Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Combining Large Language Models with Tutoring System Intelligence: A Case Study in Caregiver Homework Support

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Feeding an LLM the tutoring system's real-time log data and next-step suggestions lets it generate chat recommendations that caregivers of middle-school math students find useful, especially content-level messages that ask students to…

desk verdict A concrete, reproducible design case study for grounding LLM caregiver messages in ITS log data; the prompt evaluation is self-confirming, so the headline result reads as a design insight, not a demonstrated effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11995 v1 pith:OIE55SCK submitted 2024-12-16 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

Devika Venugopalan , Ziwen Yan , Conrad Borchers , Jionghao Lin , Vincent Aleven This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY
keywords largelanguagemodelstutoringsystemshybridcaregiverinvolvementpromptengineeringconversationalsupportmiddleschoolmathematicsself-explanation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Caregivers often want to help with children's math homework but lack knowledge of current curricula, so this paper tests whether a large language model can supply them with useful, real-time conversational guidance. The claim, stated in the conclusions, is that putting instruction and log data from an intelligent tutoring system into the prompt—not just the text of the conversation—lets the LLM generate contextually relevant messages for hybrid tutors. The authors iterated through seven prompts with Llama 3 and found the winning combination was few-shot examples of evidence-based tutoring practice plus live problem-solving context covering accuracy, hint use, the current equation, and next steps from the tutor's instructional model. Ten middle-school caregivers who tried the resulting tool preferred content-level math guidance over motivational encouragement and especially valued messages that ask the student to explain their thinking. If the claim holds, the recipe gives learning-analytics designers a way to keep LLMs pedagogically grounded: let the tutoring system do the math and the modeling, and let the LLM do the phrasing.

What carries the argument

Prompt 7, the final prompt, is the load-bearing object: a structured prompt that combines a persona and output-format instructions, few-shot examples of desirable caregiver messages organized into three tutoring-practice categories (responding to errors, assessing what the student knows, and giving effective praise), and a session-specific context block assembled from the tutoring system's student action recorders and instructional model. The context block carries the equation, last-attempt accuracy, hint use, chat history, and up to three next steps ranked by proximity to the solution, and it tells the LLM how to use these signals, for example by asking what the student understood from a hint. The mechanism is division of labor: the tutoring system's instructional model supplies correct arithmetic and pedagogical structure, while the LLM supplies natural caregiver-facing phrasing, and the few-shot examples teach the LLM to convert the context into tutoring moves. A load balancer gates generation to one request per 30 seconds to keep the local Llama 3 8B server responsive.

