Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.21600

Reducing Barriers to Academic Support: Evaluating a Course-Specific RAG System for Addressing Help-Seeking Disparities in Higher Education

Andy Gray·Jake Hobbs
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Access to academic support is a key determinant of student success, yet students experience it unequally: some readily seek help from lecturers or tutors, while others hesitate due to anxiety, fear of judgement, uncertainty about expectations, or low confidence in their understanding. This may be especially evident in computing education, where programming tasks are cumulative and cognitively demanding. Although students increasingly turn to general-purpose generative AI tools, these can produce responses that are inaccurate, insufficiently contextualised, or misaligned with module expectations. This study presents and evaluates Beacon, a course-specific Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system providing private, immediate, module-aligned academic support. Grounding responses in approved teaching materials, Beacon was designed to lower barriers to help-seeking while encouraging independent learning. Using a design-based research approach, Beacon was developed iteratively and evaluated via mixed methods, combining questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with students and staff at a Higher Education institution. Students described Beacon's responses as closely aligned with module content and more trustworthy than unrestricted generative AI tools, valuing its use of pseudocode and scaffolded explanations over direct solutions. Although participants remained cautious about trusting AI-generated responses without verification, they viewed the system as a valuable first point of support before consulting lecturers or official resources. The findings suggest that carefully designed course-specific AI systems may reduce barriers to academic support by occupying an intermediary space between independent study and formal support. Rather than replacing educators, educational AI may be most valuable when it broadens access to guidance while preserving the pedagogical role of lecturers.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andy Gray, Jake Hobbs. 2026-09-18. Reducing Barriers to Academic Support: Evaluating a Course-Specific RAG System for Addressing Help-Seeking Disparities in Higher Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21600

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

STRUCTUREDAGENT: Planning with AND/OR Trees for Long-Horizon Web Tasks

Existing LLM-based web agents struggle on complex, long-horizon tasks due to limited in-context memory, weak planning abilities, and greedy behaviors that lead to premature termination. To address these challenges, we propose \SA{}, a hierarchical planning framework that interleaves planning and execution via dynamic $\ANDOR$ trees. The framework separates structural planning from LLM-based reasoning, enabling principled error recovery through node repair, systematic exploration of alternatives via OR nodes, and modular plans that can facilitate human intervention. On WebArena (630 tasks), \SA{} achieves a $\sim$53\% success rate vs.\ $\sim$46\% for AgentOccam, and on complex multi-constraint Amazon shopping tasks, gains reach 10\% over the strongest baseline.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce *Curation-Bench*, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent *execution-research gap*: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together

Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.

cs.AI↗