Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 152 references

Co-designing Large Language Model Tools for Project-Based Learning with K12 Educators

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Co-design with 41 teachers yields eight guidelines for LLM tools that augment PBL teachers, not replace them.

desk verdict A solid, honest co-design study that gives ed-tech designers a practical, teacher-grounded set of guidelines for LLM tools in K-12 PBL, with the main caveat being the self-selected, PBL-friendly sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09799 v1 pith:6E33FJME submitted 2025-02-13 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

Prerna Ravi , John Masla , Gisella Kakoti , Grace Lin , Emma Anderson , Matt Taylor , Anastasia Ostrowski , Cynthia Breazeal
show 2 more authors
Eric Klopfer Hal Abelson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY
keywords generativeAIlargelanguagemodelsproject-basedlearningco-designK-12teachersdesignguidelinesassessmentprogresstracking
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 argues that large language models can ease the practical burdens of project-based learning (PBL) for K-12 teachers, but only if the tools are designed with teachers, not for them. Through interviews, two co-design workshops, and iterative wireframe feedback with 41 interdisciplinary U.S. teachers, it identifies the core PBL pain points—project design, assessment, and progress tracking—and translates them into a set of design guidelines for LLM tools. The central message is that teachers want LLMs to automate routine administrative work and enrich personalized learning while leaving pedagogical judgment, final grading, and creative direction in human hands. The paper positions this as the first co-design study with K-12 teachers specifically aimed at incorporating LLMs into PBL pedagogy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-stage co-design process itself: semi-structured interviews with expert PBL teachers, two collaborative workshops using divergent and convergent design thinking (brainstorming, storyboards, and prototype worksheets), and iterative walkthroughs of wireframes for a teacher-facing system the paper calls CAIL (Collaborative AI for Learning). These wireframes—covering curriculum supports, assessment supports, and progress tracking—are the concrete artifacts that translate teacher values into design requirements. The paper then maps the resulting requirements onto the Buck Institute's Gold Standard PBL: Project Based Teaching Practices framework, which organizes the final eight recommendations.

What would settle it

A replication of the same co-design protocol with a sample that includes teachers who are skeptical or resistant to both PBL and generative AI, or with a demographically broader and non-self-selected group; if their expressed needs contradict the eight recommendations (for example, if they demand fully automated grading or reject LLM input into rubric creation), the generalizability of the guidelines collapses. Equally, a working implementation of the CAIL wireframes could be tested for whether teacher agency and workload actually improve in a controlled classroom trial.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a teacher-driven co-design process yields a concrete, grounded specification for what LLM tools should do in project-based classrooms: augment teacher creativity in project ideation, scaffold lesson planning against standards, generate differentiated and equitable rubrics (defaulting to single-point rubrics), track student progress at individual, group, and class levels, and support—but never replace—teacher grading and feedback. Teachers in the study consistently advocated for tools that support their professional growth and augment their existing roles, while flagging privacy, equity, and over-reliance as key risks. From this, the paper proposes eight design recommendations mapped onto the Buck Institute's Gold Standard PBL teaching practices, covering curriculum support, assessment support, and progress tracking.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on the assumption that 41 self-selected U.S. teachers—most already enthusiastic about PBL and GenAI—voice needs and values representative enough of the broader K-12 teaching population to ground general design guidelines; the paper itself flags this in its limitations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LLM tools for PBL should treat teacher input as mandatory for core design decisions and offer optional customization features, preserving teacher agency.
  • Rubric generation should default to single-point rubrics and pair LLM suggestions with required teacher feedback rather than automated grading.
  • Progress tracking should be visible to students individually and anonymously at class level, while protecting against administrator misuse of teacher performance data.
  • Secure data handling for differentiation must keep IEP and other sensitive student data local or inside a school network.
  • Lesson-planning supports embedded in existing standards templates can lower the barrier for novice PBL teachers while reducing experienced teachers' planning load.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these guidelines hold, a natural next step is co-designing the student-facing side of the same tools; the authors note this only as future work, but the guidelines imply the teacher dashboard's effectiveness depends on student-facing mirrors of progress data.
  • The recommendation to keep IEP data local suggests a testable extension: compare teacher trust and adoption between a local-processing version and a cloud-LLM version of the same differentiation feature.
  • The findings imply that LLM tools could inadvertently embed a specific pedagogical philosophy; designers who adopt single-point rubrics and choice boards are also adopting PBL values, and that alignment should be made explicit.
  • A concrete extension would be a longitudinal deployment study measuring whether the time saved by the tool actually shifts toward the creative and fulfilling aspects of teaching, which is the benefit the teachers said they wanted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a two-study co-design process with 41 K-12 teachers to understand the challenges of project-based learning (PBL) and to derive design guidelines for LLM-based tools that support PBL. Study 1 involved 11 expert PBL teachers in semi-structured interviews, two co-design workshops, storyboarding, and wireframe feedback; Study 2 involved 30 STEM teachers with varying PBL experience who reviewed the same wireframes. The authors identify three support areas—curriculum, assessment, and progress tracking—and propose eight design recommendations structured around the Buck Institute's Gold Standard PBL framework. The paper claims to be the first co-design study with K-12 teachers specifically targeting LLM tools for PBL.

