GenAI has rapidly entered instructional and learning settings as a teaching assistant or AI tutor. However, less is known about how pedagogical intent connects to the learning generated within these systems, especially when student-facing AI dialogues are fine-tuned through teacher orchestration in live classrooms. This study examines a classroom deployment of a "Classroom Teaching Aide" (TASD) system, which enables teachers to author both a teacher-to-AI setup prompt (instructional scaffold) and a student-facing conversation starter to launch AI-mediated classroom discussions. We analyze a multi-subject pilot conducted in Spring 2025, involving 20 participating teachers (16 of whom implemented the system), across 39 classrooms and 77 TASD settings, yielding 1,479 student-AI conversations with 878 unique students. Using platform logs, LLM coding with human validation, and post-study teacher interviews (N=10), we characterize teacher authoring choices and link them to enacted student-AI interaction outcomes. In deployment, student-AI conversations were largely aligned with instructional intent: 71% were fully on-track, and fewer than 1% were substantially off-track. However, a persistent design-enactment gap emerged for cognitive demand: 38% of conversations under-reached the teacher-targeted DOK level, approaching 50% when targeting DOK 3. The study also shows that explicit finish lines in the prompt reduced the DOK gap by 0.22 levels (p < .001), and "no direct answers" guardrails reduced AI final-answer rates by 8.5 percentage points. These findings position teacher-authored prompt layers as critical orchestration levers that translate pedagogical intent into structured student-AI dialogue, underscoring both their promise for scalable classroom integration and the need for additional supports to reliably sustain higher-order reasoning during enactment.

This mixed-method study focuses on young children's engagement in engineering design activities through the lens of goal orientation. The purpose is to build evidence-based knowledge for educators and researchers to better support children's motivation in engineering. The preliminary results indicate that young children (7-14 years old) have multifaceted goal orientations while engaging in engineering activities, and their goal orientations may be related to the context and setting of the activities (e.g., physical and social environments). The data also indicate differences between families of historically minoritized communities and general museum visitors and caregivers' goal orientations for their children's learning.