TutorTrace is a new dataset and behavioral abstraction pipeline that captures learners’ low‑level IDE telemetry to make their behavioral context visible and computable in real time. The dataset, collected across 480 students in two introductory Python courses, includes 180 K telemetry events, 13 633 behavioral segments, and 27 continuously computed metrics, and it underpins a taxonomy of learner activity before, between, and after AI queries. Preliminary classroom tests show that behavior‑aware prompts reduce the time between queries, and the system can predict upcoming queries with AUROC scores of .726 and .717 on two held‑out tasks.
By David Barron, Xiaohang Tang, Rezky Dwisantika, Minsun Kim, David H. Smith IV, Jiaming Cui, Yan Chen
arXiv:2609.28470v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advanc...
By Curtis Northcutt, Inaara Hasmani, Kevin Feng, Trevor Khangi, Andreas Plesner, Jonas Mueller
The paper introduces Disengagement-Aware Student Simulators (DAS2), a protocol that models five learner-engagement states—engaged, gaming, wheel-spinning, off-task, and mixed—to evaluate AI tutor performance before deployment. Using annotated tutoring sessions from ASSISTments09, DAS2’s rule-based labels matched human consensus in 81% of cases, and conditioning simulations on intended states narrowed the correctness-rate gap between simulated and authentic sessions for gaming and wheel-spinning behaviors. The study also compares five AI tutors across these states, finding stable relative rankings but state-specific performance differences, and notes that automated evaluation does not fully align with human judgment.
By Xianghui Meng, Jionghao Lin
arXiv:2507.12674v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutor feedback before deployment requires anticipating student engagement, typically assessed through...
By Rose Niousha, Mihran Miroyan, Abigail O'Neill, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Gireeja Ranade, John DeNero, Narges Norouzi
arXiv:2607. 13370v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper is an extension of a paper presented at the ICAART 2026 conference, which introduced LEA (Learning Engagement Assistant), an adaptive AI tutoring agent combining course-specific Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with structured Knowledge Component (KC) models across integrated Chat, Tutor, and Quiz modes.
By Teri Rumble, Javad Zarrin, P. George Lovell, Ruth Falconer
arXiv:2608. 03206v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) power educational applications from tutoring to essay scoring, but each is a point solution to a single task, and only recently have these point solutions been integrated into agents operating over a learning management system (LMS).
By Unggi Lee, Sookbun Lee, Yeil Jeong, Eunjoo Lee, Minchul Shin, Hoilym Kwon
This paper is an extension of a paper presented at the ICAART 2026 conference, which introduced LEA (Learning Engagement Assistant), an adaptive AI tutoring agent combining course-specific Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with structured Knowledge Component (KC) models across integrated Chat, Tutor, and Quiz modes. That prior work validated LEA on a single STEM course (CMP511) exclusively through simulation, using synthetic learner agents.
arXiv:2608. 05411v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as AI tutors, but a correct answer is not always a pedagogically appropriate one.
By Benjamin Barlog, Hudson Craig, Zedong Peng
arXiv:2509.05346v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted to support personalized learning, there remains limited understanding of how thei...
By Bo Yuan, Jiazi Hu
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: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:2609.01591v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI tutors are most useful when they adapt to each student's strengths, weaknesses, and preferred guidance, but evidence about which guidance works for...
By Ke Yang, Chenglong Wang, Michel Galley, Chandan Singh, Jeevana Priya Inala, ChengXiang Zhai, Jianfeng Gao