A guest post describes using ungrading and peer coaching to deepen student thinking and make ChatGPT shortcuts less tempting.
Tools
AI4Education Education topic
Public readings arranged by original publication date. People and institutions use explicit mappings; article sources remain in their details.
Latest updates
Marc Watkins argues faculty should question when to use AI agents and disclose their use to students.
Furze argues chatbot framing hides corporate responsibility and misdirects education's assessment debates.
An English primary-school randomized trial found roughly 24% less planning time with Aila, about 49 minutes weekly, without inferior assessed resources. Use declined during the ten-week trial, and teacher views were mixed.
Meyer highlights observations about teacher roles, curriculum fit, actionable suggestions and multilingual access, alongside disengaging uses. He asks how people actually use AI before treating capabilities as educational outcomes.
Jisc proposes noticing unproductive interactions, judging what AI can reliably handle, and redesigning workflows. Institutions should allocate learning time; a useful outcome may be recognizing when not to use AI.
Liu reports on a program at Kaohsiung Girls’ Senior High School in Taiwan emphasizing problem selection, collaboration, AI-supported making and explaining concepts to other learners.
Mollick argues that expertise, breadth, taste and agency help people use AI capabilities. His experiments invite a question: how do learners acquire the knowledge and judgment needed to direct and evaluate increasingly capable tools?
The second retrospective describes AI-built demonstrations and source navigation, while exposing the limits of keyword retrieval.
Teacher workload, student thinking, product evidence and family communication are treated separately.
Hanyang and Liushou discuss moving from an unfamiliar topic to a syllabus, search terms and original sources.
A documented design experiment with open uncertainties.
UniSQ’s team describes a prototype connecting program outcomes, tasks and assessment security.
A personal trial raises questions about labels and trust.
A vendor’s validity review recognizes that stable scores can still reward the wrong learning.
The five-department action plan connects AI literacy, university curricula, teacher development, applications and safeguards, with goals for 2030. These are policy directions, not completed implementation or demonstrated learning effects.
A Wharton team tests how embedded instructions affect AI grading, finding important differences across models and conditions.
The hosts find that tacit knowledge about files, versions and structure often explains beginners’ difficulties.
Two cohorts show operational feasibility, while agreement among model graders does not establish validity.
Talbert separates AI assistance with design and practice from delegating grading itself.
Ipeirotis describes turning exit-ticket responses into targeted follow-up teaching.
A bounded pro-detection stance with acknowledged costs.
Prompt revision driven by feedback overload.
This report tests whether assigning expert identities reliably improves answers to difficult factual questions.
A large vendor report concerns judging agreement, not student learning.
This public lesson extends AI literacy to evaluation: metrics, human preferences, model judges and benchmark contamination.
Student-facing strategies, including a failure of flattery.
A design report explains why unreliable generated questions were replaced with human-written sets.
Repeated tests illustrate why a successful answer does not establish a reliable prompting technique.
Scaffolding collaboration through roles and playtesting.
A 259-teacher trial supports planning-time savings without establishing higher student learning.
An early account of process evidence and privacy tradeoffs.
Matuschak distinguishes forgetting from never understanding, and discusses questioning, memory and fading scaffolds. The interview offers a lens for AI tools: do they help learners notice confusion and act, or mainly ease consumption?