Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.38969

Insights on Student Learning from Live Classroom Polls: More Than Right or Wrong

Abstract

A live classroom poll is usually read through its answer key, as a count of participation and correctness. Yet the same record holds more before any key is fixed, namely who answers early and how the class divides across the options. Whether these key-free signals are stable, and what they reveal, has not been examined at the scale of a real course. We study them in a live deployment of 340,668 submissions across 603 polls in 47 sessions from roughly 2,400 learners, reading each poll for a learner's response order and for how much the class divides. A single further step brings in the author-designated key, on items with a settled answer, to interpret the divided ones. A learner's response order is a stable individual signature. It reproduces at a corrected split-half reliability of 0.92, holds at 0.87 within single sessions, and is unrelated to whether the learner is correct. Read without a key, about one poll in five does not reach a clear majority, and division marks the questions that split the class. On the settled-answer items the majority is itself wrong on 49 of 358. The key-free measure flags most of these, though division alone does not separate a collectively wrong answer from a merely hard one. The two readings are largely independent, meeting at one point where early responders anticipate the eventual majority only on questions the class has nearly settled. Together they map the learners and questions of a session without a key.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rohit Sharma, Pavani Ayinampudi, Aditya B. M. V., Jinal Gupta, Prakash Hegade, Sakshi Sharma, Meenakshi V, SRS Iyengar. 2026-09-30. Insights on Student Learning from Live Classroom Polls: More Than Right or Wrong. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38969

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

"AI Psychosis" in Context: How Conversation History Shapes LLM Responses to Delusional Beliefs

Extended interaction with large language models (LLMs) has been linked to the reinforcement of delusional beliefs, attracting clinical and public concern. Yet most empirical work evaluates model safety in brief interactions, which may not reflect how harms develop through sustained dialogue. Five LLMs were tested across three levels of accumulated context, using the same escalating delusional conversation history to isolate its effect on model behaviour. Responses were coded on risk and safety dimensions, and each model was analysed qualitatively. Models separated into two distinct tiers: GPT-4o, Grok 4.1 Fast, and Gemini 3 Pro exhibited high-risk, low-safety profiles; Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2 Instant displayed the opposite pattern. As context accumulated, performance degraded in the unsafe group, while the same material activated stronger safety interventions among safer models. Qualitative analysis identified distinct mechanisms of failure, including validating the user's delusional premises, elaborating beyond them with new content, and attempting harm reduction from within the delusional frame. Safer models, however, often used the established relationship to support intervention, challenging delusional beliefs and directing the user to external support. These findings indicate that accumulated context functions as a stress test of safety architecture, revealing whether prior dialogue is treated as a worldview to inherit or evidence to evaluate. Short-context assessments may therefore mischaracterise model safety, underestimating danger in some systems while missing context-activated gains in others. The results suggest that delusion reinforcement is a tractable alignment failure, with safer models establishing a baseline that future systems should now be expected to meet.

cs.HC↗

Afterglow: A Place-Based Memorial Ecology for AI-Mediated Pet Bereavement

Pet bereavement often receives little social recognition. Generative AI can give a continuing bond a responsive voice, but a comforting reply may also claim authority to forgive or request attention. We investigate how a memorial can support connection without turning remembrance into obligation. Through Research through Design, we developed Afterglow, a mobile world connecting private remembrance, human witnessing, and symbolic Pet messages. A formative survey (N=57) informed the initial design, followed by six online roundtable walkthroughs with 20 unique participants across two prototype iterations. Our interpretive analysis develops tensions between returnable connection and emotional obligation, recognizable likeness and ontological clarity, and protective intervention and surveillant authority. We contribute Legible Restraint, a cross-layer requirement that limits on relational authority survive changes in speaker, generation context, trigger logic, data use, and participation. Its temporal consequence, Designing for Goodbye, keeps remembrance available without making continued use a condition of care.

cs.HC↗

Where the Evidence Lives: Auditing AI Companions' Self-Descriptions

Companion agents describe themselves: they remember, they understand their users, the relationship has changed them. We argue that such accounts, and the experience ratings that seem to confirm them, are checkable by users only where the evidence is theirs: in the agent's behavior, or in themselves. Where the evidence lives in the machinery, fluent self-description and moderately positive ratings do not establish that the mechanisms behind them ran. We demonstrate an audit procedure that sets an agent's self-description against its users' judgements and its implementation records, reporting each claim as supported, contradicted, or unresolved, and apply it to Lita, a proactive companion we built and deployed for a month with nine colleagues. Participants endorsed stylistic claims, withheld endorsement from relational ones, and rated memory at or above midpoint, while two of three memory layers had never executed their accumulation step. Memory-bearing agents should report what their self-descriptions cannot establish.

cs.HC↗