Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 96 references

Mind the Trust Gap: Identifying (Mis)alignments in Teacher-Student Views Toward Control and Agency in K-12 Classroom AI

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-03 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Teachers and students misalign on AI trust and social-emotional impacts in K-12 classrooms.

desk verdict Small German storyboard study surfaces teacher-student misalignments on AI trust but sample and method limit how far the gaps can be taken. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.01506 v1 pith:XO2XTUPF submitted 2026-07-01 cs.HC

Tomohiro Nagashima , Lisa Siegrist , Niklas Scholz , Shintaro Sato , Martina Vincoli , Man Su This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords K-12classroomAIteacher-studentmisalignmenttrustinstudentagencyspeed-datingstudystoryboardmethodeducationstakeholderviews
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes through a storyboard-based speed-dating study that teachers and students hold misaligned views on student-AI decision-making control. It identifies specific gaps around levels of trust in AI and the social and emotional dimensions of learning with AI. A sympathetic reader would care because these differences could affect how well AI tools are accepted and used in schools. The work also highlights how existing teacher-student relationships shape these perspectives outside of any AI system. Strategies for addressing the gaps are outlined based on the observed patterns.

What carries the argument

Speed-dating study using storyboards combined with explicit pair-matching analysis to surface alignments and misalignments in views on student-AI decision-making control.

What would settle it

A larger-scale study across multiple countries that finds consistent alignment between teacher and student views on AI trust and emotional aspects would contradict the reported misalignments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Through an explicit pair-matching analysis, we found that students and teachers had misaligned views on several key topics, including how much they trust AI and social and emotional aspects of student learning with AI. Findings also revealed the importance of teacher-student relationships outside of AI use that shape stakeholders' views and interactions. This study illustrates the complexities of preferences in teacher-student-AI interactions that depend on the dynamic relations among the stakeholders.

Load-bearing premise

The speed-dating study using storyboards with a small sample of German participants accurately captures and generalizes the real views and misalignments of teachers and students toward AI control and agency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Misaligned views on trust and social-emotional aspects point to the need for targeted strategies to bridge perspective gaps.
  • Teacher-student relationships outside AI use influence how both groups approach AI interactions.
  • Preferences for student-AI control depend on the dynamic relations among teachers, students, and the AI system.
  • Design of classroom AI must account for these stakeholder complexities to support effective integration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Classroom AI tools may require co-design sessions that explicitly surface and reconcile teacher and student trust levels.
  • The observed gaps could vary in other cultural or school-system contexts, suggesting the need for comparative studies.
  • Regular structured dialogues between teachers and students might reduce misalignment on agency and control over time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a speed-dating study using storyboards conducted with 16 German school students and 15 teachers to examine alignments and misalignments in their views on student-AI decision-making control and agency in K-12 classrooms. An explicit pair-matching analysis is used to identify differences, particularly in trust toward AI and social/emotional aspects of learning with AI, while also noting the influence of teacher-student relationships outside AI use.

