Shivang Gupta

Jionghao Lin, Danielle R. Thomas, Feifei Han et al. · cmu

Research demonstrates learners engaging in the process of producing explanations to support their reasoning, can have a positive impact on learning. However, providing learners real-time explanatory feedback often presents challenges related to classification accuracy, particularly in domain-specific environments, containing situationally complex and nuanced responses. We present two approaches for supplying tutors real-time feedback within an online lesson on how to give students effective praise. This work-in-progress demonstrates considerable accuracy in binary classification for corrective feedback of effective, or effort-based (F1 score = 0.811), and ineffective, or outcome-based (F1 score = 0.350), praise responses. More notably, we introduce progress towards an enhanced approach of providing explanatory feedback using large language model-facilitated named entity recognition, which can provide tutors feedback, not only while engaging in lessons, but can potentially suggest real-time tutor moves. Future work involves leveraging large language models for data augmentation to improve accuracy, while also developing an explanatory feedback interface.

Ashish Gurung, Ge Gao, Jordan Gutterman et al.

Hybrid human-AI tutoring, where technology and humans jointly facilitate student learning, can be more beneficial than AI-only tutoring. However, preliminary evidence suggests that lower-performing students derive greater benefit from human-AI tutoring than higher-performing students. As such, this study evaluates whether a differentiated tutoring policy can effectively support both groups: human tutors initiate support for lower-performing students, while higher-performing students receive reactive, on-demand support. Using their within-grade median state test scores, we assigned 635 students (grades 5-8) to receive proactive (< median) or reactive ($\geq$ median) tutoring. Using a DiDC design, we compare outcomes across two time periods: fall (AI-only tutoring) and spring (proactive-reactive human-AI tutoring). This quasi-experimental design isolates the effects of proactive-reactive tutoring approaches by comparing the discontinuity in spring outcomes to the fall, where no such discontinuity existed. Using data around the cutoff (Imbens-Kalyanaraman criterion), we find significant overall improvements from human-AI tutoring compared to AI-only baseline: 25% increase in time on task, 36% in skill proficiency, and 61% in academic growth (standardized MAP test). Between proactive and reactive tutoring, we find comparable improvements in time-on-task and skill proficiency. However, proactive tutoring, on average, showed marginally higher MAP growth (75%, p = .065) than reactive tutoring, i.e., proactive tutoring was more beneficial to students farther below the cutoff and helped narrow achievement gaps. Our findings provide evidence that differentiated human-AI tutoring addresses the needs of both groups, offering a practical and cost-effective strategy for scaling hybrid instruction.

Jionghao Lin, Zifei Han, Danielle R. Thomas et al. · cmu

One-on-one tutoring is widely acknowledged as an effective instructional method, conditioned on qualified tutors. However, the high demand for qualified tutors remains a challenge, often necessitating the training of novice tutors (i.e., trainees) to ensure effective tutoring. Research suggests that providing timely explanatory feedback can facilitate the training process for trainees. However, it presents challenges due to the time-consuming nature of assessing trainee performance by human experts. Inspired by the recent advancements of large language models (LLMs), our study employed the GPT-4 model to build an explanatory feedback system. This system identifies trainees' responses in binary form (i.e., correct/incorrect) and automatically provides template-based feedback with responses appropriately rephrased by the GPT-4 model. We conducted our study on 410 responses from trainees across three training lessons: Giving Effective Praise, Reacting to Errors, and Determining What Students Know. Our findings indicate that: 1) using a few-shot approach, the GPT-4 model effectively identifies correct/incorrect trainees' responses from three training lessons with an average F1 score of 0.84 and an AUC score of 0.85; and 2) using the few-shot approach, the GPT-4 model adeptly rephrases incorrect trainees' responses into desired responses, achieving performance comparable to that of human experts.

