arXiv subjects

Kenneth R. Koedinger

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth R. Koedinger.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI-Driven Assessment of Human Tutors: Linking Training Performance to Real-Life Practice

There exist numerous tutor training platforms. However, few provide AI-driven training and evaluation for human tutors based on real-life performance. We present an AI-driven system that assesses both open responses during training and authentic real-life tutoring. Unlike platforms that only assess learning through online training or simulations, our system utilizes Generative AI (Gemini-2.5-pro) to analyze transcriptions of authentic tutoring, measuring the transfer of tutor skills to real-life application. Human tutors instructing students remotely in math (N=86) completed six scenario-based lessons, averaging a significant 7.4% learning gain. Using mixed-effects models across 405 session-to-lesson pairs, we found that training performance significantly predicted real-life transcript scores with an effect size of 0.25 SD. Model comparison (AIC/BIC) indicated averaging open response and multiple choice performance during training predicted real-life tutor performance best, although open responses were comparatively more predictive. Exploratory analysis showed that after training, tutors were significantly more likely to encounter pedagogical opportunities to apply their skills (61.1% to 68.9%) and demonstrated higher execution quality within those opportunities (65.5% to 68.1%). Interrupted time series analysis suggested that these tutor improvements were part of a gradual trend over time rather than an immediate intervention effect of training. We illustrate an AI-driven method to link tutor training with real-life assessment. In doing so, we contribute open datasets, AI prompts, and scoring rubrics to support transparency and reproducibility.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Self-Efficacy and Favorability Shape Learning from Tutoring Systems and Paper Practice

Motivational factors such as self-efficacy and how favorably students feel toward practice play a crucial role in shaping learning, particularly in technology-supported environments. Yet, educational interventions often overlook how these factors interact with practice format. This paper examines the influence of self-efficacy and favorability on learning outcomes across two common practice formats: paper-based and system-based tutoring practice. Using a counterbalanced within-subject design with matched problem sets, we isolate the effect of practice format while modeling motivational differences. Results indicate that students with lower baseline self-efficacy achieved greater learning gains regardless of practice format. Among students with lower baseline self-efficacy, greater favorability toward the tutor was associated with greater learning gains during tutor practice, whereas the pattern differed in paper-based practice. Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS)-based practice did not significantly improve post-training self-efficacy relative to paper-based methods. These findings underscore the potential value of tailoring practice format to students' motivational profiles, as the benefits of tutor- and paper-based practice varied with baseline self-efficacy and favorability. They lay the groundwork for future research on how instructional formats can be aligned more effectively with learners' motivational needs.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Improving Hybrid Human-AI Tutoring by Differentiating Human Tutor Roles Based on Student Needs

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.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Coasting Through Class: Learning Opportunity Loss from Practice Avoidance During Individual Seatwork

Measures of disengagement provide insights into unproductive use of learning opportunities. Although measures of active disengagement, such as gaming the system and mind-wandering, are well studied, loss of practice time due to outright task avoidance remains relatively understudied. The current study addresses this gap by extending existing within-task measures (idle time) with two new session-level measures (delayed start and early stop) to capture loss of practice time due to task avoidance. We characterize the combined lost time as coasted time and the associated behavior as coasting behavior. Using ASSISTments logs (N = 1,425), we find that students dedicate only 40% of available classwork time to math practice and coast through the remaining 60%. Of the coasted time, 36% resulted from delayed starts, 2% from mid-practice idling, and 62% from stopping early. Delayed start and early stop showed moderate temporal stability (G = 0.73 and 0.71, respectively), suggesting that coasting is a consistent behavioral pattern. Even after excluding early stops attributable to assignment completion (i.e., early stop = 0), coasted time remained substantial at 32%. While we observe significant differences in coasting by gender and IEP status, we do not observe them by other demographic factors or school locale. Critically, students who continued working beyond the first assignment completion ("extra effort") performed significantly better on standardized tests. For research, coasting offers a new lens on opportunity loss by combining session-level disengagement with within-task disengagement. For practitioners, our results highlight the need for platform affordances that support sustained engagement and more productive use of available practice time.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Does the TalkMoves Codebook Generalize to One-on-One Tutoring and Multimodal Interaction?