What would settle it

A blinded comparison would settle it: randomly assign caregivers to receive recommendations generated with full tutoring-system context versus recommendations generated from tutoring-practice examples alone, then have independent raters score usefulness or compare students' subsequent equation-solving performance; if the context-grounded messages are not rated higher or do not produce better learning, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that prompt grounding in tutoring-system intelligence changes what an LLM can do for a human helper. When prompted with only chat history or only tutoring-practice examples, Llama 3 produced generic or stilted caregiver messages; when the prompt added the equation, the accuracy of the last attempt, whether a hint was used, prior chat messages, and up to three next steps computed by the Lynnette tutor's instructional model, the generated recommendations became specific to the moment, for instance asking a student who used a hint after an error to explain what they understood from it. The authors report that this grounded prompting also removed the arithmetic hallucinations they observed under limited context, because the tutor, not the LLM, supplied the solution steps. In the design study, caregivers confirmed the tool's value along two axes: they wanted content-level support they felt unequipped to give, and they wanted prompts that draw out the student's reasoning. The paper frames the contribution as the first evaluation of LLM-generated message recommendations that use both contextual information from a tutoring system and tutoring principles.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the researchers' own judgment of message desirability—applying the same tutoring principles and formatting rules written into the prompts—is a valid measure of quality, and that ten caregivers' stated preferences in a one-hour session predict real homework use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same prompt-grounding recipe could be applied to any tutoring system that logs student actions and can compute viable next steps, not just equation solving.
  • Caregiver-facing chat tools should lead with content-level suggestions and self-explanation prompts, since the study's participants found motivational messages less useful and sometimes inauthentic.
  • LLM-based tutoring tools should treat tutoring-system data as a guardrail for accuracy, because the authors observed no arithmetic hallucination when next steps came from the instructional model.
  • Prompt design for educational LLMs needs both data and examples, since the authors found that log data alone did not produce pedagogically sound messages without few-shot tutoring-practice demonstrations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test the paper does not run is a learning-outcome study: randomly assign caregiver-student dyads to context-grounded recommendations versus generic messages and compare equation-solving performance, since the current evidence is preference data from ten caregivers.
  • The 'content over motivation' preference may be an artifact of a self-selected, highly engaged sample; a broader or less confident caregiver population might weight motivational support differently.
  • The authors' qualitative prompt-quality judgments could be checked by a blinded rating study in which independent tutors score messages without knowing which prompt condition produced them.
  • The division-of-labor design suggests a testable extension for other subjects: the same prompt structure should transfer to tutors in physics, chemistry, or logic, where step-wise solution paths exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the Caregiver Conversational Support Tool (CCST), which combines the Llama 3 LLM with the Lynnette equation-solving tutoring system to generate real-time chat message recommendations for caregivers helping their children with math homework. The authors conduct prompt engineering iterations organized into three categories—zero-shot, few-shot with tutoring practices, and few-shot plus ITS log context—and evaluate them qualitatively using the CLEAR framework. They then report a prototyping study with ten caregiver–student dyads, using thematic analysis, finding that caregivers preferred content-level support and self-explanation prompts. The central claim is that integrating ITS instruction and log data into prompts enables contextually relevant LLM-generated messages.

Significance. If the central claim held, the work would be a useful case study in hybrid tutoring, demonstrating a concrete way to ground LLM output in ITS data. Strengths: the system is implemented with an open-source model and the prompt code is shared; the caregiver study uses two independent coders; the authors explicitly acknowledge limitations (small, non-representative sample; qualitative prompt evaluation). However, the empirical support for the central claim is weakened by the self-confirming evaluation design and the lack of systematic, controlled comparisons. The contribution is best framed as a design exploration rather than a validated effect.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 and §3.2] The prompt-quality evaluation is circular. The standards defined as 'desirable' in Section 3.2—tutoring best practices, explanatory labels, and contextual relevance—are exactly the features explicitly written into Prompt 7 and its few-shot examples. Reporting that Category 3 prompts were 'evaluated to be the most desirable according to our standards' after reviewing 50–80 examples per prompt, with no independent rubric, no inter-rater reliability, and no blind assessment, largely confirms prompt fidelity rather than output quality. This is load-bearing for RQ1 and the Section 7 conclusion. The paper's own limitation in Section 6.4 that the method is 'purely qualitative' does not address this circularity. I recommend adding a blind, independent evaluation with a pre-specified rubric, or a baseline condition that controls for message format and few-shot examples while omitting ITS context.
  2. [§5 and Table 1] The caregiver study does not isolate the contribution of the ITS context variables. Caregivers saw the complete CCST with all features; the quotes in Section 5 (e.g., C8, C5) refer to the integrated system. Table 1 shows illustrative examples from simulated trials, not systematically varied conditions with caregiver ratings. As a result, RQ2 evidence cannot directly validate the RQ1 claim that ITS log data (accuracy, hint use, next steps) causes the perceived relevance. A study crossing context-on/context-off (e.g., with identical formatting and few-shot examples) would provide the needed comparison.
  3. [§6.1] The claim that 'we observed no issues related to providing incorrect, hallucinated math advice' when ITS context was given is a strong safety-related claim based on the same informal 50–80 example review. No systematic accuracy evaluation (e.g., expert rating of mathematical correctness) is reported. The claim should be softened to 'in our observed examples' or supported with a formal correctness check.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] In the Introduction, 'caregivers often struggle in proving adequate instructional homework support' should read 'providing' instead of 'proving.'
  2. [§3.3.2] It would be helpful to state explicitly that Table 1 examples are from simulated trials by a research team member, not from the caregiver sessions, to avoid conflation with the prototyping study.
  3. [§5] Denominators vary (e.g., 'Six out of nine caregivers,' 'Eight out of nine,' 'Three out of seven') without explanation; a sentence noting missing responses would improve clarity.
  4. [§4.4] The two coders conducted independent open coding, but no inter-rater reliability measure is reported; given the qualitative nature this is acceptable, but a brief statement on disagreement resolution would strengthen the methods.
  5. [Figures 1 and 2] The captions could more clearly identify which UI element is the LLM-generated message dropdown, given that the paper centers on this feature.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Prompt-quality evaluation in §3.3 is circular: outputs are judged against the same standards written into the prompts, so the RQ1 claim that ITS context improves relevance is partially self-confirming.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2–3.3, Prompt Engineering Results]
    "We defined the following properties as desirable for these messages. First, following tutoring best practices... Second, including brief, explanatory text at the beginning of each message... Third, being contextually relevant to the live tutoring taking place. [3.3:] Each response was evaluated against the ‘desirable’ standards established in Section 3.2."

