Data scarcity and class imbalance are common occurrences in healthcare datasets and have adverse effect on classification performance of machine learning models. Artificial data generation in various applications can be used to handle these challenges. This paper proposes Guided Evolutionary Synthesizer (GES), a tool derived from principles of genetic algorithm, and designed to generate artificial healthcare time series data for improving classification performance of machine learning models. We conducted a series of promising and confirmatory preliminary experiments performance using traditional machine learning and non-residual convolutional neural network models to evaluate the effectiveness of GES synthetic on data classification. Motivated by the preliminary results, we conducted eight detailed experiments using residual neural network (ResNet), which demonstrated the flexibility of GES and effectiveness of GES synthetic data in improving classification performance of deep neural networks. These experiments use GES generated electrocardiogram (ECG) and electroencephalogram (EEG) datasets. Our findings show that models trained with GES synthetic data i) performed better than models trained with regular perturbed data, ii) had better diagnostic performance for both EEG and ECG datasets, iii) achieved better performance with lower training volume for EEG dataset, iv) eased learning biases seen in literature for ECG normal sinus and premature ventricular complex rhythms, and v) had better classification outcomes than comparable related work models trained with similar ECG classes.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly impacted the field of Natural Language Processing and has transformed conversational tasks across various domains because of their widespread integration in applications and public access. The discussion surrounding the application of LLMs in education has raised ethical concerns, particularly concerning plagiarism and policy compliance. Despite the prowess of LLMs in conversational tasks, the limitations of reliability and hallucinations exacerbate the need to guardrail conversations, motivating our investigation of RAG in computer science higher education. We developed Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) applications for the two tasks of virtual teaching assistants and teaching aids. In our study, we collected the ratings and opinions of faculty members in undergraduate and graduate computer science university courses at various levels, using our personalized RAG systems for each course. This study is the first to gather faculty feedback on the application of LLM-based RAG in education. The investigation revealed that while faculty members acknowledge the potential of RAG systems as virtual teaching assistants and teaching aids, certain barriers and features are suggested for their full-scale deployment. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion on the integration of advanced language models in educational settings, highlighting the need for careful consideration of ethical implications and the development of appropriate safeguards to ensure responsible and effective implementation.

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in classrooms, tutoring systems, and learning platforms, it is essential that these tools are not only powerful, but also easy to understand, fair, and supportive of real learning. Many current AI systems can generate fluent responses or accurate predictions, yet they often fail to clearly explain their decisions, reflect students’ cultural contexts, or give learners and educators meaningful control. This gap can reduce trust and limit the educational value of AI-supported learning. This paper introduces the PEARL framework, a human-centered approach for designing and evaluating explainable AI in education. PEARL is built around five core principles: Pedagogical Personalization (adapting support to learners’ levels and curriculum goals), Explainability and Engagement (providing clear, motivating explanations in everyday language), Attribution and Accountability (making AI decisions traceable and justifiable), Representation and Reflection (supporting fairness, diversity, and learner self-reflection), and Localized Learner Agency (giving learners control over how AI explains and supports them). Unlike many existing explainability approaches that focus mainly on technical performance, PEARL emphasizes how students, teachers, and administrators experience and make sense of AI decisions. The framework is demonstrated through simulated examples using an AI-based tutoring system, showing how PEARL can improve feedback clarity, support different stakeholder needs, reduce bias, and promote culturally relevant learning. The paper also introduces the PEARL Composite Score, a practical evaluation tool that helps assess how well educational AI systems align with ethical, pedagogical, and human-centered principles. This study includes a small exploratory mixed-methods user study (N = 17) evaluating example AI tutor interactions; no live classroom deployment was conducted. Together, these contributions offer a practical roadmap for building educational AI systems that are not only effective, but also trustworthy, inclusive, and genuinely supportive of human learning.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in education, yet their correctness alone does not capture the quality, reliability, or pedagogical validity of their problem-solving behavior, especially in mathematics, where multi-step logic, symbolic reasoning, and conceptual clarity are critical. Conventional evaluation methods largely focus on final answer accuracy and overlook the reasoning process. To address this gap, we introduce a novel interpretability framework for analyzing LLM-generated solutions using undergraduate calculus problems as a representative domain. Our approach combines reasoning flow extraction and decomposing solutions into semantically labeled operations and concepts with prompt ablation analysis to assess input salience and output stability. Using structured metrics such as reasoning complexity, phrase sensitivity, and robustness, we evaluated the model behavior on real Calculus I–III university exams and compared it with the performances of students enrolled in the courses. Our findings revealed that LLMs often produce syntactically fluent yet conceptually flawed solutions with reasoning patterns sensitive to prompt phrasing and input variation. This framework enables a fine-grained diagnosis of reasoning failures, supports curriculum alignment, and informs the design of interpretable AI-assisted feedback tools. The framework was evaluated on Gemma 3, an open-access large language model, across zero-shot, retrieval-augmented generation, and contextual retrieval configurations, using nine real undergraduate calculus examinations from three course levels. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to apply a combined reasoning flow decomposition and prompt ablation framework to real undergraduate calculus examinations, benchmarked against actual student cohort performance, laying the foundation for the transparent and responsible deployment of AI in STEM learning environments.