Runlong Ye

HC
h-index4
7papers
321citations
Novelty41%
AI Score47

7 Papers

3.2HCFeb 17
Transforming GenAI Policy to Prompting Instruction: An RCT of Scalable Prompting Interventions in a CS1 Course

Ruiwei Xiao, Runlong Ye, Xinying Hou et al. · utoronto

Despite universal GenAI adoption, students cannot distinguish task performance from actual learning and lack skills to leverage AI for learning, leading to worse exam performance when AI use remains unreflective. Yet few interventions teaching students to prompt AI as a tutor rather than solution provider have been validated at scale through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To bridge this gap, we conducted a semester-long RCT (N=979) with four ICAP framework-based instructional conditions varying in engagement intensity with a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-test and surveys. Mixed methods analysis results showed: (1) All conditions significantly improved prompting skills, with gains increasing progressively from Condition 1 to Condition 4, validating ICAP's cognitive engagement hierarchy; (2) for students with similar pre-test scores, higher learning gain in immediate post-test predict higher final exam score, though no direct between-group differences emerged; (3) Our interventions are suitable and scalable solutions for diverse educational contexts, resources and learners. Together, this study makes empirical and theoretical contributions: (1) theoretically, we provided one of the first large-scale RCTs examining how cognitive engagement shapes learning in prompting literacy and clarifying the relationship between learning-oriented prompting skills and broader academic performance; (2) empirically, we offered timely design guidance for transforming GenAI classroom policies into scalable, actionable prompting literacy instruction to advance learning in the era of Generative AI.

8.1HCApr 30
Beyond One-Size-Fits-All Exercises: Personalizing Computer Science Worksheets with Large Language Models

Franco Ortiz, Runlong Ye, Michael Liut

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely applied to student-facing educational tools, this work explores their use in supporting instructors by presenting a practical adaptation of the Framework for Adaptive Content using Educational Technology (FACET) system to generate personalized instructional materials for an Introduction to Computer Programming (CS1) course. We conducted a mixed-methods study with 409 first-year computer science (CS) students, focusing on regular expressions (RegEx). Students were assessed on their knowledge and motivation, classified into one of four learner profiles, and assigned either LLM-personalized (treatment) or standard non-adaptive (control) exercises. Personalized materials varied in scaffolding, instructional explicitness, and tone based on learner profiles grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy and Self-Determination Theory. Quantitative analysis reveals that standard exercises resulted in task incompletion among low-knowledge learners, with approximately 25-30% incompletion, whereas personalized materials sustained near-universal completion (>99%) across all profiles. While high-performing students experienced ceiling effects, Low Knowledge/Low Motivation students achieved significantly higher correctness (+18.2%) with personalized support. Survey data indicate that students prioritize structural scaffolding (logical sequence, difficulty pacing) over motivational tone and perceive the adaptive tasks as equally challenging as standard exercises. These findings suggest that learner-profile-driven LLM personalization primarily serves as a retention scaffold, preventing task abandonment among at-risk students without diminishing the task's "desirable difficulty". The results demonstrate that instructor-facing LLM systems can effectively close engagement gaps in CS1 by tailoring instructional explicitness to student needs.

13.1HCFeb 22, 2025
The Design Space of Recent AI-assisted Research Tools for Ideation, Sensemaking, and Scientific Creativity

Runlong Ye, Matthew Varona, Oliver Huang et al. · utoronto

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are radically expanding the scope and capability of automation in knowledge work such as academic research. While promising for augmenting cognition and streamlining processes, AI-assisted research tools may also increase automation bias and hinder critical thinking. To examine recent developments, we surveyed publications from leading HCI venues over the past three years, closely analyzing thirteen tools to better understand the novel capabilities of these AI-assisted systems and the design spaces they enable: seven employing traditional AI or customized transformer-based approaches, and six integrating open-access large language models (LLMs). Our analysis characterizes the emerging design space, distinguishes between tools focused on workflow mimicry versus generative exploration, and yields four critical design recommendations to guide the development of future systems that foster meaningful cognitive engagement: providing user agency and control, differentiating divergent/convergent thinking support, ensuring adaptability, and prioritizing transparency/accuracy. This work discusses how these insights signal a shift from mere workflow replication towards generative co-creation, presenting new opportunities for the community to craft intuitive, AI-driven research interfaces and interactions.

