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.

Physiological and Semantic Patterns in Medical Teams Using an Intelligent Tutoring System

Effective collaboration requires teams to manage complex cognitive and emotional states through Socially Shared Regulation of Learning (SSRL). Physiological synchrony (i.e., longitudinal alignment in physiological signals) can indicate these states, but is hard to interpret on its own. We investigate the physiological and conversational dynamics of four medical dyads diagnosing a virtual patient case using an intelligent tutoring system. Semantic shifts in dialogue were correlated with transient physiological synchrony peaks. We also coded utterance segments for SSRL and derived cosine similarity using sentence embeddings. The results showed that activating prior knowledge featured significantly lower semantic similarity than simpler task execution. High physiological synchrony was associated with lower semantic similarity, suggesting that such moments involve exploratory and varied language use. Qualitative analysis triangulated these synchrony peaks as ``pivotal moments'': successful teams synchronized during shared discovery, while unsuccessful teams peaked during shared uncertainty. This research advances human-centered AI by demonstrating how biological signals can be fused with dialogues to understand critical moments in problem solving.

Multimodal Analytics of Cybersecurity Crisis Preparation Exercises: What Predicts Success?

Instructional alignment, the match between intended cognition and enacted activity, is central to effective instruction but hard to operationalize at scale. We examine alignment in cybersecurity simulations using multimodal traces from 23 teams (76 students) across five exercise sessions. Study 1 codes objectives and team emails with Bloom's taxonomy and models the completion of key exercise tasks with generalized linear mixed models. Alignment, defined as the discrepancy between required and enacted Bloom levels, predicts success, whereas the Bloom category alone does not predict success once discrepancy is considered. Study 2 compares predictive feature families using grouped cross-validation and l1-regularized logistic regression. Text embeddings and log features outperform Bloom-only models (AUC~0.74 and 0.71 vs. 0.55), and their combination performs best (Test AUC~0.80), with Bloom frequencies adding little. Overall, the work offers a measure of alignment for simulations and shows that multimodal traces best forecast performance, while alignment provides interpretable diagnostic insight.

Understanding Teacher Revisions of Large Language Model-Generated Feedback

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate formative feedback for students, yet little is known about how teachers revise this feedback before it reaches learners. Teachers' revisions shape what students receive, making revision practices central to evaluating AI classroom tools. We analyze a dataset of 1,349 instances of AI-generated feedback and corresponding teacher-edited explanations from 117 teachers. We examine (i) textual characteristics associated with teacher revisions, (ii) whether revision decisions can be predicted from the AI feedback text, and (iii) how revisions change the pedagogical type of feedback delivered. First, we find that teachers accept AI feedback without modification in about 80% of cases, while edited feedback tends to be significantly longer and subsequently shortened by teachers. Editing behavior varies substantially across teachers: about 50% never edit AI feedback, and only about 10% edit more than two-thirds of feedback instances. Second, machine learning models trained only on the AI feedback text as input features, using sentence embeddings, achieve fair performance in identifying which feedback will be revised (AUC=0.75). Third, qualitative coding shows that when revisions occur, teachers often simplify AI-generated feedback, shifting it away from high-information explanations toward more concise, corrective forms. Together, these findings characterize how teachers engage with AI-generated feedback in practice and highlight opportunities to design feedback systems that better align with teacher priorities while reducing unnecessary editing effort.

Representation Learning to Study Temporal Dynamics in Tutorial Scaffolding

Adaptive scaffolding enhances learning, yet the field lacks robust methods for measuring it within authentic tutoring dialogue. This gap has become more pressing with the rise of remote human tutoring and large language model-based systems. We introduce an embedding-based approach that analyzes scaffolding dynamics by aligning the semantics of dialogue turns, problem statements, and correct solutions. Specifically, we operationalize alignment by computing cosine similarity between tutor and student contributions and task-relevant content. We apply this framework to 1,576 real-world mathematics tutoring dialogues from the Eedi Question Anchored Tutoring Dialogues dataset. The analysis reveals systematic differences in task alignment and distinct temporal patterns in how participants ground their contributions in problem and solution content. Further, mixed-effects models show that role-specific semantic alignment predicts tutorial progression beyond baseline features such as message order and length. Tutor contributions exhibited stronger grounding in problem content early in interactions. In contrast, student solution alignment was modestly positively associated with progression. These findings support scaffolding as a continuous, role-sensitive process grounded in task semantics. By capturing role-specific alignment over time, this approach provides a principled method for analyzing instructional dialogue and evaluating conversational tutoring systems.

Large Language Models as Students Who Think Aloud: Overly Coherent, Verbose, and Confident

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in AI-based tutoring systems. Can they faithfully model novice reasoning and metacognitive judgments? Existing evaluations emphasize problem-solving accuracy, overlooking the fragmented and imperfect reasoning that characterizes human learning. We evaluate LLMs as novices using 630 think-aloud utterances from multi-step chemistry tutoring problems with problem-solving logs of student hint use, attempts, and problem context. We compare LLM-generated reasoning to human learner utterances under minimal and extended contextual prompting, and assess the models' ability to predict step-level learner success. Although GPT-4.1 generates fluent and contextually appropriate continuations, its reasoning is systematically over-coherent, verbose, and less variable than human think-alouds. These effects intensify with a richer problem-solving context during prompting. Learner performance was consistently overestimated. These findings highlight epistemic limitations of simulating learning with LLMs. We attribute these limitations to LLM training data, including expert-like solutions devoid of expressions of affect and working memory constraints during problem solving. Our evaluation framework can guide future design of adaptive systems that more faithfully support novice learning and self-regulation using generative artificial intelligence.

