Designing impactful educational technologies in contexts of socio-political instability requires a nuanced understanding of educational aspirations. Currently, scalable metrics for measuring aspirations are limited. This study adapts, translates, and evaluates Snyder's Hope Scale as a metric for measuring aspirations among 136 women learning programming online during a period of systemic educational restrictions in Afghanistan. The adapted scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.78) and participants rated it as understandable and relevant. While overall aspiration-related scores did not differ significantly by access to Large Language Models (LLMs), those with access reported marginally higher scores on the Avenues subscale (p = .056), suggesting broader perceived pathways to achieving educational aspirations. These findings support the use of the adapted scale as a metric for aspirations in contexts of socio-political instability. More broadly, the adapted scale can be used to evaluate the impact of aspiration-driven design of educational technologies.

The equitable assessment of individual contribution in teams remains a persistent challenge, where conflict and disparity in workload can result in unfair performance evaluation, often requiring manual intervention - a costly and challenging process. We survey existing tool features and identify a gap in conflict resolution methods and AI integration. To address this, we propose a framework and implementation design for a novel AI-enhanced tool that assists in dispute investigation. The framework organises heterogeneous artefacts - submissions (code, text, media), communications (chat, email), coordination records (meeting logs, tasks), peer assessments, and contextual information - into three dimensions with nine benchmarks: Contribution, Interaction, and Role. Objective measures are normalised, aggregated per dimension, and paired with inequality measures (Gini index) to surface conflict markers. A Large Language Model (LLM) architecture performs validated and contextual analysis over these measures to generate interpretable and transparent advisory judgments. We argue for feasibility under current statutory and institutional policy, and outline practical analytics (sentimental, task fidelity, word/line count, etc.), bias safeguards, limitations, and practical challenges.

As generative AI models, particularly large language models (LLMs), transform educational feedback practices in higher education (HE) contexts, understanding students' perceptions of different sources of feedback becomes crucial for their effective implementation and adoption. This study addresses a critical gap by comparing undergraduate students' trust in LLM, human, and human-AI co-produced feedback in their authentic HE context. More specifically, through a within-subject experimental design involving 91 participants, we investigated factors that predict students' ability to distinguish between feedback types, their perceptions of feedback quality, and potential biases related to the source of feedback. Findings revealed that when the source was blinded, students generally preferred AI and co-produced feedback over human feedback regarding perceived usefulness and objectivity. However, they presented a strong bias against AI when the source of feedback was disclosed. In addition, only AI feedback suffered a decline in perceived genuineness when feedback sources were revealed, while co-produced feedback maintained its positive perception. Educational AI experience improved students' ability to identify LLM-generated feedback and increased their trust in all types of feedback. More years of students' experience using AI for general purposes were associated with lower perceived usefulness and credibility of feedback. These insights offer substantial evidence of the importance of source credibility and the need to enhance both feedback literacy and AI literacy to mitigate bias in student perceptions for AI-generated feedback to be adopted and impact education.

This paper surveys the use of Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Claude, in computer science education, focusing on key aspects of accuracy, authenticity, and assessment. Through a literature review, we highlight both the challenges and opportunities these AI tools present. While Generative AI improves efficiency and supports creative student work, it raises concerns such as AI hallucinations, error propagation, bias, and blurred lines between AI-assisted and student-authored content. Human oversight is crucial for addressing these concerns. Existing literature recommends adopting hybrid assessment models that combine AI with human evaluation, developing bias detection frameworks, and promoting AI literacy for both students and educators. Our findings suggest that the successful integration of AI requires a balanced approach, considering ethical, pedagogical, and technical factors. Future research may explore enhancing AI accuracy, preserving academic integrity, and developing adaptive models that balance creativity with precision.

This scoping review examines the relationship between Generative AI (GenAI) and agency in education, analyzing the literature available through the lens of Critical Digital Pedagogy. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we collected 11 studies from academic databases focusing on both learner and teacher agency in GenAI-enabled environments. We conducted a GenAI-supported hybrid thematic analysis that revealed three key themes: Control in Digital Spaces, Variable Engagement and Access, and Changing Notions of Agency. The findings suggest that while GenAI may enhance learner agency through personalization and support, it also risks exacerbating educational inequalities and diminishing learner autonomy in certain contexts. This review highlights gaps in the current research on GenAI's impact on agency. These findings have implications for educational policy and practice, suggesting the need for frameworks that promote equitable access while preserving learner agency in GenAI-enhanced educational environments.

While mathematical creative writing can potentially engage students in expressing mathematical ideas in an imaginative way, some elementary school-age students struggle in this process. Generative AI (GenAI) offers possibilities for supporting creative writing activities, such as providing story generation. However, the design of GenAI-powered learning technologies requires careful consideration of the technology reception in the actual classrooms. This study explores students' and teachers' perceptions of creative mathematical writing with the developed GenAI-powered technology. The study adopted a qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews, triangulated with open-ended survey responses and classroom observation of 79 elementary school students, resulting in six themes and 19 subthemes. This study contributes by investigating the lived experience of GenAI-supported learning and the design considerations for GenAI-powered learning technologies and instructions.

