pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.10014 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-20 · 💻 cs.CY

μEd API: Towards a Shared API for Education Microservices

Maximillan S\"olch , Alexandra Neagu , Marcus Messer , Peter Johnson , Gerd Kortemeyer , Samuel S. H. Ng , Fun Siong Lim , Stephan Krusche This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 20:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords education microservicesAPI specificationlearning automationfeedbackassessmentchatbotsinteroperabilityplatform independence
0
0 comments X

The pith

The μEd API provides a platform-independent standard for education microservices to enable an ecosystem of automated tools for learning.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces an initial specification for the μEd API, a shared interface for educational microservices. It combines functionalities from systems already in use at four institutions adopting the standard. The goal is to allow developers to create specialized tools for feedback, assessment, and chatbots that work across different learning platforms. If successful, this would let organizations add domain-specific automation without being locked into a single general platform, leading to more personalized and automated educational experiences.

Core claim

The paper proposes the μEd API as a standard interface that integrates feedback, assessment, and educational chatbot functionalities from existing institutional systems. By defining this common API, it aims to foster an ecosystem of interoperable microservices that can be used across platforms to automate education tasks in various disciplines.

What carries the argument

The μEd API specification, a platform-independent interface that standardizes interactions for education microservices handling feedback, assessment, and chatbots.

If this is right

  • Microservices developed against the API can be used by any institution without custom integration.
  • Automation in education can extend to more domains and users beyond current platform limitations.
  • Institutions gain flexibility to choose best-of-breed tools for specific pedagogical needs.
  • A richer learning experience becomes possible through combined specialist automations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If adopted broadly, the API could create a competitive market for third-party education tools.
  • Future extensions might include services for personalized learning paths or data analytics.
  • Success depends on open-source implementations to encourage widespread use.

Load-bearing premise

The functionalities integrated from the four institutions are representative enough to serve as a viable standard that other institutions will adopt and maintain over time.

What would settle it

Observation of whether major learning management systems implement support for the μEd API or if additional institutions beyond the original four begin using it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10014 by Alexandra Neagu, Fun Siong Lim, Gerd Kortemeyer, Marcus Messer, Maximillan S\"olch, Peter Johnson, Samuel S. H. Ng, Stephan Krusche.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: High-level overview of the µEd API, illustrating the five core capability domains (/evaluate, /chat, /generate, /recommend, /analyze) and their current development status [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Learning at scale often requires domain-specific automation such as assessment and feedback. An organization locked in to a general learning platform without these specialist automations limits its pedagogical offering. An ecosystem of interoperable, platform-agnostic microservices for domain-specific automation would solve this problem. To develop an effective ecosystem, a standard interface (API) for education microservices is required. We propose an initial specification for a standard, platform-independent API for educational microservices, $\mu$Ed. The API integrates functionality from existing systems in use at four institutions, which are adopting the new API. The API is initially specified for automation of feedback, assessment, and educational chatbots, with further service types planned. The API specification provided here enables the development of an ecosystem of education microservices that will facilitate automation in more domains, to more users, providing a richer learning experience in a wide range of disciplines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an initial specification for the μEd API, a platform-independent interface for educational microservices. Drawing from deployed systems at four institutions that are adopting it, the API targets automation in feedback, assessment, and educational chatbots, with extensions planned. The central claim is that publishing this specification will enable an ecosystem of interoperable microservices, facilitating domain-specific automation and richer learning experiences.

Significance. If adopted and maintained, the specification could reduce vendor lock-in for learning platforms by enabling integration of specialized, domain-specific tools, thereby expanding automation options across institutions and disciplines. The grounding in independently deployed systems at multiple sites provides a practical basis that strengthens the proposal relative to purely abstract designs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The manuscript does not include empirical data on adoption rates, performance benchmarks, or interoperability tests across the four institutions, which is needed to substantiate the claim that the specification enables ecosystem development beyond the initial adopters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Specification] The specification would benefit from explicit example API request/response formats or pseudocode to clarify the interface for potential implementers.
  2. [Future Work] Add a dedicated section on maintenance and versioning plans to address long-term viability of the standard.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation of minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The manuscript does not include empirical data on adoption rates, performance benchmarks, or interoperability tests across the four institutions, which is needed to substantiate the claim that the specification enables ecosystem development beyond the initial adopters.

    Authors: This manuscript proposes an initial specification for the μEd API rather than reporting an empirical study. The API is derived directly from deployed systems already in use at four institutions that are adopting the new interface; this multi-site grounding provides the practical basis for the design. The central claim is prospective—that publishing the specification will enable an ecosystem of interoperable microservices—rather than a claim of current widespread adoption or measured performance. Because the specification is newly proposed, data on adoption rates beyond the initial four sites, cross-institution interoperability tests, or performance benchmarks are not yet available and would be premature. We therefore do not believe such empirical results are required to justify publication of the initial specification. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The manuscript proposes a concrete API specification by integrating functionality already deployed at four independent institutions that are adopting the interface. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear in the provided text. The central claim—that publishing the interface enables ecosystem development—follows directly from the act of specification rather than reducing to any self-referential input. Self-citation is absent from the load-bearing steps, and the forward-looking statements about wider domains remain aspirational rather than asserted as derived results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities; it is a synthesis of existing educational automation functionalities into a proposed interface standard.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 936 out tokens · 35228 ms · 2026-05-15T20:33:17.607799+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1EdTech Consortium. 2026. Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI). Retrieved January 21, 2026 from https://www.1EdTech.org/standards/lti

