arXiv subjects

Wei Ting Liow

Publications and source records attributed to Wei Ting Liow.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond Prompt-to-App: Accountable Translation in Teacher-Facing Agentic Authoring

Natural-language app builders let domain experts create software, but their pipelines transform professional intent across compilation, generation, checking, and approval. We report a bounded trace study of a teacher-facing agentic authoring system. Evidence comprises six eligible build attempts across three accounts; a separate corpus of 37 workshop units from 23 display names contextualizes commitments without person-level linkage. Compiled specifications added governance requirements, while downstream representations sometimes normalized case-specific learning relations. Two drafts met a stored package/security threshold despite analyzer reservations and unresolved correspondence to their briefs; four attempts in one account produced no usable payload, and repair messages did not translate internal terms into domain-legible revisions. We develop accountable translation as an analytic framework for making consequential changes attributable, inspectable, scoped in validation, and contestable. It extends HCI accounts of traceability and end-user debugging by locating professional authority and repair rights across heterogeneous technical and organizational handoffs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

From Misconceptions to Evidence: What Science Teachers Make Visible When Co-Designing Agentic Learning Apps

Science educators increasingly encounter AI tools that generate content, yet disciplinary teaching depends on eliciting learners' models, diagnosing misconceptions, interpreting evidence, and preserving professional judgment. This study asks how science teachers translate such epistemic work into specifications for agentic learning applications. It contributes to the conference theme, "Innovating Pedagogies, Inspiring Minds: Transforming Science Learning," and the Teachers' Professional Learning strand by examining app co-design as a form of pedagogical reasoning. We conducted a bounded qualitative cross-case analysis of four de-identified artifacts produced in a teacher professional-learning workshop: an experimental-design diagnostic, a Kinetic Particle Theory dialogue guide, a chemistry prior-knowledge checker, and a physics application/scaffolding tool. Each artifact was coded for the disciplinary problem, learner interaction, evidence made visible, teacher authority, and safeguard. All four connected a science-learning problem to an interaction and pedagogically interpretable evidence: misconceptions and gaps, explanations-in-progress, class-level readiness patterns, or investigation performance. However, only two made teacher control or evaluation explicit, and only two named a safeguard. The proposals therefore positioned AI less as an answer generator than as an elicitor, scaffold, and evidence-return mechanism, while leaving decision rights and protections unevenly specified. We argue that teacher professional learning should treat AI app ideation as epistemic specification work. A five-question design protocol--problem, learner interaction, evidence, teacher authority, and safeguard--can help teachers transform science-learning needs into accountable human-AI arrangements before building or adopting a tool.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Co-Designing Interdisciplinary Design Projects with AI

Creating interdisciplinary design projects is time-consuming and cognitively demanding for teachers, requiring curriculum alignment, cross-subject integration, and careful sequencing. International research reports increasing teacher use of AI alongside persistent workload pressures, underscoring the need for planning support. This paper presents the Interdisciplinary Design Project Planner (IDPplanner), a GPT-based planning assistant grounded in Design Innovation principles, alignment with Singapore secondary school syllabuses, and 21st-century competencies. In a within-subject, counterbalanced workshop with 33 in-service teachers, participants produced two versions of the same project: manual and AI-assisted, followed by self- and peer-evaluations using a six-dimensional rubric. The AI-assisted version received higher scores for Curriculum Alignment, Design Thinking Application, and Coherence and Flow, with a marginal advantage for Assessment Strategies. Teacher reflections indicated that AI-assisted planning improved structure, sequencing, and idea generation, while contextualization to local syllabuses, class profiles, and student needs remained teacher-led. Contributions include a purpose-built planning tool that organizes ideas into a ten-component flow with ready-to-adapt prompts, templates, and assessment suggestions; an empirical, rubric-based comparison of planning quality; and evidence that AI can function as a pedagogical planning partner. Recommendations emphasize hybrid teacher-AI workflows to enhance curriculum alignment and reduce planning complexity, and design suggestions for developers to strengthen contextual customization, iterative design support, and localized rubrics. Although instantiated with a Singapore-based curriculum, the planning flow and rubric are framework-agnostic and can be parameterized for other systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Human or AI? Comparing Design Thinking Assessments by Teaching Assistants and Bots

As design thinking education grows in secondary and tertiary contexts, educators face the challenge of evaluating creative artefacts that combine visual and textual elements. Traditional rubric-based assessment is laborious, time-consuming, and inconsistent due to reliance on Teaching Assistants (TA) in large, multi-section cohorts. This paper presents an exploratory study investigating the reliability and perceived accuracy of AI-assisted assessment compared to TA-assisted assessment in evaluating student posters in design thinking education. Two activities were conducted with 33 Ministry of Education (MOE) Singapore school teachers to (1) compare AI-generated scores with TA grading across three key dimensions: empathy and user understanding, identification of pain points and opportunities, and visual communication, and (2) examine teacher preferences for AI-assigned, TA-assigned, and hybrid scores. Results showed low statistical agreement between instructor and AI scores for empathy and pain points, with slightly higher alignment for visual communication. Teachers preferred TA-assigned scores in six of ten samples. Qualitative feedback highlighted the potential of AI for formative feedback, consistency, and student self-reflection, but raised concerns about its limitations in capturing contextual nuance and creative insight. The study underscores the need for hybrid assessment models that integrate computational efficiency with human insights. This research contributes to the evolving conversation on responsible AI adoption in creative disciplines, emphasizing the balance between automation and human judgment for scalable and pedagogically sound assessment.

cs.CY↗