Language students can increase their effectiveness in learning written Japanese by mastering the visual structure and written technique of Japanese kanji. Yet, existing kanji handwriting recognition systems do not assess the written technique sufficiently enough to discourage students from developing bad learning habits. In this paper, we describe our work on Hashigo, a kanji sketch interactive system which achieves human instructor - level critique and feedback on both the visual structure and written technique of students' sketched kanji. This type of automated critique and feedback allows students to target and correct specific deficiencies in their sketches that, if left untreated, are detrimental to effective long - term kanji learning.

With the rapid adoption of AI tools in learning contexts, it is vital to understand how these systems shape users' reading processes and cognitive engagement. We collected and analyzed text from 124 sessions with AI tools, in which students used these tools to support them as they read assigned readings for an undergraduate course. We categorized participants' prompts to AI according to Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives -- Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating. Our results show that ``Analyzing'' and ``Evaluating'' are more prevalent in users' second and third prompts within a single usage session, suggesting a shift toward higher-order thinking. However, in reviewing users' engagement with AI tools over several weeks, we found that users converge toward passive reading engagement over time. Based on these results, we propose design implications for future AI reading-support systems, including structured scaffolds for lower-level cognitive tasks (e.g., recalling terms) and proactive prompts that encourage higher-order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating). Additionally, we advocate for adaptive, human-in-the-loop features that allow students and instructors to tailor their reading experiences with AI, balancing efficiency with enriched cognitive engagement. Our paper expands the dialogue on integrating AI into academic reading, highlighting both its potential benefits and challenges.

Counterfactual explanations are a widely used approach in Explainable AI, offering actionable insights into decision-making by illustrating how small changes to input data can lead to different outcomes. Despite their importance, evaluating the quality of counterfactual explanations remains an open problem. Traditional quantitative metrics, such as sparsity or proximity, fail to fully account for human preferences in explanations, while user studies are insightful but not scalable. Moreover, relying only on a single overall satisfaction rating does not lead to a nuanced understanding of why certain explanations are effective or not. To address this, we analyze a dataset of counterfactual explanations that were evaluated by 206 human participants, who rated not only overall satisfaction but also seven explanatory criteria: feasibility, coherence, complexity, understandability, completeness, fairness, and trust. Modeling overall satisfaction as a function of these criteria, we find that feasibility (the actionability of suggested changes) and trust (the belief that the changes would lead to the desired outcome) consistently stand out as the strongest predictors of user satisfaction, though completeness also emerges as a meaningful contributor. Crucially, even excluding feasibility and trust, other metrics explain 58% of the variance, highlighting the importance of additional explanatory qualities. Complexity appears independent, suggesting more detailed explanations do not necessarily reduce satisfaction. Strong metric correlations imply a latent structure in how users judge quality, and demographic background significantly shapes ranking patterns. These insights inform the design of counterfactual algorithms that adapt explanatory qualities to user expertise and domain context.

Multimedia learning using text and images has been shown to improve learning outcomes compared to text-only instruction. But conversational AI systems in education predominantly rely on text-based interactions while multimodal conversations for multimedia learning remain unexplored. Moreover, deploying conversational AI in learning contexts requires grounding in reliable sources and verifiability to create trust. We present MuDoC, a Mu ltimodal Do cument-grounded C onversa-tional AI system based on GPT-4o, that leverages both text and visuals from documents to generate responses interleaved with text and images. Its interface allows verification of AI generated content through seamless navigation to the source. We compare MuDoC to a text-only system to explore differences in learner engagement, trust in AI system, and their performance on problem-solving tasks. Our findings indicate that both visuals and verifiability of content enhance learner engagement and foster trust; however, no significant impact in performance was observed. We draw upon theories from cognitive and learning sciences to interpret the findings and derive implications, and outline future directions for the development of multimodal conversational AI systems in education.

Our study introduces an automated system leveraging large language models (LLMs) to assess the effectiveness of five key tutoring strategies: 1. giving effective praise, 2. reacting to errors, 3. determining what students know, 4. helping students manage inequity, and 5. responding to negative self-talk. Using a public dataset from the Teacher-Student Chatroom Corpus, our system classifies each tutoring strategy as either being employed as desired or undesired. Our study utilizes GPT-3.5 with few-shot prompting to assess the use of these strategies and analyze tutoring dialogues. The results show that for the five tutoring strategies, True Negative Rates (TNR) range from 0.655 to 0.738, and Recall ranges from 0.327 to 0.432, indicating that the model is effective at excluding incorrect classifications but struggles to consistently identify the correct strategy. The strategy \textit{helping students manage inequity} showed the highest performance with a TNR of 0.738 and Recall of 0.432. The study highlights the potential of LLMs in tutoring strategy analysis and outlines directions for future improvements, including incorporating more advanced models for more nuanced feedback.

