From SQL Errors to Concept Gaps: An AI-Powered Knowledge Graph Analytics Platform for Personalized Feedback

This innovative practice full paper describes an AI-powered knowledge graph platform that connects SQL errors to conceptual gaps in undergraduate and graduate database systems courses. Students learning Structured Query Language (SQL) frequently struggle with semantic errors that reflect conceptual misunderstandings rather than syntax mistakes. A query may execute yet return incorrect results due to gaps spanning related concepts; misusing NATURAL JOIN in place of an explicit subquery reflects intertwined misunderstandings of JOIN, GROUP BY, and HAVING. Autograding systems detect correctness but provide surface-level feedback without connecting errors to the conceptual structure of the course. Educational knowledge graph research has shown the value of structured concept representations for curriculum analysis and adaptive learning, but these approaches have not been applied to diagnosing SQL misconceptions from student submissions. We present a platform that automatically extracts course concepts and relations from instructional materials, links them to student submission traces through a graph database, and classifies errors at the concept level. We evaluate the platform across two database systems courses at two universities, one using real student submissions and one using simulated submissions, through an expert study with five participants and an automated evaluation using an LLM as a judge. Results show that 95.7% of extracted nodes were rated as at least somewhat valid and 63.8% of triplets were rated fully correct. Expert feedback confirmed that the generated graphs align with instructor mental models and that mapping errors to course concepts provides actionable diagnostic insight; evaluating impact on student learning remains future work.

PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in task-oriented dialogue systems that support multi-step decision-making in high-stakes domains such as education, healthcare, and finance. However, existing benchmarks typically assume perfectly accurate tool outputs, overlooking the reality that deployed systems must operate with noisy tools and human decision-makers whose trust in the agent is itself uncertain. Such conditions are common in practice, for example, a clinician using a diagnostic prediction tool or an advisor relying on a model that forecasts student outcomes from historical records. We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools, using education as a measurable testbed where ground truth outcomes and clear intervention decisions are available. First, we build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user. Second, we introduce episode-level Relative AI-Reliance (RAIR) and Relative self-reliance (RSR) metrics, extending prior trust calibration framework to multi-turn dialogue. Third, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets, OULAD (real assessment trajectories from the UK Open University) and PREDACT-CS (60 courses with real final grade outcomes and synthetically generated weekly score trajectories), alongside a human study with instructors and teaching assistants. We find that when tools are noisy, SOTA models are supposed to provide visibility to teachers so that they do not over-rely on wrong suggestions or hallucinations, but current models fail to do that. We offer PREDACTBENCH to help build better LLMs as AI decision support systems to help teachers.

Instructor-Aligned Knowledge Graphs for Personalized Learning

Mastering educational concepts requires understanding both their prerequisites (e.g., recursion before merge sort) and sub-concepts (e.g., merge sort as part of sorting algorithms). Capturing these dependencies is critical for identifying students' knowledge gaps and enabling targeted intervention for personalized learning. This is especially challenging in large-scale courses, where instructors cannot feasibly diagnose individual misunderstanding or determine which concepts need reinforcement. While knowledge graphs offer a natural representation for capturing these conceptual relationships at scale, existing approaches are either surface-level (focusing on course-level concepts like "Algorithms" or logistical relationships such as course enrollment), or disregard the rich pedagogical signals embedded in instructional materials. We propose InstructKG, a framework for automatically constructing instructor-aligned knowledge graphs that capture a course's intended learning progression. Given a course's lecture materials (slides, notes, etc.), InstructKG extracts significant concepts as nodes and infers learning dependencies as directed edges (e.g., "part-of" or "depends-on" relationships). The framework synergizes the rich temporal and semantic signals unique to educational materials (e.g., "recursion" is taught before "mergesort"; "recursion" is mentioned in the definition of "merge sort") with the generalizability of large language models. Through experiments on real-world, diverse lecture materials across multiple courses and human-based evaluation, we demonstrate that InstructKG captures rich, instructor-aligned learning progressions.