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Abdellah Bakhouyi, Rachid Dehbi, Mohamed Talea, and Omar Hajoui. 2017. Evolution of Standardization and Interoperability on E-Learning Systems: An Overview. In2017 16th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET). 1–8. doi:10.1109/ITHET.2017.8067789

    work page doi:10.1109/ithet.2017.8067789 2017

  3. [3]

    Baldwin and Kim B

    Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark. 2000.Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Tshepo Batane. 2010. Turning to Turnitin to Fight Plagiarism Among University Students.Journal of Educational Technology & Society13, 2 (2010), 1–12

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Joshua Bloch. 2006. How to Design a Good API and Why It Matters. InCompanion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications(Portland, Oregon, USA)(OOPSLA ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 506–507. doi:10.1145/1176617. 1176622

    work page doi:10.1145/1176617 2006

  6. [6]

    Simon Buckingham Shum, Lisa-Angelique Lim, David Boud, Margaret Bear- man, and Phillip Dawson. 2023. A Comparative Analysis of the Skilled Use of Automated Feedback Tools Through the Lens of Teacher Feedback Literacy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education20, 1 (2023),

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00410-9

    work page doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00410-9

  8. [8]

    DigitalEd. 2026. Möbius. Retrieved April 12, 2026 from https://www.digitaled. com/mobius/

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    Nicola Dragoni, Saverio Giallorenzo, Alberto Lluch Lafuente, Manuel Mazzara, Fabrizio Montesi, Ruslan Mustafin, and Larisa Safina. 2017. Microservices: Yester- day, Today, and Tomorrow. InPresent and Ulterior Software Engineering, Manuel Mazzara and Bertrand Meyer (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 195–216

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Yao Fu and Zhenjie Weng. 2024. Navigating the Ethical Terrain of AI in Education: A Systematic Review on Framing Responsible Human-Centered AI Practices. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence7 (2024), 100306

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Michael Fullan and Maria Langworthy. 2014. A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. (2014)

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    2023.Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education: An Overview of Practice and Policy in OECD Countries

    Francesca Gottschalk and Crystal Weise. 2023.Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education: An Overview of Practice and Policy in OECD Countries. Technical Report. OECD. https://www.proquest.com/working-papers/digital-equity-inclusion- education-overview/docview/2849362537/se-2 Retrieved January 21, 2026

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Andrina Granić. 2022. Educational Technology Adoption: A Systematic Review. Education and Information Technologies27, 7 (2022), 9725–9744

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Santos, Mercedes T

    Wayne Holmes, Kaska Porayska-Pomsta, Ken Holstein, Emma Sutherland, Toby Baker, Simon Buckingham Shum, Olga C. Santos, Mercedes T. Rodrigo, Mutlu Cukurova, Ig Ibert Bittencourt, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2022. Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education32, 3 (2022), 504–526. d...

    work page doi:10.1007/s40593-021- 2022

  15. [15]

    Peter Johnson, Phil Ramsden, and Marcus Messer. 2025. AI Microservices for Sustainable Innovation in Education. doi:10.35542/osf.io/wq4bd_v3 EdArXiv preprint

    work page doi:10.35542/osf.io/wq4bd_v3 2025

  16. [16]

    Johnson, Jon Fenton, Phil Ramsden, Robert Chatley, Maria Ribera-Vicent, and Karl Lundengård

    Peter B. Johnson, Jon Fenton, Phil Ramsden, Robert Chatley, Maria Ribera-Vicent, and Karl Lundengård. 2025. Formative Feedback on Engineering Self-Study: Towards 1 Million Times per Year per Cohort. In2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 1–3

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Niels Kerssens and José Van Dijck. 2022. Governed by Edtech? Valuing Pedagog- ical Autonomy in a Platform Society.Harvard Educational Review92, 2 (2022), 284–303

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Blanka Klimova, Marcel Pikhart, and Jaroslav Kacetl. 2023. Ethical Issues of the Use of AI-Driven Mobile Apps for Education.Frontiers in Public Health10 (2023). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1118116

    work page doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1118116 2023

  19. [19]

    Gerd Kortemeyer. 2024. Ethel: A Virtual Teaching Assistant.The Physics Teacher 62, 8 (2024), 698–699

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Stephan Krusche and Andreas Seitz. 2018. Artemis: An Automatic Assessment Management System for Interactive Learning. InProceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 284–289

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Joel Weijia Lai, Wei Qiu, Maung Thway, Lei Zhang, Nurabidah Binti Jamil, Chit Lin Su, Samuel S. H. Ng, and Fun Siong Lim. 2025. Leveraging Process-Action Epistemic Network Analysis to Illuminate Student Self-Regulated Learning with a Socratic Chatbot.Journal of Learning Analytics12, 1 (2025), 32–49