AI, especially Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, have rapidly developed and gained widespread adoption in the past five years, shifting user preference from traditional search engines. However, the generative nature of LLMs raises concerns about presenting misinformation as fact. To address this, we developed a web-based application that helps K-12 students enhance critical thinking by identifying misleading information in LLM responses about major historical figures. In this paper, we describe the implementation and design details of the DoYouTrustAI tool, which can be used to provide an interactive lesson which teaches students about the dangers of misinformation and how believable generative AI can make it seem. The DoYouTrustAI tool utilizes prompt engineering to present the user with AI generated summaries about the life of a historical figure. These summaries can be either accurate accounts of that persons life, or an intentionally misleading alteration of their history. The user is tasked with determining the validity of the statement without external resources. Our research questions for this work were:(RQ1) How can we design a tool that teaches students about the dangers of misleading information and of how misinformation can present itself in LLM responses? (RQ2) Can we present prompt engineering as a topic that is easily understandable for students? Our findings highlight the need to correct misleading information before users retain it. Our tool lets users select familiar individuals for testing to reduce random guessing and presents misinformation alongside known facts to maintain believability. It also provides pre-configured prompt instructions to show how different prompts affect AI responses. Together, these features create a controlled environment where users learn the importance of verifying AI responses and understanding prompt engineering.

Intent detection, a critical component in task-oriented dialogue (TOD) systems, faces significant challenges in adapting to the rapid influx of integrable tools with complex interrelationships. Existing approaches, such as zero-shot reformulations and LLM-based dynamic recognition, struggle with performance degradation when encountering unseen intents, leading to erroneous task routing. To enhance the model's generalization performance on unseen tasks, we employ Reinforcement Learning (RL) combined with a Reward-based Curriculum Sampling (RCS) during Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) training in intent detection tasks. Experiments demonstrate that RL-trained models substantially outperform supervised fine-tuning (SFT) baselines in generalization. Besides, the introduction of the RCS, significantly bolsters the effectiveness of RL in intent detection by focusing the model on challenging cases during training. Moreover, incorporating Chain-of-Thought (COT) processes in RL notably improves generalization in complex intent detection tasks, underscoring the importance of thought in challenging scenarios. This work advances the generalization of intent detection tasks, offering practical insights for deploying adaptable dialogue systems.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant document from external knowledge sources. By referencing this external knowledge, RAG effectively reduces the generation of factually incorrect content and addresses hallucination issues within LLMs. Recently, there has been growing attention to improving the performance and efficiency of RAG systems from various perspectives. While these advancements have yielded significant results, the application of RAG in domains with considerable societal implications raises a critical question about fairness: What impact does the introduction of the RAG paradigm have on the fairness of LLMs? To address this question, we conduct extensive experiments by varying the LLMs, retrievers, and retrieval sources. Our experimental analysis reveals that the scale of the LLMs plays a significant role in influencing fairness outcomes within the RAG framework. When the model scale is smaller than 8B, the integration of retrieval mechanisms often exacerbates unfairness in small-scale LLMs (e.g., LLaMA3.2-1B, Mistral-7B, and LLaMA3-8B). To mitigate the fairness issues introduced by RAG for small-scale LLMs, we propose two approaches, FairFT and FairFilter. Specifically, in FairFT, we align the retriever with the LLM in terms of fairness, enabling it to retrieve documents that facilitate fairer model outputs. In FairFilter, we propose a fairness filtering mechanism to filter out biased content after retrieval. Finally, we validate our proposed approaches on real-world datasets, demonstrating their effectiveness in improving fairness while maintaining performance.

As machine learning models are increasingly used in educational settings, from detecting at-risk students to predicting student performance, algorithmic bias and its potential impacts on students raise critical concerns about algorithmic fairness. Although group fairness is widely explored in education, works on individual fairness in a causal context are understudied, especially on counterfactual fairness. This paper explores the notion of counterfactual fairness for educational data by conducting counterfactual fairness analysis of machine learning models on benchmark educational datasets. We demonstrate that counterfactual fairness provides meaningful insight into the causality of sensitive attributes and causal-based individual fairness in education.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) has successfully scaled up models while maintaining nearly constant computing costs. By employing a gating network to route input tokens, it selectively activates a subset of expert networks to process the corresponding token embeddings. However, in practice, the efficiency of MoE is challenging to achieve due to two key reasons: imbalanced expert activation, which leads to substantial idle time during model or expert parallelism, and insufficient capacity utilization; massive communication overhead, induced by numerous expert routing combinations in expert parallelism at the system level. Previous works typically formulate it as the load imbalance issue characterized by the gating network favoring certain experts over others or attribute it to static execution which fails to adapt to the dynamic expert workload at runtime. In this paper, we exploit it from a brand new perspective, a higher-order view and analysis of MoE routing policies: expert collaboration and specialization where some experts tend to activate broadly with others (collaborative), while others are more likely to activate only with a specific subset of experts (specialized). Our experiments reveal that most experts tend to be overly collaborative, leading to increased communication overhead from repeatedly sending tokens to different accelerators. To this end, we propose a novel collaboration-constrained routing (C2R) strategy to encourage more specialized expert groups, as well as to improve expert utilization, and present an efficient implementation of MoE that further leverages expert specialization. We achieve an average performance improvement of 0.51% and 0.33% on LLaMA-MoE and Qwen-MoE respectively across ten downstream NLP benchmarks, and reduce the all2all communication costs between GPUs, bringing an extra 20%-30% total running time savings on top of the existing SoTA, i.e. MegaBlocks.