Gyeonggeon Lee

Xuansheng Wu, Padmaja Pravin Saraf, Gyeonggeon Lee et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI's scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students' written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores. We also examine whether enhancing the alignments can improve scoring accuracy. Specifically, we prompt LLMs to generate analytic rubrics that they use to assign scores and study the alignment gap with human grading rubrics. Based on a series of experiments with various configurations of LLM settings, we reveal a notable alignment gap between human and LLM graders. While LLMs can adapt quickly to scoring tasks, they often resort to shortcuts, bypassing deeper logical reasoning expected in human grading. We found that incorporating high-quality analytical rubrics designed to reflect human grading logic can mitigate this gap and enhance LLMs' scoring accuracy. These results underscore the need for a nuanced approach when applying LLMs in science education and highlight the importance of aligning LLM outputs with human expectations to ensure efficient and accurate automatic scoring.

Unggi Lee, Jiyeong Bae, Jaehyeon Park et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as intelligent tutoring systems, yet research on optimizing LLMs specifically for educational contexts remains limited. Recent works have proposed reinforcement learning approaches for training LLM tutors, but these methods focus solely on optimizing visible responses while neglecting the model's internal thinking process. We introduce PedagogicalRL-Thinking, a framework that extends pedagogical alignment to reasoning LLMs in education through two novel approaches: (1) Pedagogical Reasoning Prompting, which guides internal reasoning using domain-specific educational theory rather than generic instructions; and (2) Thinking Reward, which explicitly evaluates and reinforces the pedagogical quality of the model's reasoning traces. Our experiments reveal that domain-specific, theory-grounded prompting outperforms generic prompting, and that Thinking Reward is most effective when combined with pedagogical prompting. Furthermore, models trained only on mathematics tutoring dialogues show improved performance on educational benchmarks not seen during training, while preserving the base model's factual knowledge. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal that pedagogical thinking reward produces systematic reasoning trace changes, with increased pedagogical reasoning and more structured instructional decision-making in the tutor's thinking process.

Unggi Lee, Jahyun Jeong, Sunyoung Shin et al.

Science demonstrations are important for effective STEM education, yet teachers face challenges in conducting them safely and consistently across multiple occasions, where robotics can be helpful. However, current Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models require substantial computational resources and sacrifice language generation capabilities to maximize efficiency, making them unsuitable for resource-constrained educational settings that require interpretable, explanation-generating systems. We present \textit{Pedagogical VLA Framework}, a framework that applies pedagogical alignment to lightweight VLA models through four components: text healing to restore language generation capabilities, large language model (LLM) distillation to transfer pedagogical knowledge, safety training for educational environments, and pedagogical evaluation adjusted to science education contexts. We evaluate Pedagogical VLA Framework across five science demonstrations spanning physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science, using an evaluation framework developed in collaboration with science education experts. Our evaluation assesses both task performance (success rate, protocol compliance, efficiency, safety) and pedagogical quality through teacher surveys and LLM-as-Judge assessment. We additionally provide qualitative analysis of generated texts. Experimental results demonstrate that Pedagogical VLA Framework achieves comparable task performance to baseline models while producing contextually appropriate educational explanations.

Ehsan Latif, Yifan Zhou, Shuchen Guo et al.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, it demonstrates capabilities comparable to human intelligence, with significant potential to transform education and workforce development. This study evaluates OpenAI o1-preview's ability to perform higher-order cognitive tasks across 14 dimensions, including critical thinking, systems thinking, computational thinking, design thinking, metacognition, data literacy, creative thinking, abstract reasoning, quantitative reasoning, logical reasoning, analogical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. We used validated instruments like the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test and the Biological Systems Thinking Test to compare the o1-preview's performance with human performance systematically. Our findings reveal that o1-preview outperforms humans in most categories, achieving 150% better results in systems thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, scientific reasoning, and abstract reasoning. However, compared to humans, it underperforms by around 25% in logical reasoning, critical thinking, and quantitative reasoning. In analogical reasoning, both o1-preview and humans achieved perfect scores. Despite these strengths, the o1-preview shows limitations in abstract reasoning, where human psychology students outperform it, highlighting the continued importance of human oversight in tasks requiring high-level abstraction. These results have significant educational implications, suggesting a shift toward developing human skills that complement AI, such as creativity, abstract reasoning, and critical thinking. This study emphasizes the transformative potential of AI in education and calls for a recalibration of educational goals, teaching methods, and curricula to align with an AI-driven world.

Unggi Lee, Jaeyong Lee, Jiyeong Bae et al.

Recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong performance in structured domains such as mathematics and programming; however, they often lack pedagogical coherence and realistic teaching behaviors. To bridge this gap, we introduce Pedagogy-R1, a framework that adapts LRMs for classroom use through three innovations: (1) a distillation-based pipeline that filters and refines model outputs for instruction-tuning, (2) the Well-balanced Educational Benchmark (WBEB), which evaluates performance across subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, tracing, essay scoring, and teacher decision-making, and (3) a Chain-of-Pedagogy (CoP) prompting strategy for generating and eliciting teacher-style reasoning. Our mixed-method evaluation combines quantitative metrics with qualitative analysis, providing the first systematic assessment of LRMs' pedagogical strengths and limitations.