Significance. If the methodological concerns can be addressed, the work contributes to HCI and AIED by highlighting stakeholder perspective gaps in classroom AI, with the pair-matching procedure providing a concrete way to surface role-based differences. The small-sample qualitative design makes the findings exploratory and context-specific rather than generalizable, but the topic is timely for designing more aligned AI tools.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section (pair-matching analysis): The reported misalignments in trust and socio-emotional dimensions rest on N=31 participants without reported details on the matching procedure, inter-rater reliability for qualitative coding, or assessment of whether differences exceed what would be expected from sampling variability alone; this directly affects the load-bearing claim that stable teacher-student gaps were identified.
  2. [Methods] Methods section (study design): The storyboard speed-dating format with a German-only sample introduces plausible priming and cultural confounds that could produce the observed gaps; no sensitivity checks or alternative explanations (e.g., format artifacts vs. genuine role differences) are presented to secure the central empirical claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the limitations of the small sample and single-country context to set appropriate expectations for the pair-matching findings.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion would benefit from concrete examples of how the identified misalignments could be tested in follow-up work with larger or more diverse samples.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the referee's comments. We address each major comment below, proposing revisions to clarify our methods and strengthen the presentation of our exploratory findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section (pair-matching analysis): The reported misalignments in trust and socio-emotional dimensions rest on N=31 participants without reported details on the matching procedure, inter-rater reliability for qualitative coding, or assessment of whether differences exceed what would be expected from sampling variability alone; this directly affects the load-bearing claim that stable teacher-student gaps were identified.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The pair-matching procedure is outlined in the Methods, but we will expand it with additional details on how pairs were matched and the qualitative analysis process in the revised manuscript. The coding was conducted through team consensus rather than independent raters, so inter-rater reliability metrics were not calculated; we will note this approach explicitly. Given the small sample and qualitative nature of the study, we did not perform quantitative assessments of sampling variability, and we will add this as a limitation. We maintain that the findings highlight potential gaps in an exploratory manner, consistent with the paper's framing, but will revise to ensure the claims are not overstated. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section (study design): The storyboard speed-dating format with a German-only sample introduces plausible priming and cultural confounds that could produce the observed gaps; no sensitivity checks or alternative explanations (e.g., format artifacts vs. genuine role differences) are presented to secure the central empirical claim.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that our study is limited to a German sample and uses a specific storyboard method, which could influence results. The manuscript already emphasizes the context-specific and exploratory nature of the findings. We did not conduct sensitivity analyses as this was beyond the scope of the original design. In revision, we will add a dedicated subsection in the Discussion addressing potential confounds, including method-induced priming and cultural factors, and discuss how the pair-matching analysis helps distinguish role-based differences from other variables. This will provide a more balanced presentation of the empirical claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical qualitative study with direct observations

full rationale

The paper reports results from a speed-dating storyboard study and pair-matching analysis of participant responses. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear. Claims rest on direct empirical data collection and thematic analysis rather than any self-referential reduction or self-citation chain. No load-bearing steps reduce to inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Qualitative empirical study; no quantitative free parameters or new postulated entities. The central claim rests on the untested assumption that storyboard-based speed-dating elicits representative views.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Storyboards in speed-dating sessions can reliably surface authentic stakeholder preferences about AI decision-making control.
    The entire pair-matching analysis depends on this methodological premise stated implicitly in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mind the Trust Gap: Identifying (Mis)alignments in Teacher-Student Views Toward Control and Agency in K-12 Classroom AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XO2XTUPF

@misc{pith2026260701506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mind the Trust Gap: Identifying (Mis)alignments in Teacher-Student Views Toward Control and Agency in K-12 Classroom AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XO2XTUPF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01506}
}
read the original abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based technologies have been integrated into school classrooms where multiple stakeholders (with different roles) interact with each other, it is critical to deeply understand stakeholder views in the classroom. In particular, prior work has not fully uncovered how teachers' and school students' views might or might not align well with each other, especially in K-12 classrooms. We conducted a speed-dating study using storyboards with 16 school students and 15 school teachers in Germany to investigate alignments and misalignments between their views on student-AI decision-making control in K-12 classroom. Through an explicit pair-matching analysis, we found that students and teachers had misaligned views on several key topics, including how much they trust AI and social and emotional aspects of student learning with AI. Findings also revealed the importance of teacher-student relationships outside of AI use that shape stakeholders' views and interactions. We discuss potential reasons for the observed misaligned views and strategies to fill the perspective gaps. This study illustrates the complexities of preferences in teacher-student-AI interactions that depend on the dynamic relations among the stakeholders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01506 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-faceted decision-making control between students and AI systems in the classroom, adopted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A scenario (storyboard) for students that illustrates the situation where AI has greater control on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. These two scenarios (for student participants) on Co-Orchestration Control illustrate what might [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of the same scenario, prepared for student sessions and teacher sessions. One designed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A visual diagram of our analysis process. We first conducted Affinity Diagramming separately on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A visual summary that shows what are aligned and misaligned between teachers’ and students’ views. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rudaiba Adnin, Atharva Pandkar, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, and Maitraye Das. 2025. Examining Student and Teacher Perspectives on Undisclosed Use of Generative AI in Academic Work. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Mohd Khairil Rahmat, Muhammad Shujaat Mubarik, Muhammad Mansoor Alam, and Syed Irfan Hyder. 2021. Artificial intelligence and its role in education.Sustainability13, 22 (2021), 12902