Significance. The contribution is timely and valuable: it opens a design space that has largely been explored with students in higher education, and it grounds tool requirements in teachers' own accounts of PBL practice. The qualitative analysis is systematic and transparent: themes are defined in Table 3, interrater agreement is high (Cohen's kappa 0.906 on 40% of the data), and the path from participant quotes to themes to wireframes to design recommendations is generally traceable. The paper also deserves credit for clearly labeling the wireframes as a starting point rather than a validated product and for candidly acknowledging self-selection, the U.S.-only context, and the absence of racial demographic data. The skeptical concern about sample representativeness is real, but it lands as a scoping caveat rather than a correctness error: the paper's central contribution is a set of design considerations grounded in a particular group of teachers, and the limitations section already acknowledges the main threats to generalizability. The result, if adopted by the community, would provide an evidence-based starting point for teacher-centered LLM tool design in PBL settings.

minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2.1 and 6] The manuscript consistently describes the sample as 'interdisciplinary K-12 teachers,' but 30 of the 41 participants were STEM teachers recruited through the MIT SEPT program, and the wireframe feedback from both studies is pooled to shape the guidelines. The limitations section acknowledges self-selection and U.S. scope but not the disciplinary skew. Please add a sentence noting that the cross-disciplinary recommendations rest primarily on the 11 Study-1 participants, and soften the abstract's 'interdisciplinary' phrasing accordingly.
  2. [1 and 3.1.2] The abstract and Section 1.1 describe 'iterative design of wireframes' and 'iterative feedback,' but the methods describe a single wireframe construction followed by one review round in Study 1 and one review round in Study 2. If the wireframes were revised between these rounds, please say so explicitly; otherwise replace 'iterative' with language such as 'feedback-based refinement' or describe the two-stage review process.
  3. [2.1] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'Unlike problem-based learning, which promotes promotes deductive reasoning'; 'promotes' should appear once.
  4. [Table 3] The definition for the 'specific project examples' theme contains a garbled fragment: 'Include details about the project sp we know what is, not just in reference to other parts pedagogy.' Please repair this sentence so that the coding definition is clear to readers and future coders.
  5. [3.1.3] A Cohen's kappa of 0.906 is described as 'substantial interrater reliability'; under the commonly used Landis and Koch convention cited elsewhere in the paper, this value is conventionally called 'almost perfect.' Consider aligning the wording with the cited scale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the design guidelines are transparently derived from the co-design data, and the self-citations are peripheral rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative predictions and fits no model parameters; its central contribution is a set of design guidelines that are explicitly synthesized from teacher interviews, co-design workshops, and wireframe feedback described in Sections 3 and 4. There is no step in which an output is equivalent by construction to an input, and no fitted quantity is later renamed as a prediction. The Gold Standard PBL framework from the Buck Institute (Section 5.2) is an external pedagogical framework used to organize the recommendations; the recommendations themselves are grounded in the reported teacher data rather than derived from the framework by definition. Several self-citations appear (e.g., the internal memo [76] for portfolio support, the co-design guidelines [91] for workshop structure, Ravi et al. [104] for recruitment considerations, and an under-review paper [142] with author overlap), but none of these carries the central claim: the first-co-design-study novelty claim is phrased as 'to the best of our knowledge' and the guidelines are presented as design considerations, not as validated outcomes. The Limitations section candidly concedes the self-selected, PBL-enthusiastic sample and limited generalizability, which is a validity and sampling concern, not a circularity concern. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

This is a qualitative HCI study with no numerical free parameters. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about qualitative methods, self-reported data, and sample representativeness. The only invented entity is the CAIL wireframe concept, clearly labeled as a design artifact rather than a validated tool.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Qualitative thematic analysis is sufficient to derive design guidelines.
    The study uses inductive and deductive thematic analysis of interviews and workshop transcripts to generate themes and recommendations without quantitative validation. Section 3.1.3.
  • domain assumption Self-reported teacher perspectives reflect actual classroom needs.
    The design guidelines rest on interviews and workshop feedback from teachers; no classroom observation or deployment data is collected. Sections 3.1.2 and 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The recruited teacher sample is representative enough for generalizable guidelines.
    The authors acknowledge the sample is self-selected and US-centric, limiting generalizability. Section 6: 'our study involved a self-selected group of teachers who were likely more interested in GenAI and PBL.'
invented entities (1)
  • CAIL (Collaborative AI for Learning) wireframe tool
    purpose: A proposed LLM-based teacher dashboard for curriculum support, assessment, and progress tracking, used as a design probe to elicit teacher feedback.
    The wireframes are not implemented or tested in classrooms; they are described as 'only a starting point' in Section 6. No empirical evidence of efficacy is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-designing Large Language Model Tools for Project-Based Learning with K12 Educators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6E33FJME

@misc{pith2026250209799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-designing Large Language Model Tools for Project-Based Learning with K12 Educators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6E33FJME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09799}
}
read the original abstract

