Papers for

edtech product teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Handwritten answer sheet dataset enables better noisy document parsing

HANS: A Handwritten Answer Sheet Dataset for Noisy Hybrid Document Parsing

Abstract: Intelligent grading and automated scoring technologies constitute critical infrastructure for smart education. However, existing document parsing and handwriting recognition benchmarks are predominantly designed for well-structured printed documents or isolated mathematical expressions, lacking datasets that capture the complex characteristics inherent to student answer sheets, including multi-line derivation processes, heterogeneous mixtures of text and mathematical formulae, and noise artifacts such as strikethroughs. To address this gap, we introduce HANS, the first dataset explicitly constructed for real-world educational scenarios, encompassing mathematical expressions, natural language text, hand-drawn tables, and diverse noise patterns including corrections and deletions, accompanied by fine-grained annotations that establish a reliable foundation for robust recognition research. Building upon HANS, we propose NA-GOT, an end-to-end framework that achieves two-stage noise suppression through a lightweight noise suppression module operating at the feature level, complemented by a noiseaware attention mechanism incorporated into the decoding stage. Experimental results demonstrate that HANS poses substantial challenges to existing methods, while NA-GOT achieves significant improvements in both accuracy and stability for answer process recognition. The dataset will be made publicly available upon publication.

Thu 8 OctArtificial IntelligenceComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Grading handwritten student answers is hard because sheets can have messy writing, mix math and text, and include corrections or crossed-out parts. The authors created HANS, a special collection of real student answer sheets that show these challenges and provide detailed labels to help computers learn to understand them better. They also designed a new computer method called NA-GOT that reduces noise and improves reading accuracy on these tricky sheets. Their tests show current tools struggle with HANS, but NA-GOT works more accurately and steadily.
Open → 2610.12363v1

Ai system converts tutoring videos into searchable learning transcripts

Towards Breaking the Learning System Wall Using Multimodal Tutoring Transcriptions

Abstract: Past research using log data has faced the "learning system wall," whereby few methods exist for generalizing models of student learning across platforms. Increasingly, online learning is captured by richer forms of data, including dialog and video, with new affordances. An example of this is remote tutoring programs, where human tutors support students who use learning systems while video conferencing. Toward better platform-general modeling of learning, we introduce an AI-driven multimodal transcription system that processes screen-recording videos into unified screenplay-style transcripts containing audio dialogue and annotated learning log actions. We describe a planned method for temporally aligning AI-generated multimodal transcripts with MATHia learning logs and for identifying and classifying student learning processes to align with MATHia logs. Lastly, we highlight challenges and potential solutions in capturing learning processes in one system, offering initial steps towards generalizing log data across diverse systems.

Tue 29 SeptHuman-Computer InteractionArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Understanding how students learn across different online platforms is hard because each system records data differently. The authors introduce a new AI tool that turns recorded tutoring sessions, including screen videos and conversations, into a single transcript showing both spoken words and student actions. This combined transcript can then link up with data from specific learning software, helping to map out what the student is learning. The approach aims to overcome current limits in comparing student learning across multiple platforms. Challenges remain, but these first steps may make it easier to study learning in more natural settings.
Open → 2609.36502v1

Generative AI often acts yet lacks clear accountability in education

Who Acts, Who Knows, Who Answers? A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis of Agency, Epistemic Responsibility, and Accountability in Generative AI Higher Education Research

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly described in higher education as a tool, collaborator, evaluator, proxy, and infrastructure. These labels are not neutral: they shape who is seen as acting, knowing, and, crucially, being answerable when someone uses AI. This study examines how scholars distribute such responsibility across 366 English-language titles and abstracts published between November 2022 and 14 August 2026. A corpus-assisted discourse analysis combined frequency counts, five-word collocations, actor-predicate associations, obligation-clause coding, and heuristic analysis of passives, nominalisations, and reporting metonymies. The final corpus contained 91,405 tokens, drawn from 8,734 unique records screened after deduplication. AI was the most frequently named actor, appearing 2,050 times and entering 447 predicate associations, most involving action. Students, by contrast, were more often associated with knowing, judging, and verifying, yet no sentence ever made AI explicitly responsible. Responsibility fell largely on educators, institutions, and policy, or disappeared through passive and nominalised constructions. Even frequent phrases such as "responsible AI" and "responsible use" rarely identify who is accountable for what. The findings reveal a persistent gap between giving AI functional agency and assigning normative accountability.

Wed 23 SeptComputers and Society
The gist
The study found that in higher education research, generative AI is frequently described as doing actions but is rarely held responsible for outcomes. Instead, responsibility usually falls on educators, institutions, or policies. The authors looked at thousands of research titles and abstracts to see who is seen as acting, knowing, or accountable when AI is involved. This reveals a gap between what AI does and who is actually answerable for its use.
Open → 2609.27184v1