Generative AI (genAI) is being used in education for different purposes. From the teachers' perspective, genAI can support activities such as learning design. However, there is a need to study the impact of genAI on the teachers' agency. While GenAI can support certain processes of idea generation and co-creation, GenAI has the potential to negatively affect professional agency due to teachers' limited power to (i) act, (ii) affect matters, and (iii) make decisions or choices, as well as the possibility to (iv) take a stance. Agency is identified in the learning sciences studies as being one of the factors in teachers' ability to trust AI. This paper aims to introduce a dual perspective. First, educational technology, as opposed to other computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools, has two distinctly different user groups and different user needs, in the form of learners and teachers, to cater for. Second, the design of educational technology often prioritises learner agency and engagement, thereby limiting the opportunities for teachers to influence the technology and take action. This study aims to analyse the way GenAI is influencing teachers' agency. After identifying the current limits of GenAI, a solution based on the combination of human intelligence and artificial intelligence through a hybrid intelligence approach is proposed. This combination opens up the discussion of a collaboration between teacher and genAI being able to open up new practices in learning design in which they HI support the extension of the teachers' activity.

This paper presents a multi-dimensional view of AI's role in learning and education, emphasizing the intricate interplay between AI, analytics, and the learning processes. Here, I challenge the prevalent narrow conceptualisation of AI as tools, as exemplified in generative AI tools, and argue for the importance of alternative conceptualisations of AI for achieving human-AI hybrid intelligence. I highlight the differences between human intelligence and artificial information processing, the importance of hybrid human-AI systems to extend human cognition, and posit that AI can also serve as an instrument for understanding human learning. Early learning sciences and AI in Education research (AIED), which saw AI as an analogy for human intelligence, have diverged from this perspective, prompting a need to rekindle this connection. The paper presents three unique conceptualisations of AI: the externalization of human cognition, the internalization of AI models to influence human mental models, and the extension of human cognition via tightly coupled human-AI hybrid intelligence systems. Examples from current research and practice are examined as instances of the three conceptualisations in education, highlighting the potential value and limitations of each conceptualisation for education, as well as the perils of overemphasis on externalising human cognition. The paper concludes with advocacy for a broader approach to AIED that goes beyond considerations on the design and development of AI, but also includes educating people about AI and innovating educational systems to remain relevant in an AI-ubiquitous world.

Large language models (LLMs) can be used to generate natural language explanations (NLE) that are adapted to different users' situations. However, there is yet to be a quantitative evaluation of the extent of such adaptation. To bridge this gap, we collect a benchmarking dataset, Situation-Based Explanation. This dataset contains 100 explanandums. Each explanandum is paired with explanations targeted at three distinct audience types-such as educators, students, and professionals-enabling us to assess how well the explanations meet the specific informational needs and contexts of these diverse groups e.g. students, teachers, and parents. For each "explanandum paired with an audience" situation, we include a human-written explanation. These allow us to compute scores that quantify how the LLMs adapt the explanations to the situations. On an array of pretrained language models with varying sizes, we examine three categories of prompting methods: rule-based prompting, meta-prompting, and in-context learning prompting. We find that 1) language models can generate prompts that result in explanations more precisely aligned with the target situations, 2) explicitly modeling an "assistant" persona by prompting "You are a helpful assistant..." is not a necessary prompt technique for situated NLE tasks, and 3) the in-context learning prompts only can help LLMs learn the demonstration template but can't improve their inference performance. SBE and our analysis facilitate future research towards generating situated natural language explanations.

This research pioneers the use of fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs), presenting a significant and novel contribution in integrating AI to enhance academic research methodologies. Our study employed the latest fine-tuning methodologies together with open-sourced LLMs, and demonstrated a practical and efficient approach to automating the final execution stages of an SLR process that involves knowledge synthesis. The results maintained high fidelity in factual accuracy in LLM responses, and were validated through the replication of an existing PRISMA-conforming SLR. Our research proposed solutions for mitigating LLM hallucination and proposed mechanisms for tracking LLM responses to their sources of information, thus demonstrating how this approach can meet the rigorous demands of scholarly research. The findings ultimately confirmed the potential of fine-tuned LLMs in streamlining various labor-intensive processes of conducting literature reviews. Given the potential of this approach and its applicability across all research domains, this foundational study also advocated for updating PRISMA reporting guidelines to incorporate AI-driven processes, ensuring methodological transparency and reliability in future SLRs. This study broadens the appeal of AI-enhanced tools across various academic and research fields, setting a new standard for conducting comprehensive and accurate literature reviews with more efficiency in the face of ever-increasing volumes of academic studies.