The emergence of generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), has opened the door for student-centered and active learning methods like project-based learning (PBL). However, PBL poses practical implementation challenges for educators around project design and management, assessment, and balancing student guidance with student autonomy. The following research documents a co-design process with interdisciplinary K-12 teachers to explore and address the current PBL challenges they face. Through teacher-driven interviews, collaborative workshops, and iterative design of wireframes, we gathered evidence for ways LLMs can support teachers in implementing high-quality PBL pedagogy by automating routine tasks and enhancing personalized learning. Teachers in the study advocated for supporting their professional growth and augmenting their current roles without replacing them. They also identified affordances and challenges around classroom integration, including resource requirements and constraints, ethical concerns, and potential immediate and long-term impacts. Drawing on these, we propose design guidelines for future deployment of LLM tools in PBL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of blank worksheets distributed to participants in workshop 2 outlining stakeholder impacts and ethical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A timeline illustrating the various stages of our study alongside the corresponding paper section numbers where their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A figure displaying the mapping of research objectives to the different stages of the study and their results’ coded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Storyboard (P11) mapping a step-by-step teacher-LLM interaction for project and assessment ideation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Storyboard (P05) showing an LLM tool for alternative assignments and lesson plans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Storyboard (P10) depicting an LLM assistant to mon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PBL LLM tool supports for brainstorming project [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PBL LLM tool supports for lesson planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PBL LLM tool supports for rubric creation and differentiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PBL LLM tool supports for grading 4.3.2 Assessment Supports. The assessment support section of the wireframes received mixed reactions from teachers, as discussed below. Teachers can use CAIL to develop rubrics ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: PBL LLM tool supports for progress tracking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Gold Standard Framework: Project Based Teaching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples of choice boards used by our teachers to promote student agency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Examples of Padlets used by our teachers to document student progress and self-reflections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    David Adamson, Gregory Dyke, Hyeju Jang, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2014. Towards an agile approach to adapting dynamic collaboration support to student needs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 24 (2014), 92– 124

    2014

  2. [2]

    L Aitken. 2019. Teacher perspectives on using project-based learn- ing. https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/teacher-perspectives- on-using-project-based-learning

    2019

  3. [3]

    Maija Aksela, Outi Haatainen, et al . 2019. Project-based learning (PBL) in practise: Active teachers’ views of its’ advantages and challenges. Integrated Education for the Real World 34 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Ashraf Alam. 2023. Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI-enabled learning ecologies with real world examples of today and a peek into the future. In AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2717. AIP Publishing. Co-designing Large Language Model Tools for Project-Based Learning with K-12 Educators CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2023

  5. [5]

    Mark A Albanese and Georgia L Hinman. 2019. Types and Design of Assessment in PBL. The Wiley Handbook of Problem-Based Learning (2019), 389–409

    2019

  6. [6]

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

    2024

  7. [7]

    Safinah Ali, Vishesh Kumar, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2023. AI audit: a card game to reflect on everyday AI systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37. 15981–15989

    2023

  8. [8]

    Matthew Arnold, Rachel KE Bellamy, Michael Hind, Stephanie Houde, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilović, Ravi Nair, K Natesan Ramamurthy, Alexandra Olteanu, David Piorkowski, et al . 2019. FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (2019), 6–1

    2019

Show all 152 references
  1. [9]

    Nursultan Askarbekuly and Nenad Aničić. 2024. LLM examiner: automating assessment in informal self-directed e-learning using ChatGPT. Knowledge and Information Systems (2024), 1–18

    2024

  2. [10]

    Sinem Aslan and Charles M Reigeluth. 2015. Examining the challenges of learner-centered education. Phi delta kappan 97, 4 (2015), 63–68

    2015

  3. [11]

    Andi Asrifan et al. 2024. Integrating AI in Project-Based Learning for Differ- entiated English Language Instruction: A Scoping Review. Journal of English Education and Teaching 8, 3 (2024), 586–608

    2024

  4. [12]

    Theophilus Azungah. 2018. Qualitative research: deductive and inductive ap- proaches to data analysis. Qualitative research journal 18, 4 (2018), 383–400

    2018

  5. [13]

    Marie AB Bakah, Joke M Voogt, and Jules M Pieters. 2012. Updating polytech- nic teachers’ knowledge and skills through teacher design teams in Ghana. Professional development in education 38, 1 (2012), 7–24

    2012

  6. [14]

    Brigid Barron and Linda Darling-Hammond. 2008. Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning. Book Excerpt. George Lucas Educational Foundation (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    William N Bender. 2012. Project-based learning: Differentiating instruction for the 21st century. Corwin Press

    2012

  8. [16]

    Phyllis C Blumenfeld, Elliot Soloway, Ronald W Marx, Joseph S Krajcik, Mark Guzdial, and Annemarie Palincsar. 1991. Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist 26, 3-4 (1991), 369–398

    1991

  9. [17]

    Jo Boaler. 1998. Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and under- standings. Journal for research in mathematics education 29, 1 (1998), 41–62

    1998

  10. [18]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    2019

  11. [19]

    Jonathan Brinkerhoff and Krista Glazewski. 2004. Support of expert and novice teachers within a technology enhanced problem-based learning unit: A case study. International Journal of Learning Technology 1, 2 (2004), 219–230

    2004

  12. [20]

    Ann L Brown. 1992. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The journal of the learning sciences 2, 2 (1992), 141–178

