arXiv:2609.22553v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective LLM tutoring depends on correctly identifying the specific error in a student's reasoning before generating feedback. We study this problem i...
arXiv:2606. 12425v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Active learning is widely recognized as an effective approach for improving learning outcomes in introductory programming courses.
The paper presents ESSE, a self‑explanation tutor that uses a large language model to give immediate feedback on students’ line‑by‑line explanations of introductory programming worked examples. It evaluates the LLM’s judgments against a domain expert and a crowd of non‑experts, finding that the model is reliable enough to serve as the tutor’s assessment engine. In an introductory Java course, the tutor’s feedback encourages students to persist, improves the completeness and conceptual depth of their explanations, and shows evidence of learning.
arXiv:2608. 12351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has challenged the validity of unsupervised online assessment, especially in technical subjects where plausible answers can be produced with little effort.
The paper presents a risk‑adaptive, evidence‑constrained framework for providing feedback in introductory programming courses. Using data from 2,993 failed submissions by 215 students, the authors built models that predict persistent failure and generate four tailored feedback conditions for 136 cases. The framework employs calibrated risk to decide when to intervene, evidence gating to limit feedback content, and a progressive assistance strategy that moves from self‑checks to localized hints.
The paper presents a risk‑adaptive, evidence‑constrained framework that uses learning analytics to provide personalized feedback in introductory programming. By training models on 2,993 failed‑submission states from 215 students, the authors predict persistent failure and generate four tailored feedback conditions for 136 cases. A calibrated risk policy selects interventions for 17.8% of eligible states, capturing 25.2% of persistent failures, and the framework ensures that generated messages contain all required components after evidence gating.
arXiv:2504.02323v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to assist teachers and support student learning. While researchers have explored variou...
arXiv:2507.12674v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutor feedback before deployment requires anticipating student engagement, typically assessed through...
The paper proposes using large language models (LLMs) to identify disagreements among models as a way to focus expert effort on revising codebooks for large‑scale text annotation. Three expert feedback methods are evaluated: editing LLM‑generated revisions (Codebook Verifying), answering questions about disagreements (Question Answering), and labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on tutoring‑session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling achieves the highest LLM‑labeling accuracy (64.9%) compared to the expert‑revised codebook (57.8%), with Question Answering also outperforming the baseline (60.5%).
PotARCin expands the ARC benchmark by evaluating abstract reasoning across five dimensions—Definition, Classification, Constrained Generation, Editing, and Inversion—using programmatic generation of new task instances. The study shows a 25‑52 percentage‑point performance gap between standard ARC evaluation and PotARCin, and reveals that multi‑dimensional assessment can reorder models that appear equivalent under single‑metric accuracy. Additionally, a new held‑out set, P‑ARC, demonstrates low model accuracy (1‑8%) across all dimensions, highlighting the need for more comprehensive tests of abstract reasoning.
arXiv:2610.19367v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for multi-turn agentic tasks that require interactions with users and environments over extended seq...
The study examined how different designs of AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) affect students in an introductory programming course. Four AI TAs were compared based on pedagogical style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context). Results showed that the Socratic AI TA with full context received the lowest favorability ratings, had the highest interaction stress, the most external LLM use, and the lowest comprehension outcomes, though differences were not statistically significant.