18.0HCApr 19, 2025
ScholarMate: A Mixed-Initiative Tool for Qualitative Knowledge Work and Information Sensemaking

Runlong Ye, Patrick Yung Kang Lee, Matthew Varona et al. · utoronto

Synthesizing knowledge from large document collections is a critical yet increasingly complex aspect of qualitative research and knowledge work. While AI offers automation potential, effectively integrating it into human-centric sensemaking workflows remains challenging. We present ScholarMate, an interactive system designed to augment qualitative analysis by unifying AI assistance with human oversight. ScholarMate enables researchers to dynamically arrange and interact with text snippets on a non-linear canvas, leveraging AI for theme suggestions, multi-level summarization, and evidence-based theme naming, while ensuring transparency through traceability to source documents. Initial pilot studies indicated that users value this mixed-initiative approach, finding the balance between AI suggestions and direct manipulation crucial for maintaining interpretability and trust. We further demonstrate the system's capability through a case study analyzing 24 papers. By balancing automation with human control, ScholarMate enhances efficiency and supports interpretability, offering a valuable approach for productive human-AI collaboration in demanding sensemaking tasks common in knowledge work.

3.2HCJan 21
Reflexis: Supporting Reflexivity and Rigor in Collaborative Qualitative Analysis through Design for Deliberation

Runlong Ye, Oliver Huang, Patrick Yung Kang Lee et al.

Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) is a critical method for generating deep interpretive insights. Yet its core tenets, including researcher reflexivity, tangible analytical evolution, and productive disagreement, are often poorly supported by software tools that prioritize speed and consensus over interpretive depth. To address this gap, we introduce Reflexis, a collaborative workspace that centers these practices. It supports reflexivity by integrating in-situ reflection prompts, makes code evolution transparent and tangible, and scaffolds collaborative interpretation by turning differences into productive, positionality-aware dialogue. Results from our paired-analyst study (N=12) indicate that Reflexis encouraged participants toward more granular reflection and reframed disagreements as productive conversations. The evaluation also surfaced key design tensions, including a desire for higher-level, networked memos and more user control over the timing of proactive alerts. Reflexis contributes a design framework for tools that prioritize rigor and transparency to support deep, collaborative interpretation in an age of automation.

7.2HCOct 6, 2025
Exploring Student Choice and the Use of Multimodal Generative AI in Programming Learning

Xinying Hou, Ruiwei Xiao, Runlong Ye et al. · utoronto

The broad adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) is impacting Computer Science education, and recent studies found its benefits and potential concerns when students use it for programming learning. However, most existing explorations focus on GenAI tools that primarily support text-to-text interaction. With recent developments, GenAI applications have begun supporting multiple modes of communication, known as multimodality. In this work, we explored how undergraduate programming novices choose and work with multimodal GenAI tools, and their criteria for choices. We selected a commercially available multimodal GenAI platform for interaction, as it supports multiple input and output modalities, including text, audio, image upload, and real-time screen-sharing. Through 16 think-aloud sessions that combined participant observation with follow-up semi-structured interviews, we investigated student modality choices for GenAI tools when completing programming problems and the underlying criteria for modality selections. With multimodal communication emerging as the future of AI in education, this work aims to spark continued exploration on understanding student interaction with multimodal GenAI in the context of CS education.

35.9HCJan 20, 2024
CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needs

Majeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang et al.

Timely, personalized feedback is essential for students learning programming. LLM-powered tools like ChatGPT offer instant support, but reveal direct answers with code, which may hinder deep conceptual engagement. We developed CodeAid, an LLM-powered programming assistant delivering helpful, technically correct responses, without revealing code solutions. CodeAid answers conceptual questions, generates pseudo-code with line-by-line explanations, and annotates student's incorrect code with fix suggestions. We deployed CodeAid in a programming class of 700 students for a 12-week semester. A thematic analysis of 8,000 usages of CodeAid was performed, further enriched by weekly surveys, and 22 student interviews. We then interviewed eight programming educators to gain further insights. Our findings reveal four design considerations for future educational AI assistants: D1) exploiting AI's unique benefits; D2) simplifying query formulation while promoting cognitive engagement; D3) avoiding direct responses while encouraging motivated learning; and D4) maintaining transparency and control for students to asses and steer AI responses.