    1992

  13. [21]

    Bill Buxton. 2010. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan kaufmann

    2010

  14. [22]

    Zhenyao Cai, Seehee Park, Nia Nixon, and Shayan Doroudi. 2024. Advancing Knowledge Together: Integrating Large Language Model-based Conversational AI in Small Group Collaborative Learning. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–9

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local standards for sample size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 981–992

    2016

  16. [24]

    Ling Cen, Dymitr Ruta, Leigh Powell, Benjamin Hirsch, and Jason Ng. 2016. Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: Performance prediction, indi- vidual assessment, and group composition. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning 11 (2016), 187–225

    2016

  17. [25]

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan and Katherine KW Lee. 2023. The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart learning environments 10, 1 (2023), 60

    2023

  18. [26]

    Catherine C Chase, Doris B Chin, Marily A Oppezzo, and Daniel L Schwartz

  19. [27]

    Cheng-Huan Chen and Yong-Cih Yang. 2019. Revisiting the effects of project- based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigat- ing moderators. Educational Research Review 26 (2019), 71–81

    2019

  20. [28]

    Jennifer J Chen and Jasmine C Lin. 2024. Artificial intelligence as a double-edged sword: Wielding the POWER principles to maximize its positive effects and minimize its negative effects. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 25, 1 (2024), 146–153

    2024

  21. [29]

    Junghee Choi, Ju-Ho Lee, and Booyuel Kim. 2019. How does learner-centered education affect teacher self-efficacy? The case of project-based learning in Korea. Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019), 45–57

    2019

  22. [30]

    Rebecca Cober, Esther Tan, Jim Slotta, Hyo-Jeong So, and Karen D Könings. 2015. Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science 43 (2015), 203–228

    2015

  23. [31]

    Kabba E Colley. 2006. Understanding ecology content knowledge and acquiring science process skills through project-based science instruction.Science activities 43, 1 (2006), 26–33

    2006

  24. [32]

    Barbara Condliffe. 2017. Project-Based Learning: A Literature Review. Working Paper. MDRC (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis, and Duane Searsmith. 2021. Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educational philosophy and theory 53, 12 (2021), 1229–1245

    2021

  26. [34]

    Linda Darling-Hammond, Frank Adamson, and Jamal Abedi. 2010. Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Pollcy in Education

    2010

  27. [35]

    W Diehl, T Grobe, H Lopez, and C Cabral. 1999. Project-based learning: A strategy for teaching and learning

    1999

  28. [36]

    Betsy DiSalvo and Kayla DesPortes. 2017. Participatory design for value-driven learning. In Participatory design for learning . Routledge, 175–188

    2017

  29. [37]

    Kyle Dunbar and Aman Yadav. 2022. Shifting to student-centered learning: Influences of teaching a summer service learning program.Teaching and Teacher Education 110 (2022), 103578

    2022

  30. [38]

    Srijani Dutta, Sakshi Ranjan, Sushruta Mishra, Vandana Sharma, Pradeep Hewage, and Celestine Iwendi. 2024. Enhancing Educational Adaptability: A Review and Analysis of AI-Driven Adaptive Learning Platforms. In 2024 4th International Conference on Innovative Practices in Techno...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gregory Dyke, David Adamson, Iris Howley, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2013. Enhancing scientific reasoning and discussion with conversational agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 6, 3 (2013), 240–247

    2013

  32. [40]

    Mary C English and Anastasia Kitsantas. 2013. Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem-and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary journal of problem-based learning 7, 2 (2013), 6

    2013

  33. [41]

    Peggy A Ertmer and Krista D Simons. 2006. Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based learning 1, 1 (2006), 40–54

    2006

  34. [42]

    Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor . St. Martin’s Press

    2018

  35. [43]

    Xiao Fang, Shangkun Che, Minjia Mao, Hongzhe Zhang, Ming Zhao, and Xi- aohang Zhao. 2024. Bias of AI-generated content: an examination of news produced by large language models. Scientific Reports 14, 1 (2024), 5224

    2024

  36. [44]

    Deborah Fields, Debora Lui, Yasmin Kafai, Gayithri Jayathirtha, Justice Walker, and Mia Shaw. 2023. Communicating about computational thinking: understand- ing affordances of portfolios for assessing high school students’ computational thinking and participation practices. In ...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Miranda S Fitzgerald. 2020. Overlapping opportunities for social-emotional and literacy learning in elementary-grade project-based instruction. American Journal of Education 126, 4 (2020), 573–601

    2020

  38. [46]

    Shelagh A Gallagher. 1997. Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted 20, 4 (1997), 332–362

    1997

  39. [47]

    Debbie Goh and Ugur Kale. 2016. The urban–rural gap: project-based learn- ing with Web 2.0 among West Virginian teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 25, 3 (2016), 355–376

    2016

  40. [48]

    Jennifer Gonzalez. 2015. Know Your Terms: Single-Point Rubric. https://www. cultofpedagogy.com/single-point-rubric/. Accessed: 2024-08-19

    2015

  41. [49]

    Kai Guo, Yuchun Zhong, Danling Li, and Samuel Kai Wah Chu. 2023. Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation. Computers & Education 203 (2023), 104862

