Sayali Patukale

Bahare Riahi, Ally Limke, Xiaoyi Tian et al.

AI-based chatbots have the potential to accelerate learning and teaching, but may also have counterproductive consequences without thoughtful design and scaffolding. To better understand teachers' perspectives on large language model (LLM)-based chatbots, we conducted a study with 11 teams of middle school teachers using chatbots for a science and computational thinking activity within a block-based programming environment. Based on a qualitative analysis of audio transcripts and chatbot interactions, we propose three profiles: explorer, frustrated, and mixed, that reflect diverse scaffolding needs. In their discussions, we found that teachers perceived chatbot benefits such as building prompting skills and self-confidence alongside risks including potential declines in learning and critical thinking. Key design recommendations include scaffolding the introduction to chatbots, facilitating teacher control of chatbot features, and suggesting when and how chatbots should be used. Our contribution informs the design of chatbots to support teachers and learners in middle school coding activities.

Bahare Riahi, Sayali Patukale, Joy Niranjan et al.

This study investigates K--12 teachers' perceptions and experiences with AI-supported rubric generation during a summer professional development workshop ($n = 25$). Teachers used MagicSchool.ai to generate rubrics and practiced prompting to tailor criteria and performance levels. They then applied these rubrics to provide feedback on a sample block-based programming activity, followed by using a chatbot to deliver rubric-based feedback for the same work. Data were collected through pre- and post-workshop surveys, open discussions, and exit tickets. We used thematic analysis to analyze the qualitative data. Teachers reported that they rarely create rubrics from scratch because the process is time-consuming and defining clear distinctions between performance levels is challenging. After hands-on use, teachers described AI-generated rubrics as strong starting drafts that improved structure and clarified vague criteria. However, they emphasized the need for teacher oversight due to generic or grade-misaligned language, occasional misalignment with instructional priorities, and the need for substantial editing. Survey results indicated high perceived clarity and ethical acceptability, moderate alignment with assignments, and usability as the primary weakness -- particularly the ability to add, remove, or revise criteria. Open-ended responses highlighted a ``strictness-versus-detail'' trade-off: AI feedback was often perceived as harsher but more detailed and scalable. As a result, teachers expressed conditional willingness to adopt AI rubric tools when workflows support easy customization and preserve teacher control.