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Selin Akgun and Christine Greenhow. 2022. Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings.AI and Ethics2, 3 (2022), 431–440

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Vincent Aleven, Jori Blankestijn, LuEttaMae Lawrence, Tomohiro Nagashima, and Niels Taatgen. 2022. A dashboard to support teachers during students’ self-paced AI-supported problem-solving practice. InEuropean Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 16–30

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Vincent Aleven, Elizabeth A McLaughlin, R Amos Glenn, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2016. Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. InHandbook of research on learning and instruction. Routledge, 477–518

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Vincent Aleven, Ido Roll, Bruce M McLaren, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2016. Help helps, but only so much: Research on help seeking with intelligent tutoring systems.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education26, 1 (2016), 205–223. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6, Article CSCW124. Publication date: October 2026. Mind the Tr...

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Riordan Alfredo, Vanessa Echeverria, Yueqiao Jin, Lixiang Yan, Zachari Swiecki, Dragan Gašević, and Roberto Martinez- Maldonado. 2024. Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence6 (2024), 100215

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2019

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Matin Amoozadeh, David Daniels, Daye Nam, Aayush Kumar, Stella Chen, Michael Hilton, Sruti Srinivasa Ragavan, and Mohammad Amin Alipour. 2024. Trust in generative AI among students: An exploratory study. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Edu...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Alex Barrett and Austin Pack. 2023. Not quite eye to AI: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education20, 1 (2023), 59

    2023

  3. [11]

    Garvin Brod. 2026. Agency does not equal choice–conceptualizing agency for learning in the age of AI.Learning and Individual Differences125 (2026), 102841

    2026

  4. [12]

    Garvin Brod, Natalia Kucirkova, Joshua Shepherd, Dietsje Jolles, and Inge Molenaar. 2023. Agency in educational technology: Interdisciplinary perspectives and implications for learning design.Educational Psychology Review35, 1 (2023), 25

    2023

  5. [13]

    Yin Hong Cheah, Jingru Lu, and Juhee Kim. 2025. Integrating generative artificial intelligence in K-12 education: Examining teachers’ preparedness, practices, and barriers.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence8 (2025), 100363

    2025

  6. [14]

    Feng Chen. 2022. Human-AI cooperation in education: human in loop and teaching as leadership.Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation2, 1 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Lijia Chen, Pingping Chen, and Zhijian Lin. 2020. Artificial intelligence in education: A review.IEEE access8 (2020), 75264–75278

    2020

  8. [16]

    2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications

    2014

  9. [17]

    Martina De Lillo and Heather J Ferguson. 2023. Perspective-taking and social inferences in adolescents, young adults, and older adults.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General152, 5 (2023), 1420

    2023

  10. [18]

    Pierre Dillenbourg and Patrick Jermann. 2010. Technology for classroom orchestration. InNew science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education. Springer, 525–552

    2010

  11. [19]

    Pierre Dillenbourg, Luis P Prieto, and Jennifer K Olsen. 2018. Classroom orchestration. InInternational handbook of the learning sciences. Routledge, 180–190

    2018

  12. [20]

    Sidney D’Mello. 2013. A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology.Journal of educational psychology105, 4 (2013), 1082

    2013

  13. [21]

    Hey Google is it ok if I eat you?