    2023

  42. [50]

    Jerry Ryan David Gustafson, Gaganpreet Jhajj, Xiaokun Zhang, and Fuhua Oscar Lin. 2025. Enhancing Project-Based Learning With a GenAI Tool Based on Retrieval: Augmented Generation and Knowledge Graphs. In AI Applications and Strategies in Teacher Education . IGI Global, 161–194

    2025

  43. [51]

    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. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Adam Handelzalts. 2019. Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Springer International Publishing

    2019

  45. [53]

    John Hattie and Mark Gan. 2011. Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction . Routledge, 263–285

    2011

  46. [54]

    William Havice, Pamela Havice, Chelsea Waugaman, and Kristin Walker. 2018. Evaluating the effectiveness of integrative STEM education: Teacher and ad- ministrator professional development. Journal of Technology Education 29, 2 (2018), 73–90

    2018

  47. [55]

    Pedro Hernández-Ramos and Susan De La Paz. 2009. Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in a project-based learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42, 2 (2009), 151–173

    2009

  48. [56]

    Nancy B Hertzog. 2007. Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics 18, 4 (2007), 530–564. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ravi, et al

    2007

  49. [57]

    Denise Higgins, Adelaide Dennis, Angela Stoddard, Alexander G Maier, and Susan Howitt. 2019. ‘Power to empower’: conceptions of teaching and learning in a pedagogical co-design partnership. Higher Education Research & Development 38, 6 (2019), 1154–1167

    2019

  50. [58]

    Margaret Holm. 2011. Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten. River academic journal 7, 2 (2011), 1–13

    2011

  51. [59]

    James Hutson and Jason Ceballos. 2023. Rethinking education in the age of AI: the importance of developing durable skills in the Industry 4.0. Journal of Information Economics 1, 2 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Intel Education Initiative et al. 2007. Designing effective projects: Characteristics of projects. Benefits of Project-based Learning. Santa Clara, CA: Intel Corporation (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Stavroula Kaldi, Diamanto Filippatou, and Christos Govaris. 2011. Project-based learning in primary schools: Effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education 3–13 39, 1 (2011), 35–47

    2011

  54. [62]

    Yael Kali, Marcia C Linn, et al. 2008. Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2008), 145–161

    2008

  55. [63]

    Md Kabin Hasan Kanchon, Mahir Sadman, Kaniz Fatema Nabila, Ramisa Taran- num, and Riasat Khan. 2024. Enhancing personalized learning: AI-driven iden- tification of learning styles and content modification strategies. International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering ...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Hanseob Kim, Bin Han, Jieun Kim, Muhammad Firdaus Syawaludin Lubis, Gerard Jounghyun Kim, and Jae-In Hwang. 2024. Engaged and Affective Virtual Agents: Their Impact on Social Presence, Trustworthiness, and Decision-Making in the Group Discussion. In Proceedings of the CHI Conf...

    2024

  57. [65]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Changhoon Oh, Bongwon Suh, and Joonhwan Lee. 2020. Bot in the bunch: Facilitating group chat discussion by improving efficiency and participation with a chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2020

  58. [66]

    Dimitra Kokotsaki, Victoria Menzies, and Andy Wiggins. 2016. Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving schools 19, 3 (2016), 267–277

    2016

  59. [67]

    Siu-Cheung Kong, Man-Yin William Cheung, and Olson Tsang. 2024. Developing an artificial intelligence literacy framework: Evaluation of a literacy course for senior secondary students using a project-based learning approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 6 (...

    2024

  60. [68]

    Joseph S Krajcik and Phyllis C Blumenfeld. 2006. Project-based learning. na

    2006

  61. [69]

    Joseph S Krajcik and Kongju Mun. 2014. Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In Handbook of research on science education, volume II . Routledge, 337–360

    2014

  62. [70]

    Rohit Kumar and Carolyn P Rose. 2010. Architecture for building conversa- tional agents that support collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 4, 1 (2010), 21–34

    2010

  63. [71]

    Gila Kurtz, Meital Amzalag, Nava Shaked, Yanay Zaguri, Dan Kohen-Vacs, Eran Gal, Gideon Zailer, and Eran Barak-Medina. 2024. Strategies for Integrating Generative AI into Higher Education: Navigating Challenges and Leveraging Opportunities. Education Sciences 14, 5 (2024), 503

    2024

  64. [72]

    Steinar Kvale and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. sage

    2009

  65. [73]

    Shui-fong Lam, Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng, and Harriet C Choy. 2010. School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and instruction 20, 6 (2010), 487–497

    2010

  66. [74]

    Yu-Ju Lan and Nian-Shing Chen. 2024. Teachers’ agency in the era of LLM and generative AI. Educational Technology & Society 27, 1 (2024), I–XVIII

    2024

  67. [75]

    Q Vera Liao, Daniel Gruen, and Sarah Miller. 2020. Questioning the AI: informing design practices for explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15

    2020

  68. [76]

    G. C. Lin. 2023. Internal Memo/Report for Project-Based Learning Assessment: Portfolio Approach. Technical Report. Scheller Teacher Education Program | The Education Arcade

    2023

  69. [77]