Disagreement as Data: Reasoning Trace Analytics in Multi-Agent Systems

Learning analytics researchers often analyze qualitative student data such as coded annotations or interview transcripts to understand learning processes. With the rise of generative AI, fully automated and human-AI workflows have emerged as promising methods for analysis. However, methodological standards to guide such workflows remain limited. In this study, we propose that reasoning traces generated by large language model (LLM) agents, especially within multi-agent systems, constitute a novel and rich form of process data to enhance interpretive practices in qualitative coding. We apply cosine similarity to LLM reasoning traces to systematically detect, quantify, and interpret disagreements among agents, reframing disagreement as a meaningful analytic signal. Analyzing nearly 10,000 instances of agent pairs coding human tutoring dialog segments, we show that LLM agents' semantic reasoning similarity robustly differentiates consensus from disagreement and correlates with human coding reliability. Qualitative analysis guided by this metric reveals nuanced instructional sub-functions within codes and opportunities for conceptual codebook refinement. By integrating quantitative similarity metrics with qualitative review, our method has the potential to improve and accelerate establishing inter-rater reliability during coding by surfacing interpretive ambiguity, especially when LLMs collaborate with humans. We discuss how reasoning-trace disagreements represent a valuable new class of analytic signals advancing methodological rigor and interpretive depth in educational research.

Using Large Language Models to Detect Socially Shared Regulation of Collaborative Learning

The field of learning analytics has made notable strides in automating the detection of complex learning processes in multimodal data. However, most advancements have focused on individualized problem-solving instead of collaborative, open-ended problem-solving, which may offer both affordances (richer data) and challenges (low cohesion) to behavioral prediction. Here, we extend predictive models to automatically detect socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) behaviors in collaborative computational modeling environments using embedding-based approaches. We leverage large language models (LLMs) as summarization tools to generate task-aware representations of student dialogue aligned with system logs. These summaries, combined with text-only embeddings, context-enriched embeddings, and log-derived features, were used to train predictive models. Results show that text-only embeddings often achieve stronger performance in detecting SSRL behaviors related to enactment or group dynamics (e.g., off-task behavior or requesting assistance). In contrast, contextual and multimodal features provide complementary benefits for constructs such as planning and reflection. Overall, our findings highlight the promise of embedding-based models for extending learning analytics by enabling scalable detection of SSRL behaviors, ultimately supporting real-time feedback and adaptive scaffolding in collaborative learning environments that teachers value.

Disentangling Learning from Judgment: Representation Learning for Open Response Analytics

Open-ended responses are central to learning, yet automated scoring often conflates what students wrote with how teachers grade. We present an analytics-first framework that separates content signals from rater tendencies, making judgments visible and auditable via analytics. Using de-identified ASSISTments mathematics responses, we model teacher histories as dynamic priors and derive text representations from sentence embeddings, incorporating centering and residualization to mitigate prompt and teacher confounds. Temporally-validated linear models quantify the contributions of each signal, and a projection surfaces model disagreements for qualitative inspection. Results show that teacher priors heavily influence grade predictions; the strongest results arise when priors are combined with content embeddings (AUC~0.815), while content-only models remain above chance but substantially weaker (AUC~0.626). Adjusting for rater effects sharpens the residual content representation, retaining more informative embedding dimensions and revealing cases where semantic evidence supports understanding as opposed to surface-level differences in how students respond. The contribution presents a practical pipeline that transforms embeddings from mere features into learning analytics for reflection, enabling teachers and researchers to examine where grading practices align (or conflict) with evidence of student reasoning and learning.

Benchmarking Educational LLMs with Analytics: A Case Study on Gender Bias in Feedback

As teachers increasingly turn to GenAI in their educational practice, we need robust methods to benchmark large language models (LLMs) for pedagogical purposes. This article presents an embedding-based benchmarking framework to detect bias in LLMs in the context of formative feedback. Using 600 authentic student essays from the AES 2.0 corpus, we constructed controlled counterfactuals along two dimensions: (i) implicit cues via lexicon-based swaps of gendered terms within essays, and (ii) explicit cues via gendered author background in the prompt. We investigated six representative LLMs (i.e. GPT-5 mini, GPT-4o mini, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-R1-Qwen, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama-3-8B). We first quantified the response divergence with cosine and Euclidean distances over sentence embeddings, then assessed significance via permutation tests, and finally, visualised structure using dimensionality reduction. In all models, implicit manipulations reliably induced larger semantic shifts for male-female counterfactuals than for female-male. Only the GPT and Llama models showed sensitivity to explicit gender cues. These findings show that even state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit asymmetric semantic responses to gender substitutions, suggesting persistent gender biases in feedback they provide learners. Qualitative analyses further revealed consistent linguistic differences (e.g., more autonomy-supportive feedback under male cues vs. more controlling feedback under female cues). We discuss implications for fairness auditing of pedagogical GenAI, propose reporting standards for counterfactual evaluation in learning analytics, and outline practical guidance for prompt design and deployment to safeguard equitable feedback.