Generative AI User Experience: Developing Human--AI Epistemic Partnership

Generative AI (GenAI) has rapidly entered education, yet its user experience is often explained through adoption-oriented constructs such as usefulness, ease of use, and engagement. We argue that these constructs are no longer sufficient because systems such as ChatGPT do not merely support learning tasks but also participate in knowledge construction. Existing theories cannot explain why GenAI frequently produces experiences characterized by negotiated authority, redistributed cognition, and accountability tension. To address this gap, this paper develops the Human--AI Epistemic Partnership Theory (HAEPT), explaining the GenAI user experience as a form of epistemic partnership that features a dynamic negotiation of three interlocking contracts: epistemic, agency, and accountability. We argue that findings on trust, over-reliance, academic integrity, teacher caution, and relational interaction about GenAI can be reinterpreted as tensions within these contracts rather than as isolated issues. Instead of holding a single, stable view of GenAI, users adjust how they relate to it over time through calibration cycles. These repeated interactions account for why trust and skepticism often coexist and for how partnership modes describe recurrent configurations of human--AI collaboration across tasks. To demonstrate the usefulness of HAEPT, we applied it to analyze the UX of collaborative learning with AI speakers and AI-facilitated scientific argumentation, illustrating different contract configurations.

Using Learning Progressions to Guide AI Feedback for Science Learning

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers scalable support for formative feedback, yet most AI-generated feedback relies on task-specific rubrics authored by domain experts. While effective, rubric authoring is time-consuming and limits scalability across instructional contexts. Learning progressions (LP) provide a theoretically grounded representation of students' developing understanding and may offer an alternative solution. This study examines whether an LP-driven rubric generation pipeline can produce AI-generated feedback comparable in quality to feedback guided by expert-authored task rubrics. We analyzed AI-generated feedback for written scientific explanations produced by 207 middle school students in a chemistry task. Two pipelines were compared: (a) feedback guided by a human expert-designed, task-specific rubric, and (b) feedback guided by a task-specific rubric automatically derived from a learning progression prior to grading and feedback generation. Two human coders evaluated feedback quality using a multi-dimensional rubric assessing Clarity, Accuracy, Relevance, Engagement and Motivation, and Reflectiveness (10 sub-dimensions). Inter-rater reliability was high, with percent agreement ranging from 89% to 100% and Cohen's kappa values for estimable dimensions (kappa = .66 to .88). Paired t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences between the two pipelines for Clarity (t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; t2 = 0.84, p2 = .399), Relevance (t1 = 0.28, p1 = .782; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), Engagement and Motivation (t1 = 0.50, p1 = .618; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), or Reflectiveness (t = -0.45, p = .656). These findings suggest that the LP-driven rubric pipeline can serve as an alternative solution.

BRIDGE the Gap: Mitigating Bias Amplification in Automated Scoring of English Language Learners via Inter-group Data Augmentation

In the field of educational assessment, automated scoring systems increasingly rely on deep learning and large language models (LLMs). However, these systems face significant risks of bias amplification, where model prediction gaps between student groups become larger than those observed in training data. This issue is especially severe for underrepresented groups such as English Language Learners (ELLs), as models may inherit and further magnify existing disparities in the data. We identify that this issue is closely tied to representation bias: the scarcity of minority (high-scoring ELL) samples makes models trained with empirical risk minimization favor majority (non-ELL) linguistic patterns. Consequently, models tend to under-predict ELL students who even demonstrate comparable domain knowledge but use different linguistic patterns, thereby undermining the fairness of automated scoring outcomes. To mitigate this, we propose BRIDGE, a Bias-Reducing Inter-group Data GEneration framework designed for low-resource assessment settings. Instead of relying on the limited minority samples, BRIDGE synthesizes high-scoring ELL samples by "pasting" construct-relevant (i.e., rubric-aligned knowledge and evidence) content from abundant high-scoring non-ELL samples into authentic ELL linguistic patterns. We further introduce a discriminator model to ensure the quality of synthetic samples. Experiments on California Science Test (CAST) datasets demonstrate that BRIDGE effectively reduces prediction bias for high-scoring ELL students while maintaining overall scoring performance. Notably, our method achieves fairness gains comparable to using additional real human data, offering a cost-effective solution for ensuring equitable scoring in large-scale assessments.