    Phoebe Lin and Jessica Van Brummelen. 2021. Engaging teachers to co-design integrated AI curriculum for K-12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2021

  70. [78]

    Andreas Lingnau, Andreas Harrer, Markus Kuhn, and H ULRICH HOPPE. 2007. Empowering teachers to evolve media enriched classroom scenarios. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 2, 02 (2007), 105–129

    2007

  71. [79]

    Y-C Liu, Amaresh Chakrabarti, and Thomas Bligh. 2003. Towards an ‘ideal’approach for concept generation. Design studies 24, 4 (2003), 341–355

    2003

  72. [80]

    Anette Markula and Maija Aksela. 2022. The key characteristics of project- based learning: how teachers implement projects in K-12 science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research 4, 1 (2022), 2

    2022

  73. [81]

    Camillia Matuk, Rebecca Martin, Veena Vasudevan, Kim Burgas, Kim Chaloner, Ido Davidesco, Sushmita Sadhukha, Yury Shevchenko, Engin Bumbacher, and Suzanne Dikker. 2021. Students learning about science by investigating an unfolding pandemic. Aera Open 7 (2021), 23328584211054850

    2021

  74. [82]

    Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica 22, 3 (2012), 276–282

    2012

  75. [83]

    Susan McKenney, Ferry Boschman, Jules Pieters, and Joke Voogt. 2016. Col- laborative design of technology-enhanced learning: What can we learn from teacher talk? TechTrends 60 (2016), 385–391

    2016

  76. [84]

    Gale A Mentzer, Charlene M Czerniak, and Lisa Brooks. 2017. An examination of teacher understanding of project based science as a result of participating in an extended professional development program: Implications for implementation. School Science and Mathematics 117, 1-2 (...

    2017

  77. [85]

    John R Mergendoller and John W Thomas. 2005. Managing project based learning: Principles from the field. Retrieved June 14 (2005), 2005

    2005

  78. [86]

    Michael Muller, Lydia B Chilton, Anna Kantosalo, Charles Patrick Martin, and Greg Walsh. 2022. GenAICHI: generative AI and HCI. In CHI conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts . 1–7

    2022

  79. [87]

    Simon Nagy, Richard McInnes, and Laura Airey. 2023. Gen-AI: A Transforma- tive Partner in Collaborative Course Development. International Journal on Innovations in Online Education 7, 2 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    Sasha Nikolic and Karley Beckman. [n. d.]. Supporting Engineering Project- Based Learning through the Use of ChatGPT and Generative AI: A Case Study. In Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education . Routledge, 215–232

  81. [89]

    Pedro Noguera, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Diane Friedlaender. 2015. Equal opportunity for deeper learning. (2015)

    2015

  82. [90]

    Ayse Oguz-Unver and Sertac Arabacioglu. 2014. A comparison of inquiry-based learning (IBL), problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PJBL) in science education. Academia Journal of Educational Research 2, 7 (2014), 120–128

    2014

  83. [91]

    Anastasia K Ostrowski, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2021. Long- term co-design guidelines: empowering older adults as co-designers of social robots. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1165–1172

    2021

  84. [92]

    Fan Ouyang, Mian Wu, Luyi Zheng, Liyin Zhang, and Pengcheng Jiao. 2023. Integration of artificial intelligence performance prediction and learning ana- lytics to improve student learning in online engineering course. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Ed...

    2023

  85. [93]

    Valentine Joseph Owan, Kinsgley Bekom Abang, Delight Omoji Idika, Eu- gene Onor Etta, and Bassey Asuquo Bassey. 2023. Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence tools in educational measurement and assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Educ...

    2023

  86. [94]

    Mookdaporn Panasan and Prasart Nuangchalerm. 2010. Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. Online Submission 6, 2 (2010), 252–255

    2010

  87. [95]

    Walter Parker, Susan Mosborg, John Bransford, Nancy Vye, John Wilkerson, and Robert Abbott. 2011. Rethinking advanced high school coursework: Tackling the depth/breadth tension in the AP US Government and Politics course.Journal of Curriculum Studies 43, 4 (2011), 533–559

    2011

  88. [96]

    Buck Institute of Education PBLWorks. 2019. What is Project-based Learning? https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl

    2019

  89. [97]

    William R Penuel, Jeremy Roschelle, and Nicole Shechtman. 2007. Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning 2, 01 (2007), 51–74

    2007

  90. [98]

    Vanessa L Peters and James D Slotta. 2009. Co-designing curricula to promote collaborative knowledge construction in secondary school science. (2009)

    2009

  91. [99]

    BW Peterson. 2012. Uncovering the progressive past: The origins of project- based learning. UnBoxed: A Journal of Adult Learning in Schools 8 (2012)

    2012

  92. [100]

    Dimitrios Pnevmatikos, Panagiota Christodoulou, and Nikolaos Fachantidis

  93. [101]

    Ashley Seidel Potvin, Alison G Boardman, and Kristina Stamatis. 2021. Conse- quential change: Teachers scale project-based learning in English language arts. Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021), 103469

    2021

  94. [102]

