The paper identifies two main challenges in machine learning education: opaque tools that give learners only a superficial grasp of ML and hinder the development of calibrated trust in AI systems. It introduces ICE‑T, a didactic framework that combines intermodal transfer, computational thinking, and explanatory thinking to provide representational richness, graduated process control, and error contextualization. By linking these facets to trust‑calibration literature, the authors argue that trust should be an explicit educational goal and that ICE‑T offers a scalable method to achieve it.
The paper introduces ICE-T, a didactic framework designed to improve trust in AI systems through education. It combines intermodal transfer, computational thinking, and explanatory thinking to address the opacity of machine learning tools. By linking these facets to research on algorithm aversion and AI literacy, the authors argue that trust calibration should be an explicit educational goal.
arXiv:2604. 01114v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools.
arXiv:2606. 12441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The four dominant learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism show significant conceptual limitations as generative artificial intelligence (AI) proliferates in educational settings.
arXiv:2512. 12413v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value.
arXiv:2606. 05983v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading.
The study examined the impact of expert‑verified AI‑generated study materials on first‑year university economics students. In a two‑cohort difference‑in‑differences design, half of the 170 students received podcasts, FAQs, and quiz‑based guides that were produced by a source‑grounded model and checked by a graduate teaching assistant. The intervention produced a 2.34‑mark advantage on a 50‑mark component, reduced the share of marks below the upper‑second classification boundary by 24.7 percentage points, and had the largest gains for students in the bottom quintile. Interviews with 36 students suggested that the verification label encouraged engagement while preserving critical scrutiny of the AI output.
arXiv:2608. 13760v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Which reasoning behaviors are associated with correct answers in reasoning models, and does reasoning-oriented training amplify those behaviors?
arXiv:2608.21391v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this research-to-practice paper we present a survey that can be used to assess students' AI knowledge. As the use of artificial intelligence (AI),...
The paper argues that explainable AI for computer vision has focused too much on developing interpretability methods rather than assessing how interpretable the models themselves are. It proposes a shift toward model-centric evaluation, using existing tools to compare what different models represent and compute, and emphasizes the need to measure whether humans can truly understand these models. The authors review the current toolbox, survey limited model comparison work, draw parallels to systems neuroscience, and outline a future agenda for model-focused XAI.
The study examines how AI’s growing presence in computing affects the perceived importance of cognitive skills among students and experts. Findings suggest that most cognitive skills will become less critical in an AI‑rich future, while critical thinking remains essential. Interviews provide reasons for these shifts and offer guidance for preparing future computing students.
arXiv:2610.07800v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are widely used to support decision making in tasks and domains where no immediate performance feedback is availab...
The study examined how different designs of AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) affect students in an introductory programming course. Four AI TAs were compared based on pedagogical style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context). Results showed that the Socratic AI TA with full context received the lowest favorability ratings, had the highest interaction stress, the most external LLM use, and the lowest comprehension outcomes, though differences were not statistically significant.