Olga Viberg

Yan Tao, Olga Viberg, Ryan S. Baker et al.

Culture fundamentally shapes people's reasoning, behavior, and communication. As people increasingly use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to expedite and automate personal and professional tasks, cultural values embedded in AI models may bias people's authentic expression and contribute to the dominance of certain cultures. We conduct a disaggregated evaluation of cultural bias for five widely used large language models (OpenAI's GPT-4o/4-turbo/4/3.5-turbo/3) by comparing the models' responses to nationally representative survey data. All models exhibit cultural values resembling English-speaking and Protestant European countries. We test cultural prompting as a control strategy to increase cultural alignment for each country/territory. For recent models (GPT-4, 4-turbo, 4o), this improves the cultural alignment of the models' output for 71-81% of countries and territories. We suggest using cultural prompting and ongoing evaluation to reduce cultural bias in the output of generative AI.

Yueling Fan, Richard Lee Davis, Olga Viberg

This study presents WriteFlow, an AI voice-based writing assistant designed to support reflective academic writing through goal-oriented interaction. Academic writing involves iterative reflection and evolving goal regulation, yet prior research and a formative study with 17 participants show that writers often struggle to articulate and manage changing goals. While commonly used AI writing tools emphasize efficiency, they offer limited support for metacognition and writer agency. WriteFlow frames AI interaction as a dialogic space for ongoing goal articulation, monitoring, and negotiation grounded in writers' intentions. Findings from a Wizard-of-Oz study with 12 expert users show that WriteFlow scaffolds metacognitive regulation and reflection-in-action by supporting iterative goal refinement, maintaining goal-text alignment during drafting, and prompting evaluation of goal fulfillment. We discuss design implications for AI writing systems that prioritize reflective dialogue, flexible goal structures, and multi-perspective feedback to support intentional and agentic writing.

Conrad Borchers, Olga Viberg, René F. Kizilcec

As AI-mediated learning systems increasingly shape how learners plan, decide, and progress through education, learner agency is becoming both more consequential and harder to conceptualize at scale. Existing research often treats agency as a proxy for engagement and self-regulation, leaving unclear who actually holds decision-making authority in large-scale, automated learning environments. This paper reframes learner agency as the allocation of decision authority across learners, educators, institutions, and AI systems. We introduce the Agency Allocation Framework (AAF) for analyzing how decisions are distributed, how choices are architected, what evidence supports them, and over what time horizons their consequences unfold. Drawing on a focused review of Learning@Scale literature and an illustrative tutoring-system example, we identify four recurring challenges for studying learner agency at scale: (1) conceptual ambiguity, (2) reliance on behavioral proxies, (3) trade-offs between efficiency and learner control, and (4) the redistribution of agency through AI-mediated systems. Rather than advocating more or less automation, the AAF supports systematic analysis of when AI scaffolds learners' capacity to act and when it substitutes for it. By making decision authority explicit, the framework provides researchers and designers with analytic tools for studying, comparing, and evaluating agency-preserving learning systems in increasingly automated educational contexts.

Yan Tao, Olga Viberg, Deepak Varuvel Dennison et al.

Teachers' trust in artificial intelligence (AI) in education depends on how they balance its perceived benefits and risks. Yet global discussions about scaling AI in education rely on fragmented evidence, as most studies of teachers' perceptions focus on single countries or small samples. This lack of representative cross-national evidence limits both theory building and policy development. At the same time, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research, policy, and teachers' professional workflows, despite limited validation in education. To address these gaps, we conduct a large-scale audit of LLM alignment with teachers' perceptions of AI by combining representative international survey data with systematic model evaluation. Using OECD TALIS data from 55 countries and territories, we measure cross-national variation in teachers' perceived benefits and risks of AI. We then benchmark responses from eight state-of-the-art LLMs across four providers under both general and country-specific prompting, comparing higher- and lower-reasoning models. Results reveal substantial cross-national variation in teacher perceptions that is not reliably reflected in LLM outputs. Models compress country differences, overestimate both benefits and risks, and show limited gains from identity prompting or enhanced reasoning. This misalignment matters because LLM-generated guidance and professional discourse increasingly shape how teachers learn about and discuss AI, potentially influencing trust and future adoption decisions. Our findings caution against treating LLM outputs as substitutes for direct engagement with teachers when informing global AI-in-education initiatives. At the same time, some models (e.g., Gemini 3 Fast) partially capture cross-national ranking patterns, suggesting a complementary role in hypothesis generation and exploratory comparative analysis.

Anahita Golrang, Kshitij Sharma, olga viberg

Effective pair programming depends on coordination of attention, cognitive effort, and joint regulation over time, yet most adaptive learning systems remain individual-centric and reactive. This paper introduces ProPACT, a proactive AI-driven adaptive collaborative tutor that treats collaboration itself as the object of instruction. ProPACT constructs a multimodal dyadic learner model based on Joint Visual Attention (JVA), Joint Mental Effort (JME), and individual mental effort, and employs an XGBoost-based forecasting model to predict emerging suboptimal collaboration states up to 30 seconds in advance. These predictions drive a hierarchical adaptive policy that delivers minimally intrusive scaffolds while fading support during productive collaboration. A within-subject study with 26 pair-programming dyads shows that proactive feedback significantly improves debugging success, task efficiency, feedback uptake, and post-intervention gains in JVA and JME, demonstrating the potential of forecast-driven dyadic adaptivity for real-time collaborative learning regulation.

Jennifer Meyer, Olaf Köller, Thorben Jansen et al.

With digital learning environments becoming more prevalent, the ease with which generative AI enables the scalable production of real-time, automated feedback holds the potential to reshape learning and teaching experiences. This meeting report synthesizes the interdisciplinary perspectives of 50 scholars from educational psychology, computer science, science education, and the learning sciences on the use of generative AI for feedback and its promises and risks in educational practice. We highlight points of convergence in the scholarship, identify areas of debate and unresolved challenges, and outline open questions and future directions for research and educational practice that emerged from structured small-group activities designed to bridge disciplinary barriers.