Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.19164

LearnAI: Just-in-Time AI Co-Creation Across Disciplines at a University

Weihao Qu·Ling Zheng·Chris Buzaid·Daniel Crawford
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As generative AI reshapes professional and educational practice, institutions face a challenge: how to support diverse learners, from non-coders to advanced students, in building confidence and practice with AI-supported problem solving. Most institutional responses bifurcate into conceptual workshops for general audiences or technical courses for computer science majors, leaving few spaces where mixed-ability learners can engage common AI tasks at levels matched to their prior experience. This experience report presents the LearnAI Framework, a two-layer model for just-in-time AI co-creation piloted at a comprehensive teaching university. The Wide-Exposure Layer embeds short presentations in existing courses to build AI awareness at scale, reaching students and faculty across 18 courses in five disciplines. The Customized Co-Creation Layer provides opt-in, one-on-one sessions where clients work with trained undergraduate tutors through a 5-Stage Pedagogical Script: Problem Framing, Tool-Task Mapping, Iterative Co-Prompting, Deployment and Verification, and Ethical Reflection. Over two semesters, 35 clients co-created 36 portfolio websites and over 20 deployed web applications. Interviews with five clients and two tutors suggest a recurring change in how clients described AI use, shifting from treating AI as a passive answer machine to engaging it as a collaborative tool under human direction. A small paired pre/post AI readiness dataset (N = 7) provides preliminary descriptive context, and tutor accounts document how the pedagogical script was enacted and adapted across client types. We report on boundary cases including clients who felt overwhelmed and respondents who deliberately rejected AI use. This paper contributes a practical, adoptable framework with initial evidence from a single institution.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weihao Qu, Ling Zheng, Chris Buzaid, Daniel Crawford. 2026-08-19. LearnAI: Just-in-Time AI Co-Creation Across Disciplines at a University. https://doi.org/10.1145/3795867.3831010

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

An Investigation Into Secondary School Students' Debugging Behaviour in Python

Background and context: Debugging is a significant and often frustrating challenge for beginner programmers. Understanding students' debugging behaviours and strategies can help to identify common difficulties and inform approaches for alleviating these. Currently, there are limited studies of school students' debugging behaviour in a text-based programming language, a medium through which millions are learning to program. Objectives: In this paper, we investigate the debugging behaviour of 12-14-year-old students learning Python through a lesson-long classroom study. Method: We collected program snapshots from 73 students' attempts at a set of Python debugging exercises in an online code editor. Through qualitative content analysis of these snapshots, we developed a granular categorisation of the changes students made when debugging. Findings: A range of debugging behaviours were exhibited by students, many of which were ineffective. Students added errors through small-scale changes, reverted corrective changes, and repeatedly ran identical programs in quick succession. From the results, we identify four barriers to successful and reliable debugging for students learning a text-based programming language: fragile knowledge, a lack of systematicity and reflection, the syntax barrier, and dynamics of emotions and attitudes. Implications: This paper highlights some of the difficulties that secondary school students have when debugging in Python and the challenges of analysing program snapshots through manual inspection. We recommend that school teachers explicitly teach a systematic approach to debugging and discourage the use of ineffective debugging behaviours, and that programming environments should contain features that facilitate successful debugging.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Printed but not benchmarkable: most building-decarbonisation disclosure cannot be matched to the pathways that stranding regulation assumes

Cities are beginning to enforce carbon limits on existing buildings. Science-based decarbonisation pathways set those limits one asset type and one jurisdiction at a time. Owners, however, report for the whole firm. We measure what that mismatch costs on two sets of public corporate reports: a census of 502 reports from the 119 listed built-environment firms with a collected report inside a 2,246-firm panel (2003-2023), and 519 real-estate reports from 101 firms (2007-2024). BeDA, a multimodal language-model tool whose reliability we test first, read them. Running the pathway frameworks' own entry tests over published disclosure: 16.5% of census reports (43.7% of real-estate reports) print an operational carbon intensity per square metre; 6.6% (25.0%) can be matched to a pathway for their property type in a covered jurisdiction; and only 5.0% (16.4%) disclose the floor area they divided by. Of the failures at the pathway test, 82-84% follow from reports lumping the portfolio together and 16-18% from a missing curve in the pathway library. The obstacle is the reporting unit, not missing data. The rate is roughly twice as high for European as for US listings (65-71% versus 35% in listed real estate). We also show that a US portfolio's carbon verdict cannot be worked out from disclosure at all. Within one climate zone, the pathway's carbon limit varies by up to 2.79-fold with the electricity subregion, which no report names; its energy limit does not move. Extraction is checked against the source PDFs (97.3% of extracted intensities appear verbatim) and repeats on a second extractor (kappa = 0.97). Recall of the non-disclosing class was 95.1% in a blinded hand audit of 122 reports. The fix follows from the measurement: split intensity by asset type and jurisdiction, and report floor area.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Incipit: Axiom-Grounded Scaffolding for Human-AI Literary Creation

Large language models can produce fluent prose from short prompts, but a direct interaction gives writers little access to the assumptions that shape a long narrative. We present Incipit, an implemented research prototype that inserts an explicit planning layer between writer intent and generated prose. The layer is grounded in literary axioms, which are curated and reusable propositions about human experience and narrative craft. The prototype connects a knowledge base of 1455 axioms and 472 typed relationships to a five round direction dialogue, a retrieval and selection pipeline, and a three level blueprint covering creative premises, story beats, character arcs, and chapter outlines. Writers can inspect and edit the resulting structures before using them as context for scene generation. Additional modules support real event abstraction and five dimensional diagnostic feedback. We describe the design rationale, data flow, implementation boundaries, and a worked design example. Because no controlled user study or independently rated output study has yet been completed, we do not claim that the system improves literary quality. Instead, we outline a future preregistered comparison designed to distinguish the contribution of axiom grounding from that of hierarchical planning. The paper contributes a concrete architecture for making literary knowledge an inspectable coordination object in human AI writing.

cs.CY↗