Zifei FeiFei Han, Jionghao Lin, Ashish Gurung et al. · cmu

One-on-one tutoring is an effective instructional method for enhancing learning, yet its efficacy hinges on tutor competencies. Novice math tutors often prioritize content-specific guidance, neglecting aspects such as social-emotional learning. Social-emotional learning promotes equity and inclusion and nurturing relationships with students, which is crucial for holistic student development. Assessing the competencies of tutors accurately and efficiently can drive the development of tailored tutor training programs. However, evaluating novice tutor ability during real-time tutoring remains challenging as it typically requires experts-in-the-loop. To address this challenge, this preliminary study aims to harness Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT), such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models, to automatically assess tutors' ability of using social-emotional tutoring strategies. Moreover, this study also reports on the financial dimensions and considerations of employing these models in real-time and at scale for automated assessment. The current study examined four prompting strategies: two basic Zero-shot prompt strategies, Tree of Thought prompt, and Retrieval-Augmented Generator (RAG) based prompt. The results indicate that the RAG prompt demonstrated more accurate performance (assessed by the level of hallucination and correctness in the generated assessment texts) and lower financial costs than the other strategies evaluated. These findings inform the development of personalized tutor training interventions to enhance the the educational effectiveness of tutored learning.

Sanjit Kakarla, Danielle Thomas, Jionghao Lin et al. · cmu

Research suggests that tutors should adopt a strategic approach when addressing math errors made by low-efficacy students. Rather than drawing direct attention to the error, tutors should guide the students to identify and correct their mistakes on their own. While tutor lessons have introduced this pedagogical skill, human evaluation of tutors applying this strategy is arduous and time-consuming. Large language models (LLMs) show promise in providing real-time assessment to tutors during their actual tutoring sessions, yet little is known regarding their accuracy in this context. In this study, we investigate the capacity of generative AI to evaluate real-life tutors' performance in responding to students making math errors. By analyzing 50 real-life tutoring dialogues, we find both GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 demonstrate proficiency in assessing the criteria related to reacting to students making errors. However, both models exhibit limitations in recognizing instances where the student made an error. Notably, GPT-4 tends to overidentify instances of students making errors, often attributing student uncertainty or inferring potential errors where human evaluators did not. Future work will focus on enhancing generalizability by assessing a larger dataset of dialogues and evaluating learning transfer. Specifically, we will analyze the performance of tutors in real-life scenarios when responding to students' math errors before and after lesson completion on this crucial tutoring skill.

Danielle R. Thomas, Conrad Borchers, Jionghao Lin et al. · cmu

Tutoring improves student achievement, but identifying and studying what tutoring actions are most associated with student learning at scale based on audio transcriptions is an open research problem. This present study investigates the feasibility and scalability of using generative AI to identify and evaluate specific tutor moves in real-life math tutoring. We analyze 50 randomly selected transcripts of college-student remote tutors assisting middle school students in mathematics. Using GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4-turbo, Gemini-1.5-pro, and LearnLM, we assess tutors' application of two tutor skills: delivering effective praise and responding to student math errors. All models reliably detected relevant situations, for example, tutors providing praise to students (94-98% accuracy) and a student making a math error (82-88% accuracy) and effectively evaluated the tutors' adherence to tutoring best practices, aligning closely with human judgments (83-89% and 73-77%, respectively). We propose a cost-effective prompting strategy and discuss practical implications for using large language models to support scalable assessment in authentic settings. This work further contributes LLM prompts to support reproducibility and research in AI-supported learning.

Danielle R. Thomas, Conrad Borchers, Shambhavi Bhushan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate feedback, yet their impact on learning remains underexplored, especially compared to existing feedback methods. This study investigates how on-demand LLM-generated explanatory feedback influences learning in seven scenario-based tutor training lessons. Analyzing over 2,600 lesson completions from 885 tutor learners, we compare posttest performance among learners across three groups: learners who received feedback generated by gpt-3.5-turbo, those who declined it, and those without access. All groups received non-LLM corrective feedback. To address potential selection bias-where higher-performing learners may be more inclined to use LLM feedback-we applied propensity scoring. Learners with a higher predicted likelihood of engaging with LLM feedback scored significantly higher at posttest than those with lower propensity. After adjusting for this effect, two out of seven lessons showed statistically significant learning benefits from LLM feedback with standardized effect sizes of 0.28 and 0.33. These moderate effects suggest that the effectiveness of LLM feedback depends on the learners' tendency to seek support. Importantly, LLM feedback did not significantly increase completion time, and learners overwhelmingly rated it as helpful. These findings highlight LLM feedback's potential as a low-cost and scalable way to improve learning on open-ended tasks, particularly in existing systems already providing feedback without LLMs. This work contributes open datasets, LLM prompts, and rubrics to support reproducibility.