Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05983v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 10:25:31 GMT
• Title: Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI
• Abstract summary: We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills.<n>We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab.<n>Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.
• Score: 47.027290803102666
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.

Related papers

• AI literacy over tool design: a mixed-methods study of scaffolded versus unrestricted generative AI in programming education [0.0]
  This paper reports a seven-week mixed-methods pilot study in a master's-level data analytics course.<n>33 students were randomly assigned either to a scaffolded AI Study Coach embedded in the notebook-based laboratory sessions or to unrestricted use of AI tools of their own choosing.<n>The design of the tool mattered less than the students' capacity to govern their own use of it, a capacity that is at present acquired by chance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T07:53:58Z)
• When AI Does the Work, What Is Learning For? Post-Instrumental Learning and the Risk of Capacity Dissolution [3.2940515388832963]
  Existing AI ethics rightly emphasizes present failures.<n>But if the case for learning rests only on those failures, then each technical improvement appears to weaken it.<n>Using the idealization of AI that executes specified tasks flawlessly while lacking authority over purposes, legitimacy, and responsibility, we argue for post-instrumental learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T11:24:56Z)
• Verification-Conditioned Use: A Qualitative Study on How Generative AI Reshapes Learning, Autonomy, and Market Entry for Junior Software Developers [0.3342165620612816]
  This study investigates how the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools affects the early stages of a career in software development.<n> sixteen themes emerged, organized around a central concept: verification-conditioned use.<n>Two themes expose tensions in newcomers' self-perception: the autonomy paradox and the first-person denial of dependence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T16:07:21Z)
• AI to Learn 2.0: A Deliverable-Oriented Governance Framework and Maturity Rubric for Opaque AI in Learning-Intensive Domains [0.0]
  Generative AI is entering research, education, and professional work faster than current governance frameworks can specify how AI-assisted outputs should be judged.<n>This paper proposes AI to Learn 2.0, a deliverable-oriented governance framework for AI-assisted work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T11:44:43Z)
• ChatGPT and Gemini participated in the Korean College Scholastic Ability Test -- Earth Science I [0.0]
  This study utilizes the Earth Science I section of the 2025 Korean College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) to analyze the multimodal scientific reasoning capabilities and cognitive limitations of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> Quantitative results indicated that unstructured inputs led to significant performance degradation due to segmentation and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) failures.<n>By exploiting AI's weaknesses, educators can distinguish genuine student competency from AI-generated responses, thereby ensuring assessment fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T10:46:41Z)
• Designing AI-Resilient Assessments Using Interconnected Problems: A Theoretically Grounded and Empirically Validated Framework [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of generative AI has undermined traditional modular assessments in computing education.<n>This paper presents a theoretically grounded framework for designing AI-resilient assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T15:53:19Z)
• Evaluating Generative AI for CS1 Code Grading: Direct vs Reverse Methods [0.0]
  This paper compares two AI-based grading techniques: textitDirect, where the AI model applies a rubric directly to student code, and textitReverse (a newly proposed approach), where the AI first fixes errors, then deduces a grade based on the nature and number of fixes.<n>We discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach, practical considerations for prompt design, and future directions for hybrid human-AI grading systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T01:38:06Z)
• Academics and Generative AI: Empirical and Epistemic Indicators of Policy-Practice Voids [0.0]
  This study prototypes a ten-item, indirect-elicitation instrument embedded in a structured interpretive framework to surface voids between institutional rules and practitioner AI use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T06:24:47Z)
• RealUnify: Do Unified Models Truly Benefit from Unification? A Comprehensive Benchmark [71.3555284685426]
  We introduce RealUnify, a benchmark designed to evaluate bidirectional capability synergy.<n>RealUnify comprises 1,000 meticulously human-annotated instances spanning 10 categories and 32 subtasks.<n>We find that current unified models still struggle to achieve effective synergy, indicating that architectural unification alone is insufficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T15:07:28Z)
• Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data [57.30662797376754]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models.<n>We introduce the Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR), a system that self-evolves its training curriculum and reasoning ability.<n>AZR achieves overall SOTA performance on coding and mathematical reasoning tasks, outperforming existing zero-setting models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T09:08:00Z)
• Beyond human subjectivity and error: a novel AI grading system [67.410870290301]
  The grading of open-ended questions is a high-effort, high-impact task in education. Recent breakthroughs in AI technology might facilitate such automation, but this has not been demonstrated at scale. We introduce a novel automatic short answer grading (ASAG) system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T13:49:59Z)
• The MineRL BASALT Competition on Learning from Human Feedback [58.17897225617566]
  The MineRL BASALT competition aims to spur forward research on this important class of techniques. We design a suite of four tasks in Minecraft for which we expect it will be hard to write down hardcoded reward functions. We provide a dataset of human demonstrations on each of the four tasks, as well as an imitation learning baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:18:17Z)
• Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience [76.9910678786031]
  We propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an Active Learning setting. Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-24T22:52:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.