    Stefania Druga, Randi Williams, Cynthia Breazeal, and Mitchel Resnick. 2017. " Hey Google is it ok if I eat you?" Initial explorations in child-agent interaction. InProceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children. 595–600

    2017

  14. [22]

    Hong Duan and Wei Zhao. 2024. The effects of educational artificial intelligence-powered applications on teachers’ perceived autonomy, professional development for online teaching, and digital burnout.International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning25, 3 (2024), 57–76

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sidney D’Mello, Blair Lehman, Reinhard Pekrun, and Art Graesser. 2014. Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction29 (2014), 153–170

    2014

  16. [24]

    Vanessa Echeverria, Kexin Yang, LuEttaMae Lawrence, Nikol Rummel, and Vincent Aleven. 2023. Designing hybrid human–AI orchestration tools for individual and collaborative activities: A technology probe study.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies16, 2 (2023), 191–205

    2023

  17. [25]

    Shuo Feng, Lishan Zhang, Shuwen Wang, and Zhihui Cai. 2023. Effectiveness of the functions of classroom orchestration systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Computers & Education203 (2023), 104864

    2023

  18. [26]

    Radhika Garg, Hua Cui, Spencer Seligson, Bo Zhang, Martin Porcheron, Leigh Clark, Benjamin R Cowan, and Erin Beneteau. 2022. The last decade of HCI research on children and voice-based conversational agents. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computin...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Radhika Garg and Subhasree Sengupta. 2020. He Is Just Like Me: A Study of the Long-Term Use of Smart Speakers by Parents and Children.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.4, 1, Article 11 (March 2020), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3381002

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Tim Gorichanaz. 2023. Accused: How students respond to allegations of using ChatGPT on assessments.Learning: Research and Practice9, 2 (2023), 183–196

    2023

  21. [29]

    Lu Guo, Dong Wang, Fei Gu, Yazheng Li, Yezhu Wang, and Rongting Zhou. 2021. Evolution and trends in intelligent tutoring systems research: a multidisciplinary and scientometric view.Asia Pacific Education Review22, 3 (2021), Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6, Ar...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Ariel Han, Xiaofei Zhou, Zhenyao Cai, Shenshen Han, Richard Ko, Seth Corrigan, and Kylie A Peppler. 2024. Teachers, parents, and students’ perspectives on integrating generative AI into elementary literacy education. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Bingyi Han, Simon Coghlan, George Buchanan, and Dana McKay. 2025. Who is Helping Whom? Student Concerns about AI-Teacher Collaboration in Higher Education Classrooms.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW206 (May 2025), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3711104

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Bingyi Han, Ying Ma, Simon Coghlan, Dana McKay, George Buchanan, and Wally Smith. 2026. AI Sensing and Intervention in Higher Education: Student Perceptions of Learning Impacts, Affective Responses, and Ethical Priorities. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Fact...

    2026

  25. [33]

    Bingyi Han, Ying Ma, Simon Coghlan, Dana McKay, George Buchanan, and Wally Smith. 2026. AI Sensing and Intervention in Higher Education: Student Perceptions of Learning Impacts, Affective Responses, and Ethical Priorities. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Fact...

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    Wayne Holmes, Kaska Porayska-Pomsta, Ken Holstein, Emma Sutherland, Toby Baker, Simon Buckingham Shum, Olga C Santos, Mercedes T Rodrigo, Mutlu Cukurova, Ig Ibert Bittencourt, et al. 2022. Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework.International Journal of A...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Kenneth Holstein, Vincent Aleven, and Nikol Rummel. 2020. A conceptual framework for human–AI hybrid adaptivity in education. InInternational conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 240–254

    2020

  28. [36]

    Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2017. Intelligent tutors as teachers’ aides: exploring teacher needs for real-time analytics in blended classrooms. InProceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference. 257–266

    2017

  29. [37]

    Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2018. Student learning benefits of a mixed-reality teacher awareness tool in AI-enhanced classrooms. InInternational conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 154–168

    2018

  30. [38]

    Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2019. Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher-AI complementarity.Grantee Submission(2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2019. Designing for complementarity: Teacher and student needs for orchestration support in AI-enhanced classrooms. InInternational conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 157–171

    2019

  32. [40]

    Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 2022. Consolidation and ideation: the bridge to design. InContextual Design: Evolved. Springer, 21–51

    2022

  33. [41]

    Shamya Karumbaiah, Conrad Borchers, Tianze Shou, Ann-Christin Falhs, Pinyang Liu, Tomohiro Nagashima, Nikol Rummel, and Vincent Aleven. 2023. A spatiotemporal analysis of teacher practices in supporting student learning and engagement in an AI-enabled classroom. InInternationa...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Aaron Kessler, Melissa Boston, and Mary Kay Stein. 2020. Exploring how teachers support students’ mathematical learning in computer-directed learning environments.Information and Learning Sciences121, 1-2 (2020), 52–78