Human-AI Collaborative Inductive Thematic Analysis: AI Guided Analysis and Human Interpretive Authority

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in qualitative research raises important questions about analytic practice and interpretive authority. This study examines how researchers interact with an Inductive Thematic Analysis GPT (ITA-GPT), a purpose-built AI tool designed to support inductive thematic analysis through structured, semi-automated prompts aligned with reflexive thematic analysis and verbatim coding principles. Guided by a Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaborative Inductive Thematic Analysis (HACITA) framework, the study focuses on analytic process rather than substantive findings. Three experienced qualitative researchers conducted ITA-GPT assisted analyses of interview transcripts from education research in the Ghanaian teacher education context. The tool supported familiarization, verbatim in vivo coding, gerund-based descriptive coding, and theme development, while enforcing trace to text integrity, coverage checks, and auditability. Data sources included interaction logs, AI-generated tables, researcher revisions, deletions, insertions, comments, and reflexive memos. Findings show that ITA-GPT functioned as a procedural scaffold that structured analytic workflow and enhanced transparency. However, interpretive authority remained with human researchers, who exercised judgment through recurrent analytic actions including modification, deletion, rejection, insertion, and commenting. The study demonstrates how inductive thematic analysis is enacted through responsible human AI collaboration.

Q-realign: Piggybacking Realignment on Quantization for Safe and Efficient LLM Deployment

Public large language models (LLMs) are typically safety-aligned during pretraining, yet task-specific fine-tuning required for deployment often erodes this alignment and introduces safety risks. Existing defenses either embed safety recovery into fine-tuning or rely on fine-tuning-derived priors for post-hoc correction, leaving safety recovery tightly coupled with training and incurring high computational overhead and a complex workflow. To address these challenges, we propose \texttt{Q-realign}, a post-hoc defense method based on post-training quantization, guided by an analysis of representational structure. By reframing quantization as a dual-objective procedure for compression and safety, \texttt{Q-realign} decouples safety alignment from fine-tuning and naturally piggybacks into modern deployment pipelines. Experiments across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that our method substantially reduces unsafe behaviors while preserving task performance, with significant reductions in memory usage and GPU hours. Notably, our approach can recover the safety alignment of a fine-tuned 7B LLM on a single RTX 4090 within 40 minutes. Overall, our work provides a practical, turnkey solution for safety-aware deployment.

AutoSCORE: Enhancing Automated Scoring with Multi-Agent Large Language Models via Structured Component Recognition

Automated scoring plays a crucial role in education by reducing the reliance on human raters, offering scalable and immediate evaluation of student work. While large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in this task, their use as end-to-end raters faces challenges such as low accuracy, prompt sensitivity, limited interpretability, and rubric misalignment. These issues hinder the implementation of LLM-based automated scoring in assessment practice. To address the limitations, we propose AutoSCORE, a multi-agent LLM framework enhancing automated scoring via rubric-aligned Structured COmponent REcognition. With two agents, AutoSCORE first extracts rubric-relevant components from student responses and encodes them into a structured representation (i.e., Scoring Rubric Component Extraction Agent), which is then used to assign final scores (i.e., Scoring Agent). This design ensures that model reasoning follows a human-like grading process, enhancing interpretability and robustness. We evaluate AutoSCORE on four benchmark datasets from the ASAP benchmark, using both proprietary and open-source LLMs (GPT-4o, LLaMA-3.1-8B, and LLaMA-3.1-70B). Across diverse tasks and rubrics, AutoSCORE consistently improves scoring accuracy, human-machine agreement (QWK, correlations), and error metrics (MAE, RMSE) compared to single-agent baselines, with particularly strong benefits on complex, multi-dimensional rubrics, and especially large relative gains on smaller LLMs. These results demonstrate that structured component recognition combined with multi-agent design offers a scalable, reliable, and interpretable solution for automated scoring.

