arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.18469

The Landscape of AI in Science Education: What is Changing and How to Respond

Xiaoming Zhai·Kent Crippen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This introductory chapter explores the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in reshaping the landscape of science education. Positioned at the intersection of tradition and innovation, AI is altering educational goals, procedures, learning materials, assessment practices, and desired outcomes. We highlight how AI-supported tools, such as intelligent tutoring systems, adaptive learning platforms, automated feedback, and generative content creation--enhance personalization, efficiency, and equity while fostering competencies essential for an AI-driven society, including critical thinking, creativity, and interdisciplinary collaboration. At the same time, this chapter examines the ethical, social, and pedagogical challenges that arise, particularly issues of fairness, transparency, accountability, privacy, and human oversight. To address these tensions, we argue that a Responsible and Ethical Principles (REP) framework is needed to offer guidance for aligning AI integration with values of fairness, scientific integrity, and democratic participation. Through this lens, we synthesize the changes brought to each of the five transformative aspects and the approaches introduced to meet the changes according to the REP framework. We argue that AI should be viewed not as a replacement for human teachers and learners but as a partner that supports inquiry, enriches assessment, and expands access to authentic scientific practices. Aside from what is changing, we conclude by exploring the roles that remain uniquely human, engaging as moral and relational anchors in classrooms, bringing interpretive and ethical judgement, fostering creativity, imagination, and curiosity, and co-constructing meaning through dialogue and community, and assert that these qualities must remain central if AI is to advance equity, integrity, and human flourishing in science education.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Xiaoming Zhai, Kent Crippen. 2026-02-08. The Landscape of AI in Science Education: What is Changing and How to Respond. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-16871-9_1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