    The §3.2 rubric defines desirable messages as following tutoring best practices, including brief explanatory labels, and being contextually relevant to live tutoring. Category 3 prompts—especially Prompt 7—explicitly encode all three: few-shot examples of tutoring practices [41], explanatory labels, and a session-specific context section. Section 3.3 then evaluates each response against those same standards and concludes that Category 3 prompts are 'the most desirable according to our standards.' The conclusion that tutoring-system context improves message quality is not independently evidenced: the final prompt was iteratively constructed to satisfy the checklist used as the evaluation rubric. No blind rating, inter-rater reliability, or baseline comparison is reported.

full rationale

The paper's central RQ1 claim—that tutoring-system instruction and log data in prompts enable contextually relevant messages—is supported by the prompt-engineering evaluation in §3.3. That evaluation is self-definitional: the 'desirable' standards in §3.2 are the tutoring practices and message-format features that were then written into the prompts, and the authors conclude that Category 3 prompts are 'most desirable according to our standards.' No blind, independent rubric or baseline is reported; the paper itself calls the method 'purely qualitative' in §6.4. This makes the qualitative advantage of Category 3 prompts partly an artifact of prompt fidelity. The caregiver study in §4–5 is independent evidence for perceived usefulness of the generated messages, especially content-level and metacognitive prompts, but it does not isolate the contribution of the tutoring-system context variables. Hence the central claim is partially circular rather than wholly so. I found no other load-bearing self-citation: [27] is prior design work that motivates the approach, not a substitute for the present evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the transferability of tutoring principles and the validity of qualitative self-report, rather than on fitted parameters or new postulated entities. Design choices such as the three-message dropdown and the 30-second load balancer threshold affect usability but are not fitted to data and do not drive the central claim.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Effective tutoring practices from human-tutor training (responding to errors, assessing prior knowledge, praise) apply to caregiver-student chat recommendations.
    Used to design prompt content in Section 3.2 and as the evaluation standard in Section 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The authors' manual evaluation with the CLEAR framework and roughly 50 to 80 samples per prompt is sufficient to determine recommendation quality.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.3 state that examples were evaluated against the authors' own desirable standards and deemed satisfactory.
  • domain assumption Caregiver self-reported preferences during a 60-minute prototyping session indicate how the tool would support real homework.
    Sections 4 and 5 derive conclusions from interviews; the authors acknowledge in Section 6.4 that the sample may not represent the larger caregiver population.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combining Large Language Models with Tutoring System Intelligence: A Case Study in Caregiver Homework Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIE55SCK

@misc{pith2026241211995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combining Large Language Models with Tutoring System Intelligence: A Case Study in Caregiver Homework Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIE55SCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11995}
}
read the original abstract

