Yizhu Gao

Yizhu Gao, Zhongzhou Chen, Min Li et al.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents a governance challenge for STEM assessment. Unrestricted GenAI access enables task outsourcing that undermines the validity of traditional assessments; blanket prohibitions are difficult to enforce, may push use underground, and do little to prepare students for workplaces where GenAI-supported workflows are increasingly common. This paper addresses this dilemma by proposing a framework grounded in Evidence-Centered Design (ECD) that treats GenAI as a design variable within the assessment argument rather than an external threat to it. The framework analyzes how GenAI reshapes the student model, evidence model, and task model, and uses this analysis to articulate three principled governance stances. Restrict is warranted when GenAI would contaminate the inferential link between student work products and targeted unaided proficiency. Scaffold is warranted when bounded GenAI support can support peripheral demands without revealing the target construct, preserving inferential interpretability. Require is warranted when the target construct is disciplinary AI interaction competency and tasks can be designed to elicit process artifacts, including prompts, critiques, and revisions, that make student reasoning observable, scorable, and distinguishable from AI-generated output. This framework specifies when to restrict, scaffold, or require GenAI use in STEM assessment. We present two task designs deployed in an introductory physics course and demonstrate that disciplinary AI interaction competencies are observable in student response artifacts and can be scored using defensible rubrics grounded in student data and expert knowledge. By situating GenAI governance within validity arguments, the framework offers actionable guidance for preserving learning integrity while supporting authentic preparation for AI-enabled professional environments.

Ying Zhang, Ningxi Cheng, Yizhu Gao et al.

Q-matrices are a cornerstone of theory-driven assessment and learning analytics, making item demands and students' underlying knowledge components and misconceptions explicit and actionable. However, Q-matrices are typically crafted by experts, making them time-consuming to build, prone to subjectivity, and difficult to validate empirically. We propose a framework for human-AI Q-matrix refinement in which large language models (LLMs) generate candidate Q-matrices using structured, misconception-aware prompting, and NeuralCDM provides an empirical evaluation layer to compare candidates based on how well they explain student response data. We apply the framework to a thermodynamics assessment dataset and benchmark locally deployed LLMs against cloud-served models. Results show that iteratively refined LLM-generated Q-matrices can exceed expert-baseline model fit (AUC 0.780 vs. 0.717), and that locally deployed models achieve comparable performance to cloud APIs, supporting privacy-preserving deployment.

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.

Jennifer Kleiman, Yizhu Gao, Xin Xia et al.

Argumentation is a core practice in STEM education, but its productivity depends on who participates and how they interact. Higher-achieving students often dominate the talk and decision-making, while lower-achieving peers may disengage, defer, or comply without contributing substantive reasoning. Forming groups strategically based on students' stances and argumentation skills could help foster inclusive, evidence-based discourse. In practice, however, teachers are constrained in implementing this grouping strategy because it requires real-time insight into students' positions and the quality of their argumentation, information that is difficult to assess reliably and at scale during instruction. We present a generative AI-powered system, ArguAgent, that creates groups optimizing for stance heterogeneity while constraining argumentation quality differences to +/-1 level on a validated learning progression. ArguAgent uses a two-component assessment pipeline: first scoring student arguments on a 0-4 rubric, then clustering positions via semantic analysis. We validated the scoring component against human expert consensus (Krippendorff's ααα = 0.817) using 200 expert-generated scores. Testing three OpenAI models (GPT-4o-mini, GPT-5.1, GPT-5.2) with identical calibrated prompts, we found that systematic prompt engineering informed by human disagreement analysis contributed 89% of scoring improvement (QWK: 0.531 to 0.686), while model upgrades contributed an additional 11% (QWK: 0.686 to 0.708). Simulation testing across 100 classes demonstrated that the grouping algorithm achieves 95.4% of groups that meet both design criteria, a 3.2x improvement over random assignment. These results suggest ArguAgent can enable real-time, theoretically grounded grouping that promotes productive STEM argumentation in classrooms.

Ehsan Latif, Yifan Zhou, Shuchen Guo et al.

This study evaluates the performance of OpenAI's o1-preview model in higher-order cognitive domains, including critical thinking, systematic thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, logical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. Using established benchmarks, we compared the o1-preview models's performance to human participants from diverse educational levels. o1-preview achieved a mean score of 24.33 on the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (EWCTET), surpassing undergraduate (13.8) and postgraduate (18.39) participants (z = 1.60 and 0.90, respectively). In systematic thinking, it scored 46.1, SD = 4.12 on the Lake Urmia Vignette, significantly outperforming the human mean (20.08, SD = 8.13, z = 3.20). For data literacy, o1-preview scored 8.60, SD = 0.70 on Merk et al.'s "Use Data" dimension, compared to the human post-test mean of 4.17, SD = 2.02 (z = 2.19). On creative thinking tasks, the model achieved originality scores of 2.98, SD = 0.73, higher than the human mean of 1.74 (z = 0.71). In logical reasoning (LogiQA), it outperformed humans with average 90%, SD = 10% accuracy versus 86%, SD = 6.5% (z = 0.62). For scientific reasoning, it achieved near-perfect performance (mean = 0.99, SD = 0.12) on the TOSLS,, exceeding the highest human scores of 0.85, SD = 0.13 (z = 1.78). While o1-preview excelled in structured tasks, it showed limitations in problem-solving and adaptive reasoning. These results demonstrate the potential of AI to complement education in structured assessments but highlight the need for ethical oversight and refinement for broader applications.

Zhaojun Ding, Zhengliang Liu, Hanqi Jiang et al.

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools for working with natural language, bringing advances in many areas of computational linguistics. However, these models face challenges when applied to low-resource languages due to limited training data and difficulty in understanding cultural nuances. Research is now focusing on multilingual models to improve LLM performance for these languages. Education in these languages also struggles with a lack of resources and qualified teachers, particularly in underdeveloped regions. Here, LLMs can be transformative, supporting innovative methods like community-driven learning and digital platforms. This paper discusses how LLMs could enhance education for low-resource languages, emphasizing practical applications and benefits.

Gyeong-Geon Lee, Lehong Shi, Ehsan Latif et al.

This paper presents a comprehensive examination of how multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) approaches are paving the way towards the realization of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in educational contexts. It scrutinizes the evolution and integration of AI in educational systems, emphasizing the crucial role of multimodality, which encompasses auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and linguistic modes of learning. This research delves deeply into the key facets of AGI, including cognitive frameworks, advanced knowledge representation, adaptive learning mechanisms, strategic planning, sophisticated language processing, and the integration of diverse multimodal data sources. It critically assesses AGI's transformative potential in reshaping educational paradigms, focusing on enhancing teaching and learning effectiveness, filling gaps in existing methodologies, and addressing ethical considerations and responsible usage of AGI in educational settings. The paper also discusses the implications of multimodal AI's role in education, offering insights into future directions and challenges in AGI development. This exploration aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the intersection between AI, multimodality, and education, setting a foundation for future research and development in AGI.