Confidence-Aware Automated Assessment of Student-Drawn Scientific Models

Student-generated drawings are widely used in science education to assess learners' conceptual understanding in modeling-based tasks aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). However, scoring such drawings requires expert human judgment to interpret complex visual representations, making large-scale assessment costly to implement and sustain in classroom settings. In this work, we study automated scoring of student-generated scientific drawings using a vision-based model. We evaluate a Vision Transformer (ViT) with parameter-efficient adaptation and propose a confidence-aware scoring framework that derives response-level confidence from test-time predictive distributions. This confidence signal enables selective automation by scoring high-confidence responses automatically while deferring uncertain cases for human review. Experiments on six NGSS-aligned middle school assessment items show that the proposed approach improves scoring reliability while supporting a practical trade-off between automated coverage and scoring risk, highlighting the value of confidence-aware methods for trustworthy educational assessment.

Trust the Right Teacher: Quality-Aware Self-Distillation for GUI Grounding

Graphical user interface (GUI) grounding requires vision-language models (VLMs) to identify small target elements in high-resolution screenshots and predict precise screen coordinates. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) is a promising post-training approach for this coordinate-sensitive task, since it provides dense token-level teacher signals beyond hard coordinate labels. However, naive OPSD is not well suited to GUI grounding: OPSD evaluates the teacher on student-generated prefixes, the quality of coordinate-token teacher signals can degrade when the prefix has already deviated from the target coordinate, leading to unreliable teacher signal. To mitigate this, We propose quality-aware self-distillation for VLM-based GUI grounding, which improves coordinate-token teacher-signal quality through soft correctness-aware gating and teacher-probability scaling. The soft correctness-aware gate checks whether the teacher's current coordinate-token prediction can still be completed into the ground-truth box under the student-generated prefix. If not, the corresponding teacher signal is down-weighted. Teacher-probability scaling then uses the teacher's confidence as a lightweight factor to further calibrate the strength of the gated supervision. A key empirical finding is that neither component alone improves overall performance, whereas combining them consistently improves performance. This suggests that the two mechanisms play complementary roles: correctness-aware gating suppresses unreliable coordinate-token supervision, while teacher-probability scaling calibrates the strength of the remaining signals. Experiments across six GUI grounding benchmarks show that our method consistently improves the base model and outperforms strong baselines.

Learnable Assessment Skills for LLM-based Automated Scoring: Rubric Construction via Iterative Optimization

LLM-based automated scoring approaches near-human performance, but scaling to new tasks remains bottlenecked by the per-item human configuration of upstream stages such as rubric construction. Human experts bypass this bottleneck through evaluation heuristics developed over extensive practice. We ask whether LLMs can learn similar heuristics directly from scoring experience, and formalize this as the concept of assessment skills: item-independent natural-language procedural knowledge that guides LLMs through specific stages of the scoring workflow. Focusing on rubric construction as a first instantiation, we propose an iterative framework that decomposes a skill into a fixed scaffold and learnable item-agnostic rules, refining the rules through LLM-driven diagnosis of scoring errors and validation-gated selection. The framework requires no expert-written rubric. On all ten ASAP-SAS items, optimized skills substantially improve LLM-based scoring and frequently surpass the dataset-provided expert rubric. Cross-item transfer experiments further reveal that learned skills capture both generalizable and item-specific patterns.

Palette: A Modular, Controllable, and Efficient Framework for On-demand Authorized Safety Alignment Relaxation in LLMs

Current safety alignment of foundation models largely follows a \emph{one-size-fits-all} paradigm, applying the same refusal policy across users and contexts. As a result, models may refuse requests that are unsafe for general users but legitimate for authorized professionals, limiting helpfulness in specialized professional settings. Existing approaches either require costly realignment or rely on inference-time steering that suffers from imprecise control and added latency. To this end, we propose \textsc{Palette}, a modular, controllable, and efficient framework that selectively relaxes refusal behavior on authorized target domains while preserving standard safety elsewhere. Our method identifies a refusal direction via multi-objective search and internalizes it into the model through lightweight adaptation. \textsc{Palette} further supports modular composition: it learns domain-specific safety controls independently and composes them through parameter merging, enabling on-demand multi-domain authorization without retraining. Experiments across four safety benchmarks, multiple model variants, and both LLMs and VLMs show that \textsc{Palette} delivers precise safety control without sacrificing general utility, offering a practical path toward foundation models that adapt to diverse professional needs.

ArguAgent: AI-Supported Real-Time Grouping for Productive Argumentation in STEM Classrooms

Argumentation is a core practice in STEM education, but its productivity depends on who participates and how they interact. Higher-achieving students often dominate the talk and decision-making, while lower-achieving peers may disengage, defer, or comply without contributing substantive reasoning. Forming groups strategically based on students' stances and argumentation skills could help foster inclusive, evidence-based discourse. In practice, however, teachers are constrained in implementing this grouping strategy because it requires real-time insight into students' positions and the quality of their argumentation, information that is difficult to assess reliably and at scale during instruction. We present a generative AI-powered system, ArguAgent, that creates groups optimizing for stance heterogeneity while constraining argumentation quality differences to +/-1 level on a validated learning progression. ArguAgent uses a two-component assessment pipeline: first scoring student arguments on a 0-4 rubric, then clustering positions via semantic analysis. We validated the scoring component against human expert consensus (Krippendorff's ααα = 0.817) using 200 expert-generated scores. Testing three OpenAI models (GPT-4o-mini, GPT-5.1, GPT-5.2) with identical calibrated prompts, we found that systematic prompt engineering informed by human disagreement analysis contributed 89% of scoring improvement (QWK: 0.531 to 0.686), while model upgrades contributed an additional 11% (QWK: 0.686 to 0.708). Simulation testing across 100 classes demonstrated that the grouping algorithm achieves 95.4% of groups that meet both design criteria, a 3.2x improvement over random assignment. These results suggest ArguAgent can enable real-time, theoretically grounded grouping that promotes productive STEM argumentation in classrooms.

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.