Can Large Language Models Match Tutoring System Adaptivity? A Benchmarking Study
This work addresses the problem of evaluating LLMs as adaptive instructional aids for education, but it is incremental as it benchmarks existing models without proposing new methods.
The study assessed whether large language models (LLMs) can replicate the adaptivity of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) by testing three models on 75 tutoring scenarios, finding that even the best model only marginally mimics ITS adaptivity, with Llama3-70B showing statistically significant adaptivity to student errors and Llama3-8B scoring higher on pedagogical soundness but struggling with instruction-following.
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise as dynamic instructional aids. Yet, it remains unclear whether LLMs can replicate the adaptivity of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS)--where student knowledge and pedagogical strategies are explicitly modeled. We propose a prompt variation framework to assess LLM-generated instructional moves' adaptivity and pedagogical soundness across 75 real-world tutoring scenarios from an ITS. We systematically remove key context components (e.g., student errors and knowledge components) from prompts to create variations of each scenario. Three representative LLMs (Llama3-8B, Llama3-70B, and GPT-4o) generate 1,350 instructional moves. We use text embeddings and randomization tests to measure how the omission of each context feature impacts the LLMs' outputs (adaptivity) and a validated tutor-training classifier to evaluate response quality (pedagogical soundness). Surprisingly, even the best-performing model only marginally mimics the adaptivity of ITS. Specifically, Llama3-70B demonstrates statistically significant adaptivity to student errors. Although Llama3-8B's recommendations receive higher pedagogical soundness scores than the other models, it struggles with instruction-following behaviors, including output formatting. By contrast, GPT-4o reliably adheres to instructions but tends to provide overly direct feedback that diverges from effective tutoring, prompting learners with open-ended questions to gauge knowledge. Given these results, we discuss how current LLM-based tutoring is unlikely to produce learning benefits rivaling known-to-be-effective ITS tutoring. Through our open-source benchmarking code, we contribute a reproducible method for evaluating LLMs' instructional adaptivity and fidelity.