Accountable Talk theory has been widely adopted to analyze classroom discourse and is increasingly used to annotate tutoring interactions. In particular, the TalkMoves codebook, grounded in Accountable Talk theory, is commonly used to label tutoring data and train models of effective instructional support. However, Accountable Talk was originally developed to characterize collaborative, whole-classroom oral discourse, not to identify talk moves in one-on-one tutoring environments using multimodal data (e.g., video, audio, chat). As tutoring platforms expand in scale and modality, questions remain about whether Accountable Talk-based codebooks generalize reliably beyond their original classroom context and data representation. This study examines whether the human-developed TalkMoves codebook generalizes in reliability, utility, and interpretability when applied to one-on-one tutoring across audio, chat, and multimodal data. We compare TalkMoves with a hybrid AI-human developed codebook using a workflow established in prior research. Two expert annotators with over 20 years of teaching experience applied both codebooks to six tutoring sessions spanning three modalities: chat-based, audio-only, and multimodal interactions. Results show that while Talk-Moves achieved higher overall inter-rater reliability than the AI-human codebook (k = 0.74 vs. 0.64), the AI-human codebook demonstrated broader empirical coverage and higher perceived usability across modalities. Both codebooks undercaptured tutoring-relevant moves and introduced ambiguity when identifying actions expressed through nonverbal and multimodal artifacts. Together, these findings highlight the uneven generalizability of TalkMoves to tutoring contexts and motivate the development of modality-aware, tutoring-grounded codebooks.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning

Feedback is essential for learning, but its effectiveness relies heavily on how well it engages students in the educational process. Generative AI offers novel opportunities to efficiently produce rich, formative feedback, ranging from direct explanations to incrementally sequenced scaffolding designed to promote learner autonomy. Despite these capabilities, it is still unclear whether sequenced (layered) AI feedback -- which provides encouragement and hints before revealing the correct answer -- genuinely enhances engagement and learning outcomes. To investigate this, we randomly assigned 199 participants to receive either sequenced or non-sequenced AI-generated feedback. We evaluated its impact on learning performance, cognitive and behavioral engagement, and affective perceptions to understand how these factors mediate overall learning outcomes. Results show that sequenced feedback elicited slightly higher behavioral engagement and, as anticipated, was perceived as more encouraging and supportive of student independence. Concurrently, however, it induced a higher level of mental effort. Mediation analyses identified a positive affective pathway driven by perceived encouragement, which was completely counteracted by a negative behavioral pathway associated with the average number of tasks requiring three or more submissions; the cognitive pathway (mental effort) remained non-significant. Overall, sequenced feedback led to significantly poorer learning outcomes when compared to direct, non-sequenced feedback. These findings highlight a crucial trade-off: although sequenced AI scaffolding boosts engagement and positive user perceptions, it can have a detrimental effect on actual learning performance. By integrating analyses of outcomes, perceptions, and underlying mechanisms, this study provides nuanced insights for designing automated, AI-driven feedback systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating a Data-Driven Redesign Process for Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Past research has defined a general process for the data-driven redesign of educational technologies and has shown that in carefully-selected instances, this process can help make systems more effective. In the current work, we test the generality of the approach by applying it to four units of a middle-school mathematics intelligent tutoring system that were selected not based on suitability for redesign, as in previous work, but on topic. We tested whether the redesigned system was more effective than the original in a classroom study with 123 students. Although the learning gains did not differ between the conditions, students who used the Redesigned Tutor had more productive time-on-task, a larger number of skills practiced, and greater total knowledge mastery. The findings highlight the promise of data-driven redesign even when applied to instructional units *not* selected as likely to yield improvement, as evidence of the generality and wide applicability of the method.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Modernizing Ground Truth: Four Shifts Toward Improving Reliability and Validity in AI in Education

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is now widespread in education, yet the efficacy of GenAI systems remains constrained by the quality and interpretation of the labeled data used to train and evaluate them. Studies commonly report inter-rater reliability (IRR), often summarized by a single coefficient such as Cohen's kappa (k), as a gatekeeper to ``ground truth.'' We argue that many educational assessment and practice support settings include challenges, such as high-inference constructs, skewed label distributions, and temporally segmented multimodal data, which yield potential misapplication or misinterpretation of threshold-based heuristics for IRR. The growing use of large language models as annotators and judges introduces risks such as automation bias and circular validation. We propose four practical shifts for establishing ground truth: (1) treat IRR as a diagnostic signal to localize disagreement and refine constructs rather than a mechanical acceptance threshold (e.g., k > 0.8); (2) require transparent reporting of rater expertise, codebook development, reconciliation procedures, and segmentation rules; (3) mitigate risks in LLM annotation through bias audits and verification workflows; and (4) complement agreement statistics with validity and effectiveness evidence for the intended use, including uncertainty-aware labeling (e.g., assigning different labels to the same item to capture nuance), criterion-related checks (e.g., predictive tests to check if labels forecast the intended outcome), and close-the-loop evaluations of whether systems trained on these labels improve learning beyond a reasonable control. We illustrate these shifts through case studies of multimodal tutoring data and provide actionable recommendations toward strengthening the evidence base of labeled AIED datasets.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

LLM-based Multimodal Feedback Produces Equivalent Learning and Better Student Perceptions than Educator Feedback

