Sandpiper: Orchestrated AI-Annotation for Educational Discourse at Scale

Digital educational environments are expanding toward complex AI and human discourse, providing researchers with an abundance of data that offers deep insights into learning and instructional processes. However, traditional qualitative analysis remains a labor-intensive bottleneck, severely limiting the scale at which this research can be conducted. We present Sandpiper, a mixed-initiative system designed to serve as a bridge between high-volume conversational data and human qualitative expertise. By tightly coupling interactive researcher dashboards with agentic Large Language Model (LLM) engines, the platform enables scalable analysis without sacrificing methodological rigor. Sandpiper addresses critical barriers to AI adoption in education by implementing context-aware, automated de-identification workflows supported by secure, university-housed infrastructure to ensure data privacy. Furthermore, the system employs schema-constrained orchestration to eliminate LLM hallucinations and enforces strict adherence to qualitative codebooks. An integrated evaluations engine allows for the continuous benchmarking of AI performance against human labels, fostering an iterative approach to model refinement and validation. We propose a user study to evaluate the system's efficacy in improving research efficiency, inter-rater reliability, and researcher trust in AI-assisted qualitative workflows.

Optimizing LLM Annotation of Classroom Discourse through Multi-Agent Orchestration

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as scalable tools for annotating educational data, including classroom discourse, interaction logs, and qualitative learning artifacts. Their ability to rapidly summarize instructional interactions and assign rubric-aligned labels has fueled optimism about reducing the cost and time associated with expert human annotation. However, growing evidence suggests that single-pass LLM outputs remain unreliable for high-stakes educational constructs that require contextual, pedagogical, or normative judgment, such as instructional intent or discourse moves. This tension between scale and validity sits at the core of contemporary education data science. In this work, we present and empirically evaluate a hierarchical, cost-aware orchestration framework for LLM-based annotation that improves reliability while explicitly modeling computational tradeoffs. Rather than treating annotation as a one-shot prediction problem, we conceptualize it as a multi-stage epistemic process comprising (1) an unverified single-pass annotation stage, in which models independently assign labels based on the rubric; (2) a self-verification stage, in which each model audits its own output against rubric definitions and revises its label if inconsistencies are detected; and (3) a disagreement-centric adjudication stage, in which an independent adjudicator model examines the verified labels and justifications and determines a final label in accordance with the rubric. This structure mirrors established human annotation workflows in educational research, where initial coding is followed by self-checking and expert resolution of disagreements.

Utility-Preserving De-Identification for Math Tutoring: Investigating Numeric Ambiguity in the MathEd-PII Benchmark Dataset

Large-scale sharing of dialogue-based data is instrumental for advancing the science of teaching and learning, yet rigorous de-identification remains a major barrier. In mathematics tutoring transcripts, numeric expressions frequently resemble structured identifiers (e.g., dates or IDs), leading generic Personally Identifiable Information (PII) detection systems to over-redact core instructional content and reduce dataset utility. This work asks how PII can be detected in math tutoring transcripts while preserving their educational utility. To address this challenge, we investigate the "numeric ambiguity" problem and introduce MathEd-PII, the first benchmark dataset for PII detection in math tutoring dialogues, created through a human-in-the-loop LLM workflow that audits upstream redactions and generates privacy-preserving surrogates. The dataset contains 1,000 tutoring sessions (115,620 messages; 769,628 tokens) with validated PII annotations. Using a density-based segmentation method, we show that false PII redactions are disproportionately concentrated in math-dense regions, confirming numeric ambiguity as a key failure mode. We then compare four detection strategies: a Presidio baseline and LLM-based approaches with basic, math-aware, and segment-aware prompting. Math-aware prompting substantially improves performance over the baseline (F1: 0.821 vs. 0.379) while reducing numeric false positives, demonstrating that de-identification must incorporate domain context to preserve analytic utility. This work provides both a new benchmark and evidence that utility-preserving de-identification for tutoring data requires domain-aware modeling.

