This work argues for instructional governance by design: governance should be encoded in a teaching tool's interaction model, constraints, and workflow, and introduces a multidimensional framework that characterizes AI teaching tools through pedagogical grounding, AI instructional authority, and human accountability and control.
Abstract
As generative AI permeates computing instruction, the emergent design challenge is to configure each tool's pedagogical role, authority, and accountability for the instructional work it performs. We argue for instructional governance by design: governance should be encoded in a teaching tool's interaction model, constraints, and workflow. We introduce a multidimensional framework that characterizes AI teaching tools through (1) pedagogical grounding, (2) AI instructional authority, (3) human accountability and control, (4) learner agency and cognitive engagement, (5) context specificity and boundary setting, and (6) evaluation visibility and revision. These dimensions yield governance profiles that help educators align tools with specific purposes and educational stakes. We develop the position through a comparative analysis of a portfolio of AI teaching tools across computing and first-year engineering: rubric-anchored GTA simulations, reflection-oriented code companions, staff-reviewed forum-response systems, TA-supervised diagram generators, and course-specific code-style coaches. These cases show how common instructional functions call for different combinations of rubrics, learning-theory commitments, approval gates, supervision, and course-specific constraints. We further apply the framework to selected published tools to demonstrate its use beyond a single institutional portfolio. From these cases, we identify reusable design questions for aligning governance with instructional stakes, human capacity, and intended learning processes. This position reframes responsible AI integration as a curricular and interaction-design challenge and offers a common vocabulary for tool builders, instructors, and researchers to design, compare, and evaluate AI-mediated learning environments.
The Instructional Model for Human-Centered Generative AI Engagement is introduced, a pedagogical framework designed to help faculty guide students in engaging with generative AI as a thinking partner rather than a shortcut.
A. Miles, Paige Haber-Curran, Khalid H. Arar· Open Praxis· 0 citations
A policy-oriented posthuman framework for interpreting AI integration in architectural pedagogy and translating it into responsible design education principles is developed, which clarifies the theoretical relevance of posthuman pedagogy for AI-supported architectural education.
This paper argues that clarifying AI competencies for teaching requires more than listing skills: it requires a coherent account of what these competencies involve, how they are enacted in practice, and what evidence can support teacher learning and professional judgment over time.
Teresa M. Ober, Caitlin Tenison, Geoffrey Phelps et al.· ETS Research Report Series· 0 citations
A step-by-step instructional guide for educators to facilitate iterative prompting using AI tools within a human-in-the-loop governance framework, demonstrating real-world AI integration in public service delivery.
A. Dimand, Emily A. Boykin, Brooke Smith· Journal of Public Affairs Ed...· 0 citations
Engineering-driven
STEM
pedagogy promotes integrative problem-solving through the engineering design process (
EDP
), but its implementation is constrained by curriculum integration, assessment alignment, and instructional workload. Recent advances in generative
AI
(GenAI) create possibilities for design-base...
Jing-Yu Lu, Xiao-Fei Zhou· Research in Integrated STEM...· 0 citations
A six-phase AI-assisted instructional design architecture based on the Curriculum as Code paradigm, integrating Generative AI with LaTeX and Python to automate the creation of reproducible, visually consistent, and technically precise materials for STEM education is presented.
Henrique Mohallem Paiva· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 23, 2026
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 22, 2026
“X-Hinges” helps design and 3D print items like lamps and gloves with an interactive twist: automatically embedded sensors that perceive and adaptively respond to human contact.
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.