    Janet Quint and Barbara Condliffe. 2018. Project-Based Learning: A Promising Approach to Improving Student Outcomes. Issue Focus. MDRC (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    Chris Quintana, Brian J Reiser, Elizabeth A Davis, Joseph Krajcik, Eric Fretz, Ravit Golan Duncan, Eleni Kyza, Daniel Edelson, and Elliot Soloway. 2018. A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. In Scaffolding. Psychology Press, 337–386

    2018

  96. [104]

    Prerna Ravi, Azra Ismail, and Neha Kumar. 2021. The pandemic shift to re- mote learning under resource constraints. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–28

    2021

  97. [105]

    Brian Reiser. 2006. Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences . Cambridge University Press, 335–354

    2006

  98. [106]

    Brian J Reiser. 2018. Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of struc- turing and problematizing student work. In Scaffolding. Psychology Press, 273–304

    2018

  99. [107]

    2019.Project-Based Learning Increases Science Achieve- ment in Elementary School and Advances Social and Emotional Learning

    Lucas Education Research. 2019.Project-Based Learning Increases Science Achieve- ment in Elementary School and Advances Social and Emotional Learning . Techni- cal Report. George Lucas Education Foundation. Co-designing Large Language Model Tools for Project-Based Learning wit...

    2019

  100. [108]

    Jeremy Roschelle, William Penuel, and Nicole Shechtman. 2006. Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics. (2006)

    2006

  101. [109]

    Jürgen Rudolph, Samson Tan, and Shannon Tan. 2023. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of applied learning and teaching 6, 1 (2023), 342–363

    2023

  102. [110]

    Soumendra Sahoo, Kay Thi Myint, Htoo Htoo Kyaw Soe, and Simerjit Singh

  103. [111]

    Agariadne Dwinggo Samala, Soha Rawas, Tianchong Wang, Janet Marie Reed, Jinhee Kim, Natalie-Jane Howard, and Myriam Ertz. 2024. Unveiling the land- scape of generative artificial intelligence in education: a comprehensive taxon- omy of applications, challenges, and future pros...

    2024

  104. [112]

    John R Savery. 2015. Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and dis- tinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows 9, 2 (2015), 5–15

    2015

  105. [113]

    Bertrand Schneider and Roy Pea. 2014. Toward collaboration sensing. In- ternational Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 9, 4 (2014), 371–395

    2014

  106. [114]

    Johannes Schneider, Bernd Schenk, Christina Niklaus, and Michaelis Vlachos

  107. [115]

    Rebecca M Schneider, Joseph Krajcik, Ronald W Marx, and Elliot Soloway. 2002. Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for...

    2002

  108. [116]

    Jonathan Schweig. 2019. Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: Understanding Com- mon, Uncommon, and Combined Methods . RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. doi:10.7249/RR4312.4

    2019 doi

  109. [117]

    Boran Sekeroglu, Kamil Dimililer, and Kubra Tuncal. 2019. Student performance prediction and classification using machine learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2019 8th international conference on educational and information technology. 7–11

    2019

  110. [118]

    Orit Shaer, Angelora Cooper, Osnat Mokryn, Andrew L Kun, and Hagit Ben Shoshan. 2024. AI-Augmented Brainwriting: Investigating the use of LLMs in group ideation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2024

  111. [119]

    Krista D Simons, James D Klein, and Thomas R Brush. 2004. Instructional strategies utilized during the implementation of a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment: A case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 15, 3 (2004), 213–233

    2004

  112. [120]

    Hyo-Jeong So, Chohui Lee, Sujin Kim, and Nur Arifah Drajati. 2024. Enhancing Teacher Competency for Creative Problem Solving with Generative AI. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 277–284

    2024

  113. [121]

    Daniel Spikol, Marcelo Milrad, Heidy Maldonado, and Roy Pea. 2009. Integrating co-design practices into the development of mobile science collaboratories. In 2009 ninth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies . IEEE, 393–397

    2009

  114. [122]

    Steven E Stemler. 2019. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and mea- surement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 9, 1 (2019), 4

    2019

  115. [123]

    Yuan Sun, Eunchae Jang, Fenglong Ma, and Ting Wang. 2024. Generative AI in the Wild: Prospects, Challenges, and Strategies. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  116. [124]

    Vanessa Svihla and Richard Reeve. 2020. Facilitating problem framing in project- based learning. Interactional research into problem-based learning (2020), 129– 164

    2020

  117. [125]

    Dattatray G Takale, Parikshit N Mahalle, and Bipin Sule. 2024. Assessing Generative AI-Generated Assignments: A Framework Based on the 3R. Journal of Data Mining and Management 9, 2 (2024), 11–16

    2024

  118. [126]

    Seng Chee Tan, Alwyn Vwen Yen Lee, and Min Lee. 2022. A systematic review of artificial intelligence techniques for collaborative learning over the past two decades. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 3 (2022), 100097

    2022

  119. [127]

    Xiaoqi Tanga, Xinyan Mac Xu Dingb, Siman Zhangd, and Junfeng Diaoe. 2024. An Exploration of Project-Based Learning Supported by Artificial Intelligence. In 2024 5th International Conference on Big Data and Informatization Education (ICBDIE 2024). Atlantis Press, 220–230

    2024

  120. [128]