LLM Reasoning Predicts When Models Are Right: Evidence from Coding Classroom Discourse

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to automatically label and analyze educational dialogue at scale, yet current pipelines lack reliable ways to detect when models are wrong. We investigate whether reasoning generated by LLMs can be used to predict the correctness of a model's own predictions. We analyze 30,300 teacher utterances from classroom dialogue, each labeled by multiple state-of-the-art LLMs with an instructional move construct and an accompanying reasoning. Using human-verified ground-truth labels, we frame the task as predicting whether a model's assigned label for a given utterance is correct. We encode LLM reasoning using Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) and evaluate five supervised classifiers. A Random Forest classifier achieves an F1 score of 0.83 (Recall = 0.854), successfully identifying most incorrect predictions and outperforming baselines. Training specialist detectors for specific instructional move constructs further improves performance on difficult constructs, indicating that error detection benefits from construct-specific linguistic cues. Using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) framework, we examine four linguistic markers of correctness: Causation, Differentiation, Tentativeness, and Insight. Correct predictions exhibit grounded causal language (e.g., because, therefore), while incorrect reasoning is substantially more likely to rely on epistemic hedging (e.g., might, could) and performative metacognition (e.g., think, realize). Syntactic complexity does not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning, and longer reasoning is not more reliable. These findings demonstrate that reasoning-based error detection offers a practical and scalable approach to quality control in automated educational dialogue analysis.

Codebook-Injected Dialogue Segmentation for Multi-Utterance Constructs Annotation: LLM-Assisted and Gold-Label-Free Evaluation

Dialogue Act (DA) annotation typically treats communicative or pedagogical intent as localized to individual utterances or turns. This leads annotators to agree on the underlying action while disagreeing on segment boundaries, reducing apparent reliability. We propose codebook-injected segmentation, which conditions boundary decisions on downstream annotation criteria, and evaluate LLM-based segmenters against standard and retrieval-augmented baselines. To assess these without gold labels, we introduce evaluation metrics for span consistency, distinctiveness, and human-AI distributional agreement. We found DA-awareness produces segments that are internally more consistent than text-only baselines. While LLMs excel at creating construct-consistent spans, coherence-based baselines remain superior at detecting global shifts in dialogue flow. Across two datasets, no single segmenter dominates. Improvements in within-segment coherence frequently trade off against boundary distinctiveness and human-AI distributional agreement. These results highlight segmentation as a consequential design choice that should be optimized for downstream objectives rather than a single performance score.

How well do Large Language Models Recognize Instructional Moves? Establishing Baselines for Foundation Models in Educational Discourse

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in educational technologies for a variety of tasks, from generating instructional materials and assisting with assessment design to tutoring. While prior work has investigated how models can be adapted or optimized for specific tasks, far less is known about how well LLMs perform at interpreting authentic educational scenarios without significant customization. As LLM-based systems become widely adopted by learners and educators in everyday academic contexts, understanding their out-of-the-box capabilities is increasingly important for setting expectations and benchmarking. We compared six LLMs to estimate their baseline performance on a simple but important task: classifying instructional moves in authentic classroom transcripts. We evaluated typical prompting methods: zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting. We found that while zero-shot performance was moderate, providing comprehensive examples (few-shot prompting) significantly improved performance for state-of-the-art models, with the strongest configuration reaching Cohen's Kappa = 0.58 against expert-coded annotations. At the same time, improvements were neither uniform nor complete: performance varied considerably by instructional move, and higher recall frequently came at the cost of increased false positives. Overall, these findings indicate that foundation models demonstrate meaningful yet limited capacity to interpret instructional discourse, with prompt design helping to surface capability but not eliminating fundamental reliability constraints.

AI Annotation Orchestration: Evaluating LLM verifiers to Improve the Quality of LLM Annotations in Learning Analytics

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to annotate learning interactions, yet concerns about reliability limit their utility. We test whether verification-oriented orchestration-prompting models to check their own labels (self-verification) or audit one another (cross-verification)-improves qualitative coding of tutoring discourse. Using transcripts from 30 one-to-one math sessions, we compare three production LLMs (GPT, Claude, Gemini) under three conditions: unverified annotation, self-verification, and cross-verification across all orchestration configurations. Outputs are benchmarked against a blinded, disagreement-focused human adjudication using Cohen's kappa. Overall, orchestration yields a 58 percent improvement in kappa. Self-verification nearly doubles agreement relative to unverified baselines, with the largest gains for challenging tutor moves. Cross-verification achieves a 37 percent improvement on average, with pair- and construct-dependent effects: some verifier-annotator pairs exceed self-verification, while others reduce alignment, reflecting differences in verifier strictness. We contribute: (1) a flexible orchestration framework instantiating control, self-, and cross-verification; (2) an empirical comparison across frontier LLMs on authentic tutoring data with blinded human "gold" labels; and (3) a concise notation, verifier(annotator) (e.g., Gemini(GPT) or Claude(Claude)), to standardize reporting and make directional effects explicit for replication. Results position verification as a principled design lever for reliable, scalable LLM-assisted annotation in Learning Analytics.