Providing timely, targeted, and multimodal feedback helps students quickly correct errors, build deep understanding and stay motivated, yet making it at scale remains a challenge. This study introduces a real-time AI-facilitated multimodal feedback system that integrates structured textual explanations with dynamic multimedia resources, including the retrieved most relevant slide page references and streaming AI audio narration. In an online crowdsourcing experiment, we compared this system against fixed business-as-usual feedback by educators across three dimensions: (1) learning effectiveness, (2) learner engagement, (3) perceived feedback quality and value. Results showed that AI multimodal feedback achieved learning gains equivalent to original educator feedback while significantly outperforming it on perceived clarity, specificity, conciseness, motivation, satisfaction, and reducing cognitive load, with comparable correctness, trust, and acceptance. Process logs revealed distinct engagement patterns: for multiple-choice questions, educator feedback encouraged more submissions; for open-ended questions, AI-facilitated targeted suggestions lowered revision barriers and promoted iterative improvement. These findings highlight the potential of AI multimodal feedback to provide scalable, real-time, and context-aware support that both reduces instructor workload and enhances student experience.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Brief but Impactful: How Human Tutoring Interactions Shape Engagement in Online Learning

Learning analytics can guide human tutors to efficiently address motivational barriers to learning that AI systems struggle to support. Students become more engaged when they receive human attention. However, what occurs during short interventions, and when are they most effective? We align student-tutor dialogue transcripts with MATHia tutoring system log data to study brief human-tutor interactions on Zoom drawn from 2,075 hours of 191 middle school students' classroom math practice. Mixed-effect models reveal that engagement, measured as successful solution steps per minute, is higher during a human-tutor visit and remains elevated afterward. Visit length exhibits diminishing returns: engagement rises during and shortly after visits, irrespective of visit length. Timing also matters: later visits yield larger immediate lifts than earlier ones, though an early visit remains important to counteract engagement decline. We create analytics that identify which tutor-student dialogues raise engagement the most. Qualitative analysis reveals that interactions with concrete, stepwise scaffolding with explicit work organization elevate engagement most strongly. We discuss implications for resource-constrained tutoring, prioritizing several brief, well-timed check-ins by a human tutor while ensuring at least one early contact. Our analytics can guide the prioritization of students for support and surface effective tutor moves in real-time.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

How to Assess AI Literacy: Misalignment Between Self-Reported and Objective-Based Measures

The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 education highlights the need for psychometrically-tested measures of teachers' AI literacy. Existing work has primarily relied on either self-report (SR) or objective-based (OB) assessments, with few studies aligning the two within a shared framework to compare perceived versus demonstrated competencies or examine how prior AI literacy experience shapes this relationship. This gap limits the scalability of learning analytics and the development of learner profile-driven instructional design. In this study, we developed and evaluated SR and OB measures of teacher AI literacy within the established framework of Concept, Use, Evaluate, and Ethics. Confirmatory factor analyses support construct validity with good reliability and acceptable fit. Results reveal a low correlation between SR and OB factors. Latent profile analysis identified six distinct profiles, including overestimation (SR > OB), underestimation (SR < OB), alignment (SR close to OB), and a unique low-SR/low-OB profile among teachers without AI literacy experience. Theoretically, this work extends existing AI literacy frameworks by validating SR and OB measures on shared dimensions. Practically, the instruments function as diagnostic tools for professional development, supporting AI-informed decisions (e.g., growth monitoring, needs profiling) and enabling scalable learning analytics interventions tailored to teacher subgroups.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Leveraging Large Language Models for Identifying Knowledge Components

Knowledge Components (KCs) are foundational to adaptive learning systems, but their manual identification by domain experts is a significant bottleneck. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue for automating this process, prior research has been limited to small datasets and has been shown to produce superfluous, redundant KC labels. This study addresses these limitations by first scaling a "simulated textbook" LLM prompting strategy (using GPT-4o-mini) to a larger dataset of 646 multiple-choice questions. We found that this initial automated approach performed significantly worse than an expert-designed KC model (RMSE 0.4285 vs. 0.4206) and generated an excessive number of KCs (569 vs. 101). To address the issue of redundancy, we proposed and evaluated a novel method for merging semantically similar KC labels based on their cosine similarity. This merging strategy significantly improved the model's performance; a model using a cosine similarity threshold of 0.8 achieved the best result, reducing the KC count to 428 and improving the RMSE to 0.4259. This demonstrates that while scaled LLM generation alone is insufficient, combining it with a semantic merging technique offers a viable path toward automating and refining KC identification.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Comparing RAG and GraphRAG for Page-Level Retrieval Question Answering on a Math Textbook