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    James Lewis and Martin Fowler. 2014. Microservices: A Definition of This New Architectural Term. Retrieved January 21, 2026 from https://martinfowler.com/ articles/microservices.html

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Ming Liu, Yi Li, Weiwei Xu, and Li Liu. 2016. Automated Essay Feedback Gener- ation and Its Impact on Revision.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10, 4 (2016), 502–513

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Karl Lundengård, Peter Johnson, and Phil Ramsden. 2024. Automated Feedback on Student Attempts to Produce a Set of Dimensionless Power Products from a Set of Physical Quantities That Describe a Physical Problem.International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education31, 3 (2024), 117–124

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Omiyad Network. 2019. Scaling Access & Impact: Realizing the Power of EdTech. Executive Summary. (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    OpenAI. 2023. OpenAI API. Retrieved January 21, 2026 from https://github.com/ openai/openai-openapi

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    OpenAPI Initiative. 2026. OpenAPI Specification. Retrieved January 21, 2026 from https://www.openapis.org

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Daniel Otto and Michael Kerres. 2022. Increasing Sustainability in Open Learning: Prospects of a Distributed Learning Ecosystem for Open Educational Resources. Frontiers in Education7 (2022). doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.866917

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.866917 2022

  29. [29]

    Luci Pangrazio, Neil Selwyn, and Bronwyn Cumbo. 2023. A Patchwork of Plat- forms: Mapping Data Infrastructures in Schools.Learning, Media and Technology 48, 1 (2023), 65–80. doi:10.1080/17439884.2022.2035395

    work page doi:10.1080/17439884.2022.2035395 2023

  30. [30]

    Reigeluth and Jennifer R

    Charles M. Reigeluth and Jennifer R. Karnopp. 2013.Reinventing Schools: It’s Time to Break the Mold. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Rustici Software. 2026. SCORM.com: SCORM Explained. Retrieved January 21, 2026 from https://scorm.com/

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Rustici Software. 2026. xAPI.com: Experience API (xAPI) Explained. Retrieved January 21, 2026 from https://xapi.com/

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    Neil Selwyn, Thomas Hillman, Annika Bergviken-Rensfeldt, and Carlo Perrotta

    work page

  34. [34]

    doi:10.1007/s42438-022-00362-9

    Making Sense of the Digital Automation of Education.Postdigital Science and Education5, 1 (2023), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s42438-022-00362-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s42438-022-00362-9 2023

  35. [35]

    Maximilian Sölch, Felix T. J. Dietrich, and Stephan Krusche. 2025. Direct Auto- mated Feedback Delivery for Student Submissions Based on LLMs. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineer- ing (FSE Companion ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 901–911. doi:10.1145/3696630.3727247

    work page doi:10.1145/3696630.3727247 2025

  36. [36]

    Maximilian Sölch and Stephan Krusche. 2026. Scaling Assessment of Student Models with LLMs: Integrating Feedback into Practice. InProceedings of the 2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-SEET ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/3786580. 3786985

    work page doi:10.1145/3786580 2026

  37. [37]

    Mirko Stocker, Olaf Zimmermann, Uwe Zdun, Daniel Lübke, and Cesare Pautasso

    work page

  38. [38]

    InProceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs

    Interface Quality Patterns: Communicating and Improving the Quality of Microservices APIs. InProceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16

    work page

  39. [39]

    Jeffrey Stylos and Brad Myers. 2007. Mapping the Space of API Design Decisions. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2007). 50–60. doi:10.1109/VLHCC.2007.44

    work page doi:10.1109/vlhcc.2007.44 2007

  40. [40]

    Maximilian Sölch, Alexandra Neagu, Marcus Messer, Peter B Johnson, Gerd Kortemeyer, Samuel S H Ng, Fun S Lim, and Stephan Krusche. 2026. muEd-API. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/FET3U

    work page doi:10.17605/osf.io/fet3u 2026

  41. [41]

    Thomas and Vito Laterza

    Duncan A. Thomas and Vito Laterza. 2026.Critical Perspectives on EdTech in Higher Education: Varieties of Platformisation. Springer Nature

    work page 2026

  42. [42]

    Vacalopoulou, V

    A. Vacalopoulou, V. Gardelli, T. Karafyllidis, F. Liwicki, H. Mokayed, M. Pa- paevripidou, G. Paraskevopoulos, S. Stamouli, A. Katsamanis, and V. Katsouros

    work page

  43. [43]

    InINTED2024 Proceedings (18th International Technology, Education and Development Conference)

    AI4EDU: An Innovative Conversational AI Assistant for Teaching and Learning. InINTED2024 Proceedings (18th International Technology, Education and Development Conference). IATED, Valencia, Spain, 7119–7127. doi:10.21125/ inted.2024.1877

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Xin Zhang, Peng Zhang, Yuan Shen, Min Liu, Qiong Wang, Dragan Gašević, and Yizhou Fan. 2024. A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Applying Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education.Frontiers of Digital Education1, 3 (2024), 223–245. doi:10.1007/s44366-024-0028-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s44366-024-0028-5 2024