arXiv AI

Self-Explanation Tutor for Active Study of CS1 Worked Examples

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 AI
3d ago

Examining Variation in How Guided AI Tutors Resolve Student Impasses

The study analyzes 20,462 student turns from 1,260 sessions with a guided LLM chemistry tutor, identifying 6,630 impasse turns categorized as conceptual errors, expressed uncertainty, or help‑seeking. Three tutoring conditions—baseline, no‑direct‑answer, and guided—were simulated, revealing that the baseline tutor often gave direct answers, the no‑direct‑answer tutor always asked follow‑up questions, and the guided tutor varied its responses based on context. Impasse trajectories showed that each additional impasse turn reduced the likelihood of recovery, while addressing errors became increasingly beneficial compared to repeated scripted questioning.

By Bakhtawar Ahtisham, Kirk Vanacore, Alessandra Napoli, Josh Arens, Ksenia Ionova, Clayton Cohn, Shima Salehi, Rene Kizilcec
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25

LLM Pedagogical Behavior in AI Tutoring Interactions

arXiv:2608.22993v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Students increasingly use LLMs as tutors for coursework and problem solving. Little is known about the level of assistance LLMs provide when students u...

By Suhyeon Lee, Juneha Baek, Jaehyeong Park, Donghyuk Shin
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Guardrails or Roadblocks? Effects of Pedagogical Style and Context Awareness in AI Teaching Assistants for Programming

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.

By Madeleine Eastwood, Harshith Narne, Joseph Hilby, Paul Denny, Ashish Aggarwal, Amanpreet Kapoor
arXiv AI
Jul 1

What Drives Interactive Improvement from Feedback?

arXiv:2606. 30774v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study when natural-language feedback produces improvement beyond the gains obtainable from repeated attempts alone.

By Bart{\l}omiej Cupia{\l}, Jan {\L}ojek, Miko{\l}aj Garstecki, Szymon Pob{\l}ocki, Alicja Ziarko, Piotr Mi{\l}o\'s
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Tracing Mathematical Proficiency Through Problem-Solving Processes

The paper introduces Knowledge Tracing Leveraging Problem‑Solving Process (KT‑PSP), a method that incorporates students’ problem‑solving steps to model mathematical proficiency more comprehensively than traditional knowledge tracing. It presents the KT‑PSP‑25 dataset and a new framework, StatusKT, which uses a teacher‑student‑teacher LLM pipeline to extract proficiency indicators, generate responses, and evaluate mastery. Experiments show that StatusKT improves prediction accuracy and offers interpretable explanations by explicitly modeling proficiency.

By Jungyang Park, Suho Kang, Jaewoo Park, Jaehong Kim, Jaewoo Shin, Seonjoon Park, Youngjae Yu
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Experts Rise Where LLMs Disagree: Using Cross-Model Disagreement to Target Expert Effort in LLM Codebook Revision for Large-Scale Annotation

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%).

By Zeyu He, Zhuqian Zhou, Kirk Vanacore, Rene F. Kizilcec, Ting-Hao 'Kenneth' Huang