Large language models (LLMs) show promise as educational aids but often lack alignment with specific course materials. We investigate Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and GraphRAG for page-level question answering on an undergraduate mathematics textbook. Using a curated dataset of 477 question-answer pairs, each tied to a specific textbook page, we compare five embedding-based RAG models, a BM25 baseline, and GraphRAG across two metrics: retrieval accuracy (whether the correct page is retrieved) and answer quality (F1 score). Our results show that embedding-based RAG outperforms GraphRAG for page-level retrieval, with voyage-3-large achieving 99.4% accuracy at top-10 (bootstrap 95% CI for top-1: [.644, .728]). BM25 proves a strong baseline, outperforming several embedding models. Error analysis reveals that 63.3% of top-1 failures retrieve same-chapter content, suggesting pedagogical relevance even in failure cases. GraphRAG retrieves excessive context (~47K tokens vs. ~3.7K for RAG), reducing generation quality. We further replicate key experiments using an open-source local LLM (Qwen3.5-35B-A3B), finding that RAG benefits are proportionally larger for weaker models (+39% vs. +16% relative F1 improvement), an important result for cost-sensitive educational deployments. These findings inform the design of AI tutoring systems that reference specific textbook pages.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Learning to Use AI for Learning: Teaching Responsible Use of AI Chatbot to K-12 Students Through an AI Literacy Module

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into daily life, there is a growing need to equip the next generation with the ability to apply, interact with, evaluate, and collaborate with AI systems responsibly. Prior research highlights the urgent demand from K-12 educators to teach students the ethical and effective use of AI for learning. To address this need, we designed an Large-Language Model (LLM)-based module to teach prompting literacy. This includes scenario-based deliberate practice activities with direct interaction with intelligent LLM agents, aiming to foster secondary school students' responsible engagement with AI chatbots. We conducted two iterations of classroom deployment in 11 authentic secondary education classrooms, and evaluated 1) AI-based auto-grader's capability; 2) students' prompting performance and confidence changes towards using AI for learning; and 3) the quality of learning and assessment materials. Results indicated that the AI-based auto-grader could grade student-written prompts with satisfactory quality. In addition, the instructional materials supported students in improving their prompting skills through practice and led to positive shifts in their perceptions of using AI for learning. Furthermore, data from Study 1 informed assessment revisions in Study 2. Analyses of item difficulty and discrimination in Study 2 showed that True/False and open-ended questions could measure prompting literacy more effectively than multiple-choice questions for our target learners. These promising outcomes highlight the potential for broader deployment and highlight the need for broader studies to assess learning effectiveness and assessment design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Agreement: Rethinking Ground Truth in Educational AI Annotation

Humans can be notoriously imperfect evaluators. They are often biased, unreliable, and unfit to define "ground truth." Yet, given the surging need to produce large amounts of training data in educational applications using AI, traditional inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics like Cohen's kappa remain central to validating labeled data. IRR remains a cornerstone of many machine learning pipelines for educational data. Take, for example, the classification of tutors' moves in dialogues or labeling open responses in machine-graded assessments. This position paper argues that overreliance on human IRR as a gatekeeper for annotation quality hampers progress in classifying data in ways that are valid and predictive in relation to improving learning. To address this issue, we highlight five examples of complementary evaluation methods, such as multi-label annotation schemes, expert-based approaches, and close-the-loop validity. We argue that these approaches are in a better position to produce training data and subsequent models that produce improved student learning and more actionable insights than IRR approaches alone. We also emphasize the importance of external validity, for example, by establishing a procedure of validating tutor moves and demonstrating that it works across many categories of tutor actions (e.g., providing hints). We call on the field to rethink annotation quality and ground truth--prioritizing validity and educational impact over consensus alone.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

LLM-Generated Feedback Supports Learning If Learners Choose to Use It

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Automatic Large Language Models Creation of Interactive Learning Lessons

We explore the automatic generation of interactive, scenario-based lessons designed to train novice human tutors who teach middle school mathematics online. Employing prompt engineering through a Retrieval-Augmented Generation approach with GPT-4o, we developed a system capable of creating structured tutor training lessons. Our study generated lessons in English for three key topics: Encouraging Students' Independence, Encouraging Help-Seeking Behavior, and Turning on Cameras, using a task decomposition prompting strategy that breaks lesson generation into sub-tasks. The generated lessons were evaluated by two human evaluators, who provided both quantitative and qualitative evaluations using a comprehensive rubric informed by lesson design research. Results demonstrate that the task decomposition strategy led to higher-rated lessons compared to single-step generation. Human evaluators identified several strengths in the LLM-generated lessons, including well-structured content and time-saving potential, while also noting limitations such as generic feedback and a lack of clarity in some instructional sections. These findings underscore the potential of hybrid human-AI approaches for generating effective lessons in tutor training.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Leveraging LLMs to Assess Tutor Moves in Real-Life Dialogues: A Feasibility Study

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.

cs.CL↗