Mei Tan

Mei Tan, Hansol Lee, Dakuo Wang et al.

Despite the promises of ML in education, its adoption in the classroom has surfaced numerous issues regarding fairness, accountability, and transparency, as well as concerns about data privacy and student consent. A root cause of these issues is the lack of understanding of the complex dynamics of education, including teacher-student interactions, collaborative learning, and classroom environment. To overcome these challenges and fully utilize the potential of ML in education, software practitioners need to work closely with educators and students to fully understand the context of the data (the backbone of ML applications) and collaboratively define the ML data specifications. To gain a deeper understanding of such a collaborative process, we conduct ten co-design sessions with ML software practitioners, educators, and students. In the sessions, teachers and students work with ML engineers, UX designers, and legal practitioners to define dataset characteristics for a given ML application. We find that stakeholders contextualize data based on their domain and procedural knowledge, proactively design data requirements to mitigate downstream harms and data reliability concerns, and exhibit role-based collaborative strategies and contribution patterns. Further, we find that beyond a seat at the table, meaningful stakeholder participation in ML requires structured supports: defined processes for continuous iteration and co-evaluation, shared contextual data quality standards, and information scaffolds for both technical and non-technical stakeholders to traverse expertise boundaries.

Guanzhong Pan, Mei Tan, Hyunji Nam et al.

We introduce EduCoder, a domain-specialized tool designed to support utterance-level annotation of educational dialogue. While general-purpose text annotation tools for NLP and qualitative research abound, few address the complexities of coding education dialogue transcripts -- with diverse teacher-student and peer interactions. Common challenges include defining codebooks for complex pedagogical features, supporting both open-ended and categorical coding, and contextualizing utterances with external features, such as the lesson's purpose and the pedagogical value of the instruction. EduCoder is designed to address these challenges by providing a platform for researchers and domain experts to collaboratively define complex codebooks based on observed data. It incorporates both categorical and open-ended annotation types along with contextual materials. Additionally, it offers a side-by-side comparison of multiple annotators' responses, allowing comparison and calibration of annotations with others to improve data reliability. The system is open-source, with a demo video available.

Caleb Ziems, Dora Zhao, Rose E. Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping the private and professional lives of users, with numerous applications in business, education, finance, healthcare, law, and science. With this rise in global influence comes greater urgency to build, evaluate, and deploy these systems in a manner that prioritizes not only technical capabilities but also human priorities. This work presents a framework for developing Human-Centered Large Language Models (HCLLMs), which integrates perspectives from Natural Language Processing (NLP), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and responsible AI. Considering the ethics, economics, and technical objectives of language modeling, we argue that model developers need to address human concerns, preferences, values, and goals, not only during a cursory post-training stage, but rather with rigor and care at every stage of the pipeline. This paper offers human-centered insights and recommendations for developers at each stage, from system design to data sourcing, model training, evaluation, and responsible deployment. Then we conclude with a case study, applying these insights to understand the future of work with HCLLMs.

Mei Tan, Lena Phalen, Dorottya Demszky

Effective personalized feedback is critical to students' literacy development. Though LLM-powered tools now promise to automate such feedback at scale, LLMs are not language-neutral: they privilege standard academic English and reproduce social stereotypes, raising concerns about how "personalization" shapes the feedback students receive. We examine how four widely used LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-turbo, Llama-3.3 70B, Llama-3.1 8B) adapt written feedback in response to student attributes. Using 600 eighth-grade persuasive essays from the PERSUADE dataset, we generated feedback under prompt conditions embedding gender, race/ethnicity, learning needs, achievement, and motivation. We analyze lexical shifts across model outputs by adapting the Marked Words framework. Our results reveal systematic, stereotype-aligned shifts in feedback conditioned on presumed student attributes--even when essay content was identical. Feedback for students marked by race, language, or disability often exhibited positive feedback bias and feedback withholding bias--overuse of praise, less substantive critique, and assumptions of limited ability. Across attributes, models tailored not only what content was emphasized but also how writing was judged and how students were addressed. We term these instructional orientations Marked Pedagogies and highlight the need for transparency and accountability in automated feedback tools.

Hyunji Nam, Lucia Langlois, James Malamut et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to open-ended, interpretive annotation tasks, such as thematic analysis by researchers or generating feedback on student work by teachers. These tasks involve free-text annotations requiring expert-level judgments grounded in specific objectives (e.g., research questions or instructional goals). Evaluating whether LLM-generated annotations align with those generated by expert humans is challenging to do at scale, and currently, no validated, scalable measure of similarity in ideas exists. In this paper, we (i) introduce the scalable evaluation of interpretive annotation by LLMs as a critical and understudied task, (ii) propose IDEAlgin, an intuitive benchmarking paradigm for capturing expert similarity ratings via a "pick-the-odd-one-out" triplet judgment task, and (iii) evaluate various similarity metrics, including vector-based ones (topic models, embeddings) and LLM-as-a-judge via IDEAlgin, against these human benchmarks. Applying this approach to two real-world educational datasets (interpretive analysis and feedback generation), we find that vector-based metrics largely fail to capture the nuanced dimensions of similarity meaningful to experts. Prompting LLMs via IDEAlgin significantly improves alignment with expert judgments (9-30% increase) compared to traditional lexical and vector-based metrics. These results establish IDEAlgin as a promising paradigm for evaluating LLMs against open-ended expert annotations at scale, informing responsible deployment of LLMs in education and beyond.