arxiv

Authors: Sumbul Khan, Wei Ting Liow, Lay Kee Ang

Abstract: As design thinking education grows in secondary and tertiary contexts, educators face the challenge of evaluating creative artefacts that combine visual and textual elements. Traditional rubric-based assessment is laborious, time-consuming, and inconsistent due to reliance on Teaching Assistants (TA) in large, multi-section cohorts. This paper presents an exploratory study investigating the reliability and perceived accuracy of AI-assisted assessment compared to TA-assisted assessment in evaluating student posters in design thinking education. Two activities were conducted with 33 Ministry of Education (MOE) Singapore school teachers to (1) compare AI-generated scores with TA grading across three key dimensions: empathy and user understanding, identification of pain points and opportunities, and visual communication, and (2) examine teacher preferences for AI-assigned, TA-assigned, and hybrid scores. Results showed low statistical agreement between instructor and AI scores for empathy and pain points, with slightly higher alignment for visual communication. Teachers preferred TA-assigned scores in six of ten samples. Qualitative feedback highlighted the potential of AI for formative feedback, consistency, and student self-reflection, but raised concerns about its limitations in capturing contextual nuance and creative insight. The study underscores the need for hybrid assessment models that integrate computational efficiency with human insights. This research contributes to the evolving conversation on responsible AI adoption in creative disciplines, emphasizing the balance between automation and human judgment for scalable and pedagogically sound assessment.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16069

Authors: Devanshu Sahoo, Vasudev Majhi, Arjun Neekhra, Yash Sinha, Murari Mandal, Dhruv Kumar

Abstract: The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automatic judges for code evaluation is becoming increasingly prevalent in academic environments. But their reliability can be compromised by students who may employ adversarial prompting strategies in order to induce misgrading and secure undeserved academic advantages. In this paper, we present the first large-scale study of jailbreaking LLM-based automated code evaluators in academic context. Our contributions are: (i) We systematically adapt 20+ jailbreaking strategies for jailbreaking AI code evaluators in the academic context, defining a new class of attacks termed academic jailbreaking. (ii) We release a poisoned dataset of 25K adversarial student submissions, specifically designed for the academic code-evaluation setting, sourced from diverse real-world coursework and paired with rubrics and human-graded references, and (iii) In order to capture the multidimensional impact of academic jailbreaking, we systematically adapt and define three jailbreaking metrics (Jailbreak Success Rate, Score Inflation, and Harmfulness). (iv) We comprehensively evalulate the academic jailbreaking attacks using six LLMs. We find that these models exhibit significant vulnerability, particularly to persuasive and role-play-based attacks (up to 97% JSR). Our adversarial dataset and benchmark suite lay the groundwork for next-generation robust LLM-based evaluators in academic code assessment.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10415

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: 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: 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