    2020

  35. [43]

    Mohammad Khalil, Jacqueline Wong, Barbara Wasson, and Fred Paas. 2024. Adaptive support for self-regulated learning in digital learning environments. 1281–1289 pages

    2024

  36. [44]

    Kenneth R Koedinger and Vincent Aleven. 2007. Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors.Educational psychology review19, 3 (2007), 239–264

    2007

  37. [45]

    Velibor Bobo Kovač and Aslaug Kristiansen. 2010. Trusting trust in the context of higher education: The potential limits of the trust concept.Power and Education2, 3 (2010), 276–287

    2010

  38. [46]

    2024.Affinity Diagramming for Collaboratively Sorting UX Findings and Design Ideas

    Rachel Krause and Kara Pernice. 2024.Affinity Diagramming for Collaboratively Sorting UX Findings and Design Ideas. https://nngroup.com

    2024

  39. [47]

    James A Kulik and John D Fletcher. 2016. Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a meta-analytic review.Review of educational research86, 1 (2016), 42–78

    2016

  40. [48]

    Harsh Kumar, Ilya Musabirov, Mohi Reza, Jiakai Shi, Xinyuan Wang, Joseph Jay Williams, Anastasia Kuzminykh, and Michael Liut. 2024. Guiding Students in Using LLMs in Supported Learning Environments: Effects on Interaction Dynamics, Learner Performance, Confidence, and Trust.Pr...

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    LuEttaMae Lawrence, Vanessa Echeverria, Kexin Yang, Vincent Aleven, and Nikol Rummel. 2024. How teachers conceptualise shared control with an AI co-orchestration tool: A multiyear teacher-centred design process.British Journal of Educational Technology55, 3 (2024), 823–844

    2024

  42. [50]

    Lu Etta Mae Lawrence, Boyuan Guo, Kexin Yang, Vanessa Echeverria, Zimmy Kang, Vikrant Bathala, Christina Li, William Huang, Vincent Aleven, and Nikol Rummel. 2022. Co-designing ai-based orchestration tools to support Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6, Article CS...

    2022

  43. [51]

    International Society of the Learning Sciences, 139–146

  44. [52]

    Yanjin Long and Vincent Aleven. 2013. Supporting students’ self-regulated learning with an open learner model in a linear equation tutor. InInternational conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 219–228

    2013

  45. [53]

    Yanjin Long and Vincent Aleven. 2014. Gamification of joint student/system control over problem selection in a linear equation tutor. InInternational conference on intelligent tutoring systems. Springer, 378–387

    2014

  46. [54]

    Silvia B Lovato, Anne Marie Piper, and Ellen A Wartella. 2019. Hey Google, do unicorns exist? Conversational agents as a path to answers to children’s questions. InProceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on interaction design and children. 301–313

    2019

  47. [55]

    Jiahui Luo. 2025. How does GenAI affect trust in teacher-student relationships? Insights from students’ assessment experiences.Teaching in Higher Education30, 4 (2025), 991–1006

    2025

  48. [56]

    Margulieux, James Prather, Brent N

    Lauren E. Margulieux, James Prather, Brent N. Reeves, Brett A. Becker, Gozde Cetin Uzun, Dastyni Loksa, Juho Leinonen, and Paul Denny. 2024. Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Fear of Failure Interactions with How Novices Use LLMs to Solve Programming Problems. InProceedings ...