Caregivers (i.e., parents and members of a child's caring community) are underappreciated stakeholders in learning analytics. Although caregiver involvement can enhance student academic outcomes, many obstacles hinder involvement, most notably knowledge gaps with respect to modern school curricula. An emerging topic of interest in learning analytics is hybrid tutoring, which includes instructional and motivational support. Caregivers assert similar roles in homework, yet it is unknown how learning analytics can support them. Our past work with caregivers suggested that conversational support is a promising method of providing caregivers with the guidance needed to effectively support student learning. We developed a system that provides instructional support to caregivers through conversational recommendations generated by a Large Language Model (LLM). Addressing known instructional limitations of LLMs, we use instructional intelligence from tutoring systems while conducting prompt engineering experiments with the open-source Llama 3 LLM. This LLM generated message recommendations for caregivers supporting their child's math practice via chat. Few-shot prompting and combining real-time problem-solving context from tutoring systems with examples of tutoring practices yielded desirable message recommendations. These recommendations were evaluated with ten middle school caregivers, who valued recommendations facilitating content-level support and student metacognition through self-explanation. We contribute insights into how tutoring systems can best be merged with LLMs to support hybrid tutoring settings through conversational assistance, facilitating effective caregiver involvement in tutoring systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Child (left) and Caregiver (right) interface. The caregiver has a live view of their child’s problem-solving steps in Lynnette (top of the screen, both left and right). The caregiver also has two dropdown menus, containing: (1) dynamically-generated chat recommendations (bottom) and (2) next-step recommendations based on potential problem-solving pathways (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CCST Features and Modules. This figure displays the three main components of the CCST: (1) client, (2) instructional model, and (3) Python server for prompt generation and also aid in adaptive instruction. If the student submits an attempt at solving a problem step, or if either the student or caregiver sends a chat message, relevant contextual information is sent from the client to a backend Python server. This inc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt 7 Breakdown. Prompt components with their purpose. The section integrating session-specific problem-solving context is unique to each interaction, and its different components are represented by the placeholders in the figure. This is an example of what that section of the prompt could include: “Your child did use a hint, so ask them what they understood from the hint. Your child made an error, so you should … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, Daniel Truhn, Felix Busch, Felix Dorfner, Jawed Nawabi, Marcus R

    Lisa C. Adams, Daniel Truhn, Felix Busch, Felix Dorfner, Jawed Nawabi, Marcus R. Makowski, Keno K. Bressem, and Linda Moy. 2024. Llama 3 Challenges Proprietary State-of-the-Art Large Language Models in Radiology Board–style Examination Questions. Radiology 312, 2 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Vincent AWMM Aleven and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2002. An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive science 26, 2 (2002), 147–179

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Conrad Borchers, Kexin Yang, Jionghao Lin, Nikol Rummel, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Vincent Aleven. 2024. Combining Dialog Acts and Skill Modeling: What Chat Interactions Enhance Learning Rates During AI-Supported Peer Tutoring?. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educational Data Mining

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Zachary Broderick, Christine O’Connor, Courtney Mulcahy, Neil Heffernan, and Christina Heffernan. 2011. Increasing parent engagement in student learning using an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 22, 4 (2011), 523–550

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Stephen Casper, Carson Ezell, Charlotte Siegmann, Noam Kolt, Taylor Lynn Curtis, Benjamin Bucknall, Andreas Haupt, Kevin Wei, Jérémy Scheurer, Marius Hobbhahn, et al. 2024. Black-box access is insufficient for rigorous ai audits. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2254–2272

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Wei Dai, Yi-Shan Tsai, Jionghao Lin, Ahmad Aldino, Hua Jin, Tongguang Li, Dragan Gašević, and Guanliang Chen. 2024. Assessing the Proficiency of Large Language Models in Automatic Feedback Generation: An Evaluation Study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence (2024), 100299

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Doctoroff and David H

    Greta L. Doctoroff and David H. Arnold. 2017. Doing homework together: The relation between parenting strategies, child engagement, and achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 48 (2017), 103–113

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, and George Siemens. 2015. Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends 59 (2015), 64–71

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Zifei FeiFei Han, Jionghao Lin, Ashish Gurung, Danielle Thomas, Eason Chen, Conrad Borchers, Shivang Gupta, and Ken Koedinger. 2024. Improving Assessment of Tutoring Practices using Retrieval-Augmented Generation. InAI for Education: Bridging Innovation and Responsibility at t...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kathleen V Hoover-Dempsey and Howard M Sandler. 1997. Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of educational research 67, 1 (1997), 3–42

    1997

  3. [11]

