Lay Kee Ang | Search arXiv

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↗