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 72 (Nov. 2019), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3359174

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Laila Mohebi. 2024. Empowering learners with ChatGPT: Insights from a systematic literature exploration.Discover Education3, 1 (2024), 36

    2024

  51. [59]

    Inge Molenaar. 2022. The concept of hybrid human-AI regulation: Exemplifying how to support young learners’ self-regulated learning.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence3 (2022), 100070

    2022

  52. [60]

    Inge Molenaar. 2022. Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies.European Journal of Education57, 4 (2022), 632–645

    2022

  53. [61]

    Tomohiro Nagashima, Lisa Siegrist, Niklas Scholz, Shintaro Sato, Martina Vincoli, and Man Su. 2026. Supplementary Materials: Mind the Trust Gap. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/ZXH69 Open Science Framework

    2026 doi

  54. [62]

    Tomohiro Nagashima, Martina Vincoli, Niklas Scholz, and Man Su. 2025. Understanding Students’ Nuanced Views on AI-Supported Classroom Learning Through Perspective Taking. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 18–31

    2025

  55. [63]

    Tomohiro Nagashima, Bin Zheng, Stephanie Tseng, Elizabeth Ling, and Vincent Aleven. 2023. Promoting students’ self-regulated learning choices with diagrams in intelligent tutoring software. InProceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2023. ...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Tanya Nazaretsky, Carmel Bar, Michal Walter, and Giora Alexandron. 2022. Empowering teachers with AI: Co-designing a learning analytics tool for personalized instruction in the science classroom. InLAK22: 12th international learning analytics and knowledge conference. 1–12

    2022

  57. [65]

    Huy Nguyen, Erik Harpstead, Yeyu Wang, and Bruce M McLaren. 2018. Student agency and game-based learning: A study comparing low and high agency. InInternational Conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 338–351

    2018

  58. [66]

    Jennifer K Olsen, Vincent Aleven, and Nikol Rummel. 2015. Toward combining individual and collaborative learning within an intelligent tutoring system. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 848–851

    2015

  59. [67]

    Jennifer K Olsen, Nikol Rummel, and Vincent Aleven. 2021. Designing for the co-orchestration of social transitions between individual, small-group and whole-class learning in the classroom.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education31, 1 (2021), 24–56

    2021

  60. [68]

    John F Pane, Beth Ann Griffin, Daniel F McCaffrey, and Rita Karam. 2014. Effectiveness of cognitive tutor algebra I at scale.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis36, 2 (2014), 127–144

    2014

  61. [69]

    Abelardo Pardo and George Siemens. 2014. Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics.British journal of educational technology45, 3 (2014), 438–450

    2014

  62. [70]

    OECD Pisa. 2023. results (volume I): the state of learning and equity in education.PISA. Paris(2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Fancsali, and Susan R

    Steve Ritter, Michael Yudelson, Stephen E. Fancsali, and Susan R. Berman. 2016. How Mastery Learning Works at Scale. InProceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale(Edinburgh, Scotland, UK)(L@S ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    Robert Sawyer, Andy Smith, Jonathan Rowe, Roger Azevedo, and James Lester. 2017. Is more agency better? The impact of student agency on game-based learning. InInternational conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 335–346. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.,...

    2017

  65. [73]

    KM Shabana, Chandrashekar Lakshminarayanan, and Jude K Anil. 2022. Curriculumtutor: An adaptive algorithm for mastering a curriculum. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 319–331

    2022

  66. [74]

    Erica L Snow, Laura K Allen, Matthew E Jacovina, and Danielle S McNamara. 2015. Does agency matter?: Exploring the impact of controlled behaviors within a game-based environment.Computers & education82 (2015), 378–392

    2015

  67. [75]

    Woźniak, Stavroula Ntoa, George Margetis, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess

    Evropi Stefanidi, Nadine Wagener, Ioannis Chatzakis, Paweł W. Woźniak, Stavroula Ntoa, George Margetis, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess. 2025. Supporting Communication and Well-being with a Multi-Stakeholder Mobile App: Lessons Learned from a Field Study with ADHD Children and...

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    Yuling Sun, Jiaju Chen, Bingsheng Yao, Jiali Liu, Dakuo Wang, Xiaojuan Ma, Yuxuan Lu, Ying Xu, and Liang He. 2024. Exploring Parent’s Needs for Children-Centered AI to Support Preschoolers’ Interactive Storytelling and Reading Activities.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW...

