Measuring Whether LLM Tutors Teach or Solve: A Diagnostic for Educational Impact

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16206v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 04:32:18 GMT
• Title: Measuring Whether LLM Tutors Teach or Solve: A Diagnostic for Educational Impact
• Abstract summary: We study whether public tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production.<n>We propose a lightweight diagnostic rubric based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance.
• Score: 4.6840536642016195
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

Related papers

• Towards Pedagogically Aligned LLM Tutors for Math Mistake Remediation [12.296644292843801]
  We study the application of a two-stage alignment pipeline for math mistake remediation.<n>We construct a dataset that integrates existing tutoring corpora with synthetic data generated along pedagogical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T14:53:55Z)
• Teacher-Guided Policy Optimization for LLM Distillation [90.49982387646861]
  Teacher-Guided Policy Optimization (TGPO) is an on-policy algorithm that incorporates dense directional guidance by leveraging teacher predictions conditioned on the student's rollout.<n>Experiments on complex reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that TGPO significantly outperforms standard baselines and is robust to different teachers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T09:20:03Z)
• Evaluating Answer Leakage Robustness of LLM Tutors against Adversarial Student Attacks [9.471800828517496]
  We study scenarios where students behave adversarially and aim to obtain the correct answer from the tutor.<n>We evaluate a broad set of LLM-based tutor models, including different model families, pedagogically aligned models, and a multi-agent design.<n>We present simple but effective defense strategies that reduce answer leakage and strengthen the robustness of LLM-based tutors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T11:29:22Z)
• Embedding-Based Rankings of Educational Resources based on Learning Outcome Alignment: Benchmarking, Expert Validation, and Learner Performance [0.9236074230806578]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are attracting growing interest for their potential to create learning resources that better support personalization.<n>We propose a framework that supports the cost-effective automation of evaluating alignment between educational resources and intended learning outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-15T18:51:00Z)
• TutorBench: A Benchmark To Assess Tutoring Capabilities Of Large Language Models [10.963195858672627]
  TutorBench is a dataset and evaluation benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the core tutoring skills of large language models (LLMs)<n>Samples are drawn from three common tutoring tasks: (i) generating adaptive explanations tailored to a student's confusion, (ii) providing actionable feedback on a student's work, and (iii) promoting active learning through effective hint generation.<n>We evaluate 16 frontier LLMs on TutorBench and present a detailed analysis of their performance and behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T01:41:09Z)
• Benchmarking the Pedagogical Knowledge of Large Language Models [4.417539128489408]
  This paper introduces The Pedagogy Benchmark, a novel dataset designed to evaluate large language models on their pedagogical knowledge.<n>These benchmarks are built on a carefully curated set of questions sourced from professional development exams for teachers.<n>We report results for 97 models, with accuracies spanning a range from 28% to 89% on the pedagogical knowledge questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T14:49:01Z)
• From Problem-Solving to Teaching Problem-Solving: Aligning LLMs with Pedagogy using Reinforcement Learning [82.50157695987558]
  Large language models (LLMs) can transform education, but their optimization for direct question-answering often undermines effective pedagogy.<n>We propose an online reinforcement learning (RL)-based alignment framework that can quickly adapt LLMs into effective tutors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T15:00:07Z)
• MathTutorBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Open-ended Pedagogical Capabilities of LLM Tutors [82.91830877219822]
  We present MathTutorBench, an open-source benchmark for holistic tutoring model evaluation.<n>MathTutorBench contains datasets and metrics that broadly cover tutor abilities as defined by learning sciences research in dialog-based teaching.<n>We evaluate a wide set of closed- and open-weight models and find that subject expertise, indicated by solving ability, does not immediately translate to good teaching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T08:43:47Z)
• Towards Effective Evaluations and Comparisons for LLM Unlearning Methods [97.2995389188179]
  This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of machine unlearning for large language models.<n>It addresses two key challenges -- the robustness of evaluation metrics and the trade-offs between competing goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:41:00Z)
• Evaluating and Optimizing Educational Content with Large Language Model Judgments [52.33701672559594]
  We use Language Models (LMs) as educational experts to assess the impact of various instructions on learning outcomes. We introduce an instruction optimization approach in which one LM generates instructional materials using the judgments of another LM as a reward function. Human teachers' evaluations of these LM-generated worksheets show a significant alignment between the LM judgments and human teacher preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T09:09:15Z)
• MERMAIDE: Learning to Align Learners using Model-Based Meta-Learning [62.065503126104126]
  We study how a principal can efficiently and effectively intervene on the rewards of a previously unseen learning agent in order to induce desirable outcomes. This is relevant to many real-world settings like auctions or taxation, where the principal may not know the learning behavior nor the rewards of real people. We introduce MERMAIDE, a model-based meta-learning framework to train a principal that can quickly adapt to out-of-distribution agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T15:44:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.