    Yun Huang, Nikki G Lobczowski, J Elizabeth Richey, Elizabeth A McLaughlin, Michael W Asher, Judith M Harackiewicz, Vincent Aleven, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2021. A general multi-method approach to data-driven redesign of tutoring systems. In LAK21: 11th International Learning ...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Carmel Kent, Benedict du Boulay, and Mutlu Cukurova. 2022. Keeping the parents outside the school gate—A critical review. Educ. Sci. (Basel) 12, 10 (Oct. 2022), 683

    2022

  5. [13]

    Meet Khanmigo. 2024. Khan Academy’s AI-powered teaching assistant & tutor. Khan Academy. URL: https://www.khanacademy.org/khan-labs [Accessed 2024-01-19] (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Kenneth R Koedinger, Paulo F Carvalho, Ran Liu, and Elizabeth A McLaughlin. 2023. An astonishing regularity in student learning rate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 13 (2023), e2221311120

    2023

  7. [15]

    Kenneth R Koedinger, Albert T Corbett, and Charles Perfetti. 2012. The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive science 36, 5 (2012), 757–798

    2012

  8. [16]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing S...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Jionghao Lin, Eason Chen, Zeifei Han, Ashish Gurung, Danielle R Thomas, Wei Tan, Ngoc Dang Nguyen, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2024. How Can I Improve? Using GPT to Highlight the Desired and Undesired Parts of Open-ended Responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00291 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fei Liu, Zejun Kang, and Xing Han. 2024. Optimizing RAG Techniques for Automotive Industry PDF Chatbots: A Case Study with Locally Deployed Ollama Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05933 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Xiner Liu, Maciej Pankiewicz, Tanvi Gupta, Zhongtian HUANG, and Ryan S BAKER. 2024. A Step Towards Adaptive Online Learning: Exploring the Role of GPT as Virtual Teaching Assistants in Online Education. Manuscript under review (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Leo S Lo. 2023. The CLEAR path: A framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49, 4 (2023), 102720

    2023

  13. [21]

    Yanjin Long, Kenneth Holstein, and Vincent Aleven. 2018. What exactly do students learn when they practice equation solving? refining knowledge components with the additive factors model. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge . 399–408

    2018

  14. [22]

    Qianou Ma, Hua Shen, Kenneth Koedinger, and Sherry Tongshuang Wu. 2024. How to Teach Programming in the AI Era? Using LLMs as a Teachable Agent for Debugging. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, 265–279

    2024

  15. [23]

    Paula Magalhães, Diogo Ferreira, Jennifer Cunha, and Pedro Rosário. 2020. Online vs traditional homework: A systematic review on the benefits to students’ performance. Computers & Education 152 (2020), 103869

    2020

  16. [24]

    Marijn Martens, Ralf De Wolf, and Lieven De Marez. 2024. Algorithmic Decision-Making and Education: The Acceptance of Learning Analytics by Secondary School Students and Parents. Technology, Knowledge and Learning (2024), 1–16

    2024

  17. [25]

    Alissa J Mrazek, Michael D Mrazek, Joshua R Ortega, Rosie R Ji, Sana S Karimi, Chelsea S Brown, Chelsie A Alexander, Maliha Khan, Rhozhen Panahi, Madeline Sadoff, et al. 2021. Teenagers’ smartphone use during homework: an analysis of beliefs and behaviors around digital multit...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Atharva Naik, Jessica Ruhan Yin, Anusha Kamath, Qianou Ma, Sherry Tongshuang Wu, Charles Murray, Christopher Bogart, Majd Sakr, and Carolyn P Rose. 2024. Generating Situated Reflection Triggers About Alternative Solution Paths: A Case Study of Generative AI for Computer-Suppor...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ha Tien Nguyen, Conrad Borchers, Meng Xia, and Vincent Aleven. 2024. Designing tools for caregiver involvement in intelligent tutoring systems for middle school mathematics. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2024 . Internationa...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Andre Nickow, Philip Oreopoulos, and Vincent Quan. 2020. The Impressive Effects of Tutoring on Prek-12 Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Randomized Social Experiments eJournal (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220933901

    2020

  21. [29]

