Independent expert teachers accepted 86% of generated STEM learning interactives, rating most as good or excellent, with biology simulations weakest on aesthetics and UX¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across 40 STEM simulation requests rated by two independent teacher raters per simulation, overall acceptance was 86% and accepted simulations were mostly rated good or excellent. → Alisa Kovshov 2026 q2 i? Biology simulations were rated inferior to other topics, particularly on aesthetics and UX, because biology topics require more memorization of details than manipulable equations. → Alisa Kovshov 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Alisa Kovshov 2026¶

Alisa Kovshov, Anisha Choudhury, Anna Iurchenko, Amy Keeling, Avinatan Hassidim, Ayelet Shasha Evron, Ayça Çakmakli, Diana Akrong, Femi Olanubi, Gal Elidan, Ian Li, Ido Lerer, Katherine Chou, Lidan Hackmon, Michal Gordon, Nir Kerem, Niv Efron, Preeti Singh, Rena Levitt, Rotem Yulzary, Shlomi Ben Shimon, Sophie Allweis, Tracey Lee-Joe, Tzvika Stein, Yaniv Carmel, Yael Haramaty, Yishay Mor, Yossi Matias and Yuri Lev. (2026). Harnessing Generative UI for Education: Tailored Learning Interactives. Google Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20738 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.20738

q2 · i? · design · r2

Pedagogical rating study: pedagogical experts chose 40 simulation requests across STEM topics and age groups; each successful interactive was rated by two raters teaching the respective field on rubrics for acceptance, learning objectives, and UX/LX. "overall acceptance rate is high at86%".

"overall acceptance rate is high at86%and ratings are mostly ’good’ or ’excellent’, making many of the simulations usable but also with room for improvement."

Alisa Kovshov 2026 (2)¶

Alisa Kovshov, Anisha Choudhury, Anna Iurchenko, Amy Keeling, Avinatan Hassidim, Ayelet Shasha Evron, Ayça Çakmakli, Diana Akrong, Femi Olanubi, Gal Elidan, Ian Li, Ido Lerer, Katherine Chou, Lidan Hackmon, Michal Gordon, Nir Kerem, Niv Efron, Preeti Singh, Rena Levitt, Rotem Yulzary, Shlomi Ben Shimon, Sophie Allweis, Tracey Lee-Joe, Tzvika Stein, Yaniv Carmel, Yael Haramaty, Yishay Mor, Yossi Matias and Yuri Lev. (2026). Harnessing Generative UI for Education: Tailored Learning Interactives. Google Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20738

q2 · i? · design · r2

Topic-level contrast in the same 40-request expert rating study. The article attributes the weakness to biology topics requiring more memorization of details than manipulable equations, yielding simulations "more of textbook sequence and less a real interactive experience."

"It is noticeable that simulations for biology are inferior to other topics, particularly along the aesthetics and UX axes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a usability study, 12 U.S. STEM teachers rated all generated learning interactives 7 or above for usability, averaging above 8.1, with 3 of 36 requests deemed too low quality to present — related
• Iterative generate-then-refine with multi-axis critiques raises the share of usable generated simulations from 3.5% after first generation to 69.3% after 10 improvement rounds — related
• MAIC-UI, generating interactive STEM courseware from instructor documents, reported gains in learning agency in classroom deployment (attributed) — related