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    Mei Tan, Hansol Lee, Dakuo Wang, and Hari Subramonyam. 2024. Is a Seat at the Table Enough? Engaging Teachers and Students in Dataset Specification for ML in Education.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 81 (April 2024), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3637358

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Michelle Taub, Robert Sawyer, Andy Smith, Jonathan Rowe, Roger Azevedo, and James Lester. 2020. The agency effect: The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning environment.Computers & education147 (2020), 103781

    2020

  71. [79]

    Maria Theobald. 2021. Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis.Contemporary Educational Psychology66 (2021), 101976

    2021

  72. [80]

    Marcel VJ Veenman, Pascal Wilhelm, and Jos J Beishuizen. 2004. The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective.Learning and instruction14, 1 (2004), 89–109

    2004

  73. [81]

    Martina Vincoli, Niklas Scholz, and Tomohiro Nagashima. 2025. Multidimensional student agency in learning with AI: a conceptual framework and design implications. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 218–232

    2025

  74. [82]

    I think I would rather decide what to do

    Martina Vincoli, Niklas Scholz, and Tomohiro Nagashima. 2026. “I think I would rather decide what to do”: Students’ perception of control in an AI-infused classroom. InEuropean Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer

    2026

  75. [83]

    Karin Bakracevic Vukman. 2005. Developmental differences in metacognition and their connections with cognitive development in adulthood.Journal of adult development12, 4 (2005), 211–221

    2005

  76. [84]

    Francesco Walker, Matteo Favetta, Linde Hasker, and Richard Walker. 2024. They prefer humans! Experimental measurement of student trust in ChatGPT. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2024

  77. [85]

    Randi Williams, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2019. A is for artificial intelligence: the impact of artificial intelligence activities on young children’s perceptions of robots. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–11

    2019

  78. [86]

    Chuhao Wu, Xinyu Wang, John Carroll, and Sarah Rajtmajer. 2024. Reacting to generative AI: Insights from student and faculty discussions on Reddit. InProceedings of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference. 103–113

    2024

  79. [87]

    Weiqi Xu and Fan Ouyang. 2022. A systematic review of AI role in the educational system based on a proposed conceptual framework.Education and information technologies27, 3 (2022), 4195–4223

    2022

  80. [88]

    Elmira Yadollahi, Marta Couto, Pierre Dillenbourg, and Ana Paiva. 2022. Do children adapt their perspective to a robot when they fail to complete a task?. InProceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 341–351

    2022

  81. [89]

    Kexin Bella Yang, Vanessa Echeverria, Zijing Lu, Hongyu Mao, Kenneth Holstein, Nikol Rummel, and Vincent Aleven

  82. [90]

    InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Pair-up: prototyping human-AI co-orchestration of dynamic transitions between individual and collaborative learning in the classroom. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–17

    2023

  83. [91]

    Kexin Bella Yang, LuEttaMae Lawrence, Vanessa Echeverria, Boyuan Guo, Nikol Rummel, and Vincent Aleven. 2021. Surveying teachers’ preferences and boundaries regarding human-AI control in dynamic pairing of students for collaborative learning. InEuropean Conference on Technolog...

    2021

  84. [92]

    Cynthia Zastudil, Magdalena Rogalska, Christine Kapp, Jennifer Vaughn, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generative ai in computing education: Perspectives of students and instructors. In2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9

    2023

  85. [93]

    Angie Zhang, Olympia Walker, Kaci Nguyen, Jiajun Dai, Anqing Chen, and Min Kyung Lee. 2023. Deliberating with AI: improving decision-making for the future through participatory AI design and stakeholder deliberation.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 ...

    2023

  86. [94]

    Mingming Zhou and Kelly Ka Lai Lam. 2019. Metacognitive scaffolding for online information search in K-12 and higher education settings: a systematic review.Educational technology research and development67, 6 (2019), 1353–1384. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6...

    2019

  87. [95]

    Barry J Zimmerman and Magda Campillo. 2003. Motivating self-regulated problem solvers.The psychology of problem solving233262 (2003), 103

    2003

  88. [96]

    John Zimmerman and Jodi Forlizzi. 2017. Speed dating: Providing a menu of possible futures.She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation3, 1 (2017), 30–50. Received May 13, 2025; revised January 13, 2026; accepted March 17, 2026 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed July 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.