Wm. Matthew Kennedy

James Edgell, Wm. Matthew Kennedy, Isaac Pattis et al.

The rapid adoption of large language models in AI-powered language education has created an urgent need for evaluations that assess pedagogical effectiveness, particularly in language learning--one of the most common LLM use cases (Tamkin et al. 2024, Costa-Gomes et al. 2025). With only narrowly defined task-specific evaluations of AI system capabilities in second language (L2) education existing in the literature, we require more holistic approaches in this AI for education space. To address this gap, we introduce L2-Bench, a novel evaluation benchmark grounded in a validated "language learning experience designer" construct to assess AI capabilities across L2 education contexts. Our methodology integrates pedagogical theory, sociotechnical AI evaluation methods, and operationalizes a hierarchical taxonomy to structure an expert-curated dataset of over 1,000 authentic rubric-scored task-response pairs with measurement and scoring pipeline. We report the results of a pilot validation exercise (N = 39) on an initial sample of our dataset (tasks were validated as authentic [M = 4.23 out of 5], but criteria scores were lower [M = 3.94], with universally poor inter-annotator agreement despite good internal consistency), alongside the experimental design for our follow-up practitioner data validation study as we iterate and scale to the full dataset. Ultimately, this research not only offers methodological lessons towards a more context-specific AI evaluations ecosystem, but also works towards better design of reproducible evaluations for AI systems deployed to educational contexts.

Ben Knight, Wm. Matthew Kennedy, James Edgell

AI-powered language learning tools increasingly provide instant, personalised feedback to millions of learners worldwide. However, this feedback can fail in ways that are difficult for learners--and even teachers--to detect, potentially reinforcing misconceptions and eroding learning outcomes over extended use. We present a portion of L2-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating AI systems in language education that includes (but is not limited to) six critical dimensions of effective feedback: diagnostic accuracy, awareness of appropriacy, causes of error, prioritisation, guidance for improvement, and supporting self-regulation. We analyse how AI systems can fail with respect to these dimensions. These failures, which we argue are conducive to "explainability pitfalls," are AI-generated explanations that appear helpful on the surface but are fundamentally flawed, increasing the risk of attainment, human-AI interaction, and socioaffective harms. We discuss how the specific context of language learning amplifies these risks and outline open questions we believe merit more attention when designing evaluation frameworks specifically. Our analysis aims to expand the community's understanding of both the typology of explainability pitfalls and the contextual dynamics in which they may occur in order to encourage AI developers to better design safe, trustworthy, and effective AI explanations.

Wm. Matthew Kennedy, Cigdem Patlak, Jayraj Dave et al.

AI systems have the potential to produce both benefits and harms, but without rigorous and ongoing adversarial evaluation, AI actors will struggle to assess the breadth and magnitude of the AI risk surface. Researchers from the field of systems design have developed several effective sociotechnical AI evaluation and red teaming techniques targeting bias, hate speech, mis/disinformation, and other documented harm classes. However, as increasingly sophisticated AI systems are released into high-stakes sectors (such as education, healthcare, and intelligence-gathering), our current evaluation and monitoring methods are proving less and less capable of delivering effective oversight. In order to actually deliver responsible AI and to ensure AI's harms are fully understood and its security vulnerabilities mitigated, pioneering new approaches to close this "responsibility gap" are now more urgent than ever. In this paper, we propose one such approach, the cooperative public AI red-teaming exercise, and discuss early results of its prior pilot implementations. This approach is intertwined with CAMLIS itself: the first in-person public demonstrator exercise was held in conjunction with CAMLIS 2024. We review the operational design and results of this exercise, the prior National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)'s Assessing the Risks and Impacts of AI (ARIA) pilot exercise, and another similar exercise conducted with the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). Ultimately, we argue that this approach is both capable of delivering meaningful results and is also scalable to many AI developing jurisdictions.