Sadhana Puntambekar

R. Alexander Knipper, Indrani Dey, Souvika Sarkar et al.

Virtual Labs offer valuable opportunities for hands-on, inquiry-based science learning, yet teachers often struggle to adapt them to fit their instructional goals. Third-party materials may not align with classroom needs, and developing custom resources can be time-consuming and difficult to scale. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue for addressing these limitations. In this paper, we introduce a novel alignment framework for instructional goal-aligned question generation, enabling teachers to leverage LLMs to produce simulation-aligned, pedagogically meaningful questions through natural language interaction. The framework integrates four components: instructional goal understanding via teacher-LLM dialogue, lab understanding via knowledge unit and relationship analysis, a question taxonomy for structuring cognitive and pedagogical intent, and the TELeR taxonomy for controlling prompt detail. Early design choices were informed by a small teacher-assisted case study, while our final evaluation analyzed over 1,100 questions from 19 open-source LLMs. With goal and lab understanding grounding questions in teacher intent and simulation context, the question taxonomy elevates cognitive demand (open-ended formats and relational types raise quality by 0.29-0.39 points), and optimized TELeR prompts enhance format adherence (80% parsability, >90% adherence). Larger models yield the strongest gains: parsability +37.1%, adherence +25.7%, and average quality +0.8 Likert points.

Mahsa Sheikhi Karizaki, Dana Gnesdilow, Sadhana Puntambekar et al.

Automated methods are becoming increasingly integrated into studies of formative feedback on students' science explanation writing. Most of this work, however, addresses students' responses to short answer questions. We investigate automated feedback on students' science explanation essays, where students must articulate multiple ideas. Feedback is based on a rubric that identifies the main ideas students are prompted to include in explanatory essays about the physics of energy and mass, given their experiments with a simulated roller coaster. We have found that students generally improve on revised versions of their essays. Here, however, we focus on two factors that affect the accuracy of the automated feedback. First, we find that the main ideas in the rubric differ with respect to how much freedom they afford in explanations of the idea, thus explanation of a natural law is relatively constrained. Students have more freedom in how they explain complex relations they observe in their roller coasters, such as transfer of different forms of energy. Second, by tracing the automated decision process, we can diagnose when a student's statement lacks sufficient clarity for the automated tool to associate it more strongly with one of the main ideas above all others. This in turn provides an opportunity for teachers and peers to help students reflect on how to state their ideas more clearly.