Andrew M. Olney

Andrew M. Olney, Sidney K. D'Mello, Natalie Person et al.

Tutoring is highly effective for promoting learning. However, the contribution of expertise to tutoring effectiveness is unclear and continues to be debated. We conducted a 9-week learning efficacy study of an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) for biology modeled on expert human tutors with two control conditions: human tutors who were experts in the domain but not in tutoring and a no-tutoring condition. All conditions were supplemental to classroom instruction, and students took learning tests immediately before and after tutoring sessions as well as delayed tests 1-2 weeks later. Analysis using logistic mixed-effects modeling indicates significant positive effects on the immediate post-test for the ITS (d =.71) and human tutors (d =.66) which are in the 99th percentile of meta-analytic effects, as well as significant positive effects on the delayed post-test for the ITS (d =.36) and human tutors (d =.39). We discuss implications for the role of expertise in tutoring and the design of future studies.

Priti Oli, Rabin Banjade, Andrew M. Olney et al.

This paper investigates various approaches using Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify gaps and misconceptions in students' self-explanations of specific instructional material, in our case explanations of code examples. This research is a part of our larger effort to automate the assessment of students' freely generated responses, focusing specifically on their self-explanations of code examples during activities related to code comprehension. In this work, we experiment with zero-shot prompting, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and preference alignment of LLMs to identify gaps in students' self-explanation. With simple prompting, GPT-4 consistently outperformed LLaMA3 and Mistral in identifying gaps and misconceptions, as confirmed by human evaluations. Additionally, our results suggest that fine-tuned large language models are more effective at identifying gaps in students' explanations compared to zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques. Furthermore, our findings show that the preference optimization approach using Odds Ratio Preference Optimization (ORPO) outperforms SFT in identifying gaps and misconceptions in students' code explanations.