Rethinking the Potential of Layer Freezing for Efficient DNN Training

With the growing size of deep neural networks and datasets, the computational costs of training have significantly increased. The layer-freezing technique has recently attracted great attention as a promising method to effectively reduce the cost of network training. However, in traditional layer-freezing methods, frozen layers are still required for forward propagation to generate feature maps for unfrozen layers, limiting the reduction of computation costs. To overcome this, prior works proposed a hypothetical solution, which caches feature maps from frozen layers as a new dataset, allowing later layers to train directly on stored feature maps. While this approach appears to be straightforward, it presents several major challenges that are severely overlooked by prior literature, such as how to effectively apply augmentations to feature maps and the substantial storage overhead introduced. If these overlooked challenges are not addressed, the performance of the caching method will be severely impacted and even make it infeasible. This paper is the first to comprehensively explore these challenges and provides a systematic solution. To improve training accuracy, we propose \textit{similarity-aware channel augmentation}, which caches channels with high augmentation sensitivity with a minimum additional storage cost. To mitigate storage overhead, we incorporate lossy data compression into layer freezing and design a \textit{progressive compression} strategy, which increases compression rates as more layers are frozen, effectively reducing storage costs. Finally, our solution achieves significant reductions in training cost while maintaining model accuracy, with a minor time overhead. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of freezing and compression strategies, providing insights into optimizing their application for efficient DNN training.

Using Large Language Models to Assess Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Assessing teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) through performance-based tasks is both time and effort-consuming. While large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for efficient automatic scoring, little is known about whether LLMs introduce construct-irrelevant variance (CIV) in ways similar to or different from traditional machine learning (ML) and human raters. This study examines three sources of CIV -- scenario variability, rater severity, and rater sensitivity to scenario -- in the context of video-based constructed-response tasks targeting two PCK sub-constructs: analyzing student thinking and evaluating teacher responsiveness. Using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), we compared variance components and rater-level scoring patterns across three scoring sources: human raters, supervised ML, and LLM. Results indicate that scenario-level variance was minimal across tasks, while rater-related factors contributed substantially to CIV, especially in the more interpretive Task II. The ML model was the most severe and least sensitive rater, whereas the LLM was the most lenient. These findings suggest that the LLM contributes to scoring efficiency while also introducing CIV as human raters do, yet with varying levels of contribution compared to supervised ML. Implications for rater training, automated scoring design, and future research on model interpretability are discussed.

Artificial Intelligence Bias on English Language Learners in Automatic Scoring

This study investigated potential scoring biases and disparities toward English Language Learners (ELLs) when using automatic scoring systems for middle school students' written responses to science assessments. We specifically focus on examining how unbalanced training data with ELLs contributes to scoring bias and disparities. We fine-tuned BERT with four datasets: responses from (1) ELLs, (2) non-ELLs, (3) a mixed dataset reflecting the real-world proportion of ELLs and non-ELLs (unbalanced), and (4) a balanced mixed dataset with equal representation of both groups. The study analyzed 21 assessment items: 10 items with about 30,000 ELL responses, five items with about 1,000 ELL responses, and six items with about 200 ELL responses. Scoring accuracy (Acc) was calculated and compared to identify bias using Friedman tests. We measured the Mean Score Gaps (MSGs) between ELLs and non-ELLs and then calculated the differences in MSGs generated through both the human and AI models to identify the scoring disparities. We found that no AI bias and distorted disparities between ELLs and non-ELLs were found when the training dataset was large enough (ELL = 30,000 and ELL = 1,000), but concerns could exist if the sample size is limited (ELL = 200).

Understanding University Students' Use of Generative AI: The Roles of Demographics and Personality Traits

The use of generative AI (GAI) among university students is rapidly increasing, yet empirical research on students' GAI use and the factors influencing it remains limited. To address this gap, we surveyed 363 undergraduate and graduate students in the United States, examining their GAI usage and how it relates to demographic variables and personality traits based on the Big Five model (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and intellect/imagination). Our findings reveal: (a) Students in higher academic years are more inclined to use GAI and prefer it over traditional resources. (b) Non-native English speakers use and adopt GAI more readily than native speakers. (c) Compared to White, Asian students report higher GAI usage, perceive greater academic benefits, and express a stronger preference for it. Similarly, Black students report a more positive impact of GAI on their academic performance. Personality traits also play a significant role in shaping perceptions and usage of GAI. After controlling demographic factors, we found that personality still significantly predicts GAI use and attitudes: (a) Students with higher conscientiousness use GAI less. (b) Students who are higher in agreeableness perceive a less positive impact of GAI on academic performance and express more ethical concerns about using it for academic work. (c) Students with higher emotional stability report a more positive impact of GAI on learning and fewer concerns about its academic use. (d) Students with higher extraversion show a stronger preference for GAI over traditional resources. (e) Students with higher intellect/imagination tend to prefer traditional resources. These insights highlight the need for universities to provide personalized guidance to ensure students use GAI effectively, ethically, and equitably in their academic pursuits.