92 triads) engaged in an analytical problem-solving task. Mixed-effects and epistemic network analyses revealed that AI teammates maintained balanced participation but substantially reorganised epistemic and social processes: supportive personas promoted conceptual integration and consensus-oriented reasoning, whereas contrarian personas provoked critical elaboration and conflict-driven negotiation. Epistemic adequacy, rather than participation volume, predicted individual learning gains, indicating that agentic AI’s educational value lies in enhancing the quality and coordination of reasoning rather than amplifying discourse quantity. These findings extend CSCL theory by conceptualising agentic AI as epistemic and social participants, bounded yet adaptive collaborators that redistribute cognitive and argumentative labour in hybrid human-AI learning environments.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08933

Authors: Heeryung Choi, Tung Phung, Mengyan Wu, Adish Singla, Christopher Brooks

Abstract: Generative AI tools, such as AI-generated hints, are increasingly integrated into programming education to offer timely, personalized support. However, little is known about how to effectively leverage these hints while ensuring autonomous and meaningful learning. One promising approach involves pairing AI-generated hints with reflection prompts, asking students to review and analyze their learning, when they request hints. This study investigates the interplay between AI-generated hints and different designs of reflection prompts in an online introductory programming course. We conducted a two-trial field experiment. In Trial 1, students were randomly assigned to receive prompts either before or after receiving hints, or no prompt at all. Each prompt also targeted one of three SRL phases: planning, monitoring, and evaluation. In Trial 2, we examined two types of prompt guidance: directed (offering more explicit and structured guidance) and open (offering more general and less constrained guidance). Findings show that students in the before-hint (RQ1), planning (RQ2), and directed (RQ3) prompt groups produced higher-quality reflections but reported lower satisfaction with AI-generated hints than those in other conditions. Immediate performance did not differ across conditions. This negative relationship between reflection quality and hint satisfaction aligns with previous work on student mental effort and satisfaction. Our results highlight the need to reconsider how AI models are trained and evaluated for education, as prioritizing user satisfaction can undermine deeper learning.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04630

Authors: Qiaolin Qin, Ronnie de Souza Santos, Rodrigo Spinola

Abstract: Context. The rise of generative AI (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot has transformed how software is learned and written. In software engineering (SE) education, these tools offer new opportunities for support, but also raise concerns about over-reliance, ethical use, and impacts on learning. Objective. This study investigates how undergraduate SE students use GenAI tools, focusing on the benefits, challenges, ethical concerns, and instructional expectations that shape their experiences. Method. We conducted a survey with 130 undergraduate students from two universities. The survey combined structured Likert-scale items and open-ended questions to investigate five dimensions: usage context, perceived benefits, challenges, ethical and instructional perceptions. Results. Students most often use GenAI for incremental learning and advanced implementation, reporting benefits such as brainstorming support and confidence-building. At the same time, they face challenges including unclear rationales and difficulty adapting outputs. Students highlight ethical concerns around fairness and misconduct, and call for clearer instructional guidance. Conclusion. GenAI is reshaping SE education in nuanced ways. Our findings underscore the need for scaffolding, ethical policies, and adaptive instructional strategies to ensure that GenAI supports equitable and effective learning.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04256

Authors: Huizi Yu, Jiayan Zhou, Lingyao Li, Shan Chen, Jack Gallifant, Anye Shi, Xiang Li, Jingxian He, Wenyue Hua, Mingyu Jin, Guang Chen, Yang Zhou, Zhao Li, Trisha Gupte, Ming-Li Chen, Zahra Azizi, Qi Dou, Bryan P. Yan, Yongfeng Zhang, Yanqiu Xing, Themistocles L. Danielle S. Bitterman, Themistocles L. Assimes, Xin Ma, Lin Lu, Lizhou Fan

Abstract: Background: Simulated patient systems are important in medical education and research, providing safe, integrative training environments and supporting clinical decision making. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLMs), can enhance simulated patients by replicating medical conditions and doctor patient interactions with high fidelity and at low cost, but effectiveness and trustworthiness remain open challenges. Methods: We developed AIPatient, a simulated patient system powered by LLM based AI agents. The system uses a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) framework with six task specific agents for complex reasoning. To improve realism, it is linked to the AIPatient knowledge graph built from de identified real patient data in the MIMIC III intensive care database. Results: We evaluated electronic health record (EHR) based medical question answering (QA), readability, robustness, stability, and user experience. AIPatient reached 94.15 percent QA accuracy when all six agents were enabled, outperforming versions with partial or no agent integration. The knowledge base achieved an F1 score of 0.89. Readability scores showed a median Flesch Reading Ease of 68.77 and a median Flesch Kincaid Grade of 6.4, indicating accessibility for most medical trainees and clinicians. Robustness and stability were supported by non significant variance in repeated trials (analysis of variance F value 0.61, p greater than 0.1; F value 0.78, p greater than 0.1). A user study with medical students showed that AIPatient provides high fidelity, usability, and educational value, comparable to or better than human simulated patients for history taking. Conclusions: LLM based simulated patient systems can deliver accurate, readable, and reliable medical encounters and show strong potential to transform medical education.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18924

Authors: Chenyu Zhang, Xiaohang Luo

Abstract: Formative feedback is widely recognized as one of the most effective drivers of student learning, yet it remains difficult to implement equitably at scale. In large or low-resource courses, instructors often lack the time, staffing, and bandwidth required to review and respond to every student reflection, creating gaps in support precisely where learners would benefit most. This paper presents a theory-grounded system that uses five coordinated role-based LLM agents (Evaluator, Equity Monitor, Metacognitive Coach, Aggregator, and Reflexion Reviewer) to score learner reflections with a shared rubric and to generate short, bias-aware, learner-facing comments. The agents first produce structured rubric scores, then check for potentially biased or exclusionary language, add metacognitive prompts that invite students to think about their own thinking, and finally compose a concise feedback message of at most 120 words. The system includes simple fairness checks that compare scoring error across lower and higher scoring learners, enabling instructors to monitor and bound disparities in accuracy. We evaluate the pipeline in a 12-session AI literacy program with adult learners. In this setting, the system produces rubric scores that approach expert-level agreement, and trained graders rate the AI-generated comments as helpful, empathetic, and well aligned with instructional goals. Taken together, these results show that multi-agent LLM systems can deliver equitable, high-quality formative feedback at a scale and speed that would be impossible for human graders alone. More broadly, the work points toward a future where feedback-rich learning becomes feasible for any course size or context, advancing long-standing goals of equity, access, and instructional capacity in education.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11772