跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 05:06 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-07 17:43各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 05:49 — 2026-11-08 05:49(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 05:06最近发现新增版本:2026-11-07 17:43库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,056 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 05:04(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.06762

U.S. State Guidance on AI in K-12 Education: A Comparative Content and Citation Analysis

Shahan Ali Memon, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, Anukriti Kumar, Lucy Lu Wang, Jevin D. West, Nic Weber

原文摘要

In the years following the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, more than half of U.S. states have published formal guidelines around AI usage in K-12 education, creating a record of largely independent state education departments responding to a shared technological disruption. In this work, we analyze publicly available AI usage guidance documents from 35 states in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We compare the guidance in these documents across various dimensions, including pedagogy and instruction, audience, actionability, workforce and career readiness, responsible use and equity, and alignment with state-level demographics and administrative capacity. Finally, we investigate who authored these documents and their cited sources, identifying epistemic foundations underlying their claims. We find that guidance priorities converge on topics anchored in laws such as data privacy and academic integrity, each addressed in 97% of documents. While most documents mention equity of access (86%) and algorithmic bias (97%), fewer discuss specific marginalized populations. Across documents, there is a common framing of urgency around AI integration to prepare students for workforce readiness (86%) and promote loosely-defined personalized learning (86%), which is not matched by specific guidance for capacity-building, actionability, or accountability. State priorities show no relationship to state demographics, capacity, or partisanship. Instead, we identify notable interdependencies between states with shared citations to non-profit organizations like TeachAI and Code.org, with some states reproducing TeachAI's model guidance near-verbatim, and peer citations concentrating on a few early states such as Oregon and Washington. No state includes parents as contributors on these documents, and only five include students.

cs.CY · cs.DL