    Benjamin D Nye, Dillon Mee, and Mark G Core. 2023. Generative Large Language Models for Dialog-Based Tutoring: An Early Consideration of Opportunities and Concerns

    2023

  22. [30]

    Sankalan Pal Chowdhury, Vilém Zouhar, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2024. AutoTutor meets Large Language Models: A Language Model Tutor with Rich Pedagogy and Guardrails. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale . 5–15

    2024

  23. [31]

    Praise-El K Pelemo. 2022. Parental Involvement: Investigating the Roles, Barriers, and Strategies of Effective Parent-Teacher Relationships in Middle School Math. Ph. D. Dissertation. Southeastern University

    2022

  24. [32]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine Mcleavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2023. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol....

    2023

  25. [33]

    Alexander Renkl. 1999. Learning mathematics from worked-out examples: Analyzing and fostering self-explanations.European Journal of Psychology of Education 14, 4 (1999), 477–488

    1999

  26. [34]

    Lauren B Resnick, Christa SC Asterhan, Sherice N Clarke, et al . 2018. Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educati...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Benjamin Saunders, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & quantity 52 (2018), 1893–1907

    2018

  28. [36]

    Robin Schmucker, Meng Xia, Amos Azaria, and Tom Mitchell. 2024. Ruffle & Riley: Insights from Designing and Evaluating a Large Language Model-Based Conversational Tutoring System. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, 75–90

    2024

  29. [37]

    Robert E Slavin. 1987. Making Chapter 1 make a difference. The Phi Delta Kappan 69, 2 (1987), 110–119

    1987

  30. [38]

    Jaemarie Solyst, Ellia Yang, Shixian Xie, Amy Ogan, Jessica Hammer, and Motahhare Eslami. 2023. The Potential of Diverse Youth as Stakeholders in Identifying and Mitigating Algorithmic Bias for a Future of Fairer AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW...

    2023

  31. [39]

    John Stamper, Ruiwei Xiao, and Xinying Hou. 2024. Enhancing LLM-based feedback: Insights from Intelligent Tutoring Systems and the learning sciences. (May 2024). arXiv:2405.04645 [cs.HC]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Maxwell Szymanski, Jeroen Ooge, Robin De Croon, Vero Vanden Abeele, and Katrien Verbert. 2024. Feedback, Control, or Explanations? Supporting Teachers With Steerable Distractor-Generating AI. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK ’24) . ACM

    2024

  33. [41]

    Danielle Thomas, Xinyu Yang, Shivang Gupta, Adetunji Adeniran, Elizabeth Mclaughlin, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2023. When the Tutor Becomes the Student: Design and Evaluation of Efficient Scenario-based Lessons for Tutors. In LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowl...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Danielle R Thomas, Jionghao Lin, Erin Gatz, Ashish Gurung, Shivang Gupta, Kole Norberg, Stephen E Fancsali, Vincent Aleven, Lee Branstetter, Emma Brunskill, et al . 2024. Improving student learning with hybrid human-AI tutoring: A three-study quasi-experimental investigation. ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Shen Wang, Tianlong Xu, Hang Li, Chaoli Zhang, Joleen Liang, Jiliang Tang, Philip S Yu, and Qingsong Wen. 2024. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18105 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Jules White, Quchen Fu, Sam Hays, Michael Sandborn, Carlos Olea, Henry Gilbert, Ashraf Elnashar, Jesse Spencer-Smith, and Douglas C Schmidt

  37. [45]

    Harry F Wolcott. 1994. Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation . Sage

    1994

  38. [46]

    Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, and Dragan Gasevic. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence in learning analytics: Contextualising opportunities and challenges through the learning analytics cycle. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conferenc...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Jiayi Zhang, Conrad Borchers, Vincent Aleven, and Ryan S Baker. 2024. Using large language models to detect self-regulated learning in think-aloud protocols. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Liang Zhang, Jionghao Lin, Conrad Borchers, Meng Cao, and Xiangen Hu. 2024. 3DG: a framework for using generative AI for handling sparse learner performance data from intelligent tutoring systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01746 (2024). Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2024 arXiv

  41. [2023]

    A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. (Feb. 2023). arXiv:2302.11382 [cs.SE]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.