Yvonne Zhao

Eason Chen, Xinyi Tang, Yvonne Zhao et al.

We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=92) comparing three conditions in a calculus learning environment: no self-explanation (control), menu-based self-explanation, and open-ended self-explanation with LLM-generated feedback. All conditions showed positive learning gains within a fixed 60-minute practice session, with no significant between-condition differences in post-test performance. On transfer questions, the open-ended condition produced significantly higher-quality explanations than control on "Not Enough Information" (NEI) problems ($β$=+11.9 percentage points, $p$=.030), though the corresponding NEI multiple-choice accuracy advantage was not significant ($p$=.183). Moreover, across all post-test open-ended explanations, the open-ended condition showed a marginally significant advantage ($β$=+7.3%, $p$=.057). These findings suggest that LLM-supported open-ended self-explanation can improve explanation quality on NEI transfer problems, with weaker evidence across broader transfer explanation measures. Notably, these effects emerged even though learners in the open-ended condition completed substantially fewer practice problems within the same practice time.

Eason Chen, Sophia Judicke, Kayla Beigh et al.

We evaluate GPTutor, an LLM-powered tutoring system for an undergraduate discrete mathematics course. It integrates two LLM-supported tools: a structured proof-review tool that provides embedded feedback on students' written proof attempts, and a chatbot for math questions. In a staggered-access study with 148 students, earlier access was associated with higher homework performance during the interval when only the experimental group could use the system, while we did not observe this performance increase transfer to exam scores. Usage logs show that students with lower self-efficacy and prior exam performance used both components more frequently. Session-level behavioral labels, produced by human coding and scaled using an automated classifier, characterize how students engaged with the chatbot (e.g., answer-seeking or help-seeking). In models controlling for prior performance and self-efficacy, higher chatbot usage and answer-seeking behavior were negatively associated with subsequent midterm performance, whereas proof-review usage showed no detectable independent association. Together, the findings suggest that chatbot-based support alone may not reliably support transfer to independent assessment of math proof-learning outcomes, whereas work-anchored, structured feedback appears less associated with reduced learning.