    Leah Teeters, A Susan Jurow, and Molly Shea. 2016. The challenge and promise of community co-design. In Design as Scholarship. Routledge, 41–54

    2016

  121. [129]

    John W Thomas. 1998. Project based learning overview. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education 3 (1998)

    1998

  122. [130]

    John W Thomas. 2010. A review of research on project-based learning. 2000. The Autodesk Foundation: San Rafael (2010)

    2010

  123. [131]

    John W Thomas, John R Mergendoller, and Andrew Michaelson. 1999. Project based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers . Buck Institute for Education

    1999

  124. [132]

    Paraskevi Topali, Alejandro Ortega-Arranz, María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana, Erkan Er, Mohammad Khalil, and Gökhan Akçapınar. 2024. Designing human-centered learning analytics and artificial intelligence in education solutions: a systematic literature review. Behaviour & Informati...

    2024

  125. [133]

    Torrey Trust and Jeromie Whalen. 2021. Emergency remote teaching with technology during the COVID-19 pandemic: using the whole teacher lens to examine educator’s experiences and insights. Educational Media International 58, 2 (2021), 145–160

    2021

  126. [134]

    Kuo-Hung Tseng, Chi-Cheng Chang, Shi-Jer Lou, and Wen-Ping Chen. 2013. Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment.International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23 (2013), 87–102

    2013

  127. [135]

    Ruben Vanderlinde and Johan van Braak. 2010. The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British educational research journal 36, 2 (2010), 299–316

    2010

  128. [136]

    Elina Viro, Daranee Lehtonen, Jorma Joutsenlahti, and Ville Tahvanainen. 2020. Teachers’ perspectives on project-based learning in mathematics and science. (2020)

    2020

  129. [137]

    Joke Voogt, Therese Laferriere, Alain Breuleux, Rebecca C Itow, Daniel T Hickey, and Susan McKenney. 2015. Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional science 43 (2015), 259–282

    2015

  130. [138]

    ecology of learning

    Susan J Wake and Chris Eames. 2013. Developing an “ecology of learning” within a school sustainability co-design project with children in New Zealand. Local Environment 18, 3 (2013), 305–322

    2013

  131. [139]

    Xiaoyu Wan, Jingwan Tang, Xiaofei Zhou, and Zhen Bai. 2021. Exploratory Process Analysis of Teacher Learning of AI Integration through Collaborative Design. (2021)

    2021

  132. [140]

    Shan Wang, Fang Wang, Zhen Zhu, Jingxuan Wang, Tam Tran, and Zhao Du

  133. [141]

    Justin D Weisz, Jessica He, Michael Muller, Gabriela Hoefer, Rachel Miles, and Werner Geyer. 2024. Design Principles for Generative AI Applications. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–22

    2024

  134. [142]

    Woods, Avneet Hira, Emma Anderson, and Amelia M

    Peter J. Woods, Avneet Hira, Emma Anderson, and Amelia M. Farid. 2024. Towards a Framework for Collaborative Design in PBL-centered Instructional Coaching. Under review (2024)

    2024

  135. [143]

    Shin Park Young. 2018. How to equip students to be problem solvers through STEAM The emphasis of scientific thinking, computational thinking, and emo- tional thinking. JSSE Research Report 32, 8 (2018), 3–6

    2018

  136. [144]

    Siyu Zha, Yuehan Qiao, Qingyu Hu, Zhongsheng Li, Jiangtao Gong, and Yingqing Xu. 2024. Designing Child-Centric AI Learning Environments: Insights from LLM-Enhanced Creative Project-Based Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16159 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  137. [145]

    BaoHui Zhang, Chee-Kit Looi, Peter Seow, Gean Chia, Lung-Hsiang Wong, Wenli Chen, Hyo-Jeong So, Elliot Soloway, and Cathie Norris. 2010. Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education 55, 4 (2010), 1504–1523

    2010

  138. [146]

    Chengbo Zheng, Zeyu Huang, Shuai Ma, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. SelfGauge: An Intelligent Tool to Support Student Self-assessment in GenAI-enhanced Project- based Learning. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–3

    2024

  139. [147]

    Chengbo Zheng, Kangyu Yuan, Bingcan Guo, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Zhenhui Peng, Shuai Ma, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. Charting the Future of AI in Project-Based Learning: A Co-Design Exploration with Students. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2024

  140. [2009]

    Journal of science education and technology 18 (2009), 334–352

    Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of science education and technology 18 (2009), 334–352

    2009

  141. [2013]

    The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmol- ogy 2, 5 (2013), 282–285

    Formative assessment of ophthalmology problem-based learning tutorials during undergraduate medical training. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmol- ogy 2, 5 (2013), 282–285

    2013

  142. [2020]

    EDULEARN20 pro- ceedings (2020), 5543–5552

    Stakeholders’ Involvement In Participatory Design Approaches of Learn- ing Environments: A Systematic Review of the Literature. EDULEARN20 pro- ceedings (2020), 5543–5552

    2020

  143. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11508 (2023)

    Towards llm-based autograding for short textual answers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11508 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  144. [2024]

    Expert Systems with Applications 252 (2024), 124167

    Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 252 (2024), 124167

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.