Austria

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer exciting potential as educational tutors, and much research explores this potential. Unfortunately, there&#39;s little research in understanding the baseline behavioral pattern differences that LLM tutors exhibit, in contrast to human tutors. We conduct a preliminary study of these differences with the CIMA dataset and three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini Pro 1.5, and LLaMA 3.1 450B). Our results reveal systematic deviations in these baseline patterns, particulary in the tutoring actions selected, complexity of responses, and even within different LLMs. 

This research brings forward some early results in understanding how LLMs when deployed as tutors exhibit systematic differences, which has implications for educational technology design and deployment. We note that while LLMs enable more powerful and fluid interaction than previous systems, they simultaneously develop characteristic patterns distinct from human teaching. Understanding these differences can inform better integration of AI in educational settings.

ACL 2025

Comparing Behavioral Patterns of LLM and Human Tutors: A Population-level Analysis with the CIMA Dataset

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair: 
*It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025), held in beautiful Vienna, Austria, from July 27 to August 1, 2025. ACL2025continues our field’s tradition of excellence in scholarship, innovation, and inclusivity, and I am deeply grateful to the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to bring this event to life.* 
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. Access credentials will be sent to your email from Underline - subject line "Welcome to ACL 2025". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. 

Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer exciting potential as educational tutors, and much research explores this potential. Unfortunately, there's little research in understanding the baseline behavioral pattern differences that LLM tutors exhibit, in contrast to human tutors. We conduct a preliminary study of these differences with the CIMA dataset and three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini Pro 1.5, and LLaMA 3.1 450B). Our results reveal systematic deviations in these baseline patterns, particulary in the tutoring actions selected, complexity of responses, and even within different LLMs. 

This research brings forward some early results in understanding how LLMs when deployed as tutors exhibit systematic differences, which has implications for educational technology design and deployment. We note that while LLMs enable more powerful and fluid interaction than previous systems, they simultaneously develop characteristic patterns distinct from human teaching. Understanding these differences can inform better integration of AI in educational settings.

workshop paper

This paper presents EduCSW, a novel pipeline for generating Mandarin-English code-switched text to support AI-powered educational tools that adapt computer science instruction to learners' language proficiency through mixed-language delivery. To address the scarcity of code-mixed datasets, we propose an encoder-decoder architecture that generates natural code-switched text using only minimal existing code-mixed examples and parallel corpora. Evaluated on a corpus curated for computer science education, human annotators rated 60--64% of our model's outputs as natural, significantly outperforming both a baseline fine-tuned neural machine translation (NMT) model (22--24%) and the DeepSeek-R1 model (34--44%). The generated text achieves a Code-Mixing Index (CMI) of 25.28%, aligning with patterns observed in spontaneous Mandarin-English code-switching. Designed to be generalizable across language pairs and domains, this pipeline lays the groundwork for generating training data to support the development of educational tools with dynamic code-switching capabilities.

EduCSW: Building a Mandarin-English Code-Switched Generation Pipeline for Computer Science Learning

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has marked a transformative era in educational measurement and evaluation, particularly in the development of assessment items. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for scalable automatic item generation (AIG), yet concerns remain about the validity of AI-generated items in various domains. To address this issue, we propose STAIR-AIG (Systematic Tool for Assessment Item Review in Automatic Item Generation), a human-in-the-loop framework that integrates expert judgment to optimize the quality of AIG items. To explore the functionality of the tool, AIG items were generated in the domain of critical thinking. Subsequently, the human expert and four OpenAI LLMs conducted a review of the AIG items. The results show that while the LLMs demonstrated high consistency in their rating of the AIG items, they exhibited a tendency towards leniency. In contrast, the human expert provided more variable and strict evaluations, identifying issues such as the irrelevance of the construct and cultural insensitivity. These findings highlight the viability of STAIR-AIG as a structured human-AI collaboration approach that facilitates rigorous item review, thus optimizing the quality of AIG items. Furthermore, STAIR-AIG enables iterative review processes and accumulates human feedback, facilitating the refinement of models and prompts. This, in turn, would establish a more reliable and comprehensive pipeline to improve AIG practices.

STAIR-AIG: Optimizing the Automated Item Generation Process through Human-AI Collaboration for Critical Thinking Assessment

We present UPSC2M, a large-scale dataset comprising two million multiple-choice question attempts from over 46,000 students, spanning nearly 9,000 questions across seven subject areas. The questions are drawn from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examination, one of India's most competitive and high-stakes assessments. Each attempt includes both response correctness and time taken, enabling fine-grained analysis of learner behavior and question characteristics. Over this dataset, we define two core benchmark tasks: question difficulty estimation and student performance prediction. The first task involves predicting empirical correctness rates using only question text. The second task focuses on predicting the likelihood of a correct response based on prior interactions. We evaluate simple baseline models on both tasks to demonstrate feasibility and establish reference points. Together, the dataset and benchmarks offer a strong foundation for building scalable, personalized educational systems. We release the dataset and code to support further research at the intersection of content understanding, learner modeling, and adaptive assessment.

UPSC2M: Benchmarking Adaptive Learning from Two Million MCQ Attempts

Despite recent advances in AI detection methods, their practical application, especially in education, remains limited. Educators need functional tools pointing to AI indicators within texts, rather than merely estimating whether AI was used. 
GPTZero's new AI Vocabulary feature, which highlights parts of a text likely to be AI-generated based on frequent words and phrases from LLM-generated texts, offers a potential solution. However, its effectiveness has not yet been empirically validated.
In this study, we examine whether GPTZero's AI Vocabulary can effectively distinguish between LLM-generated and student-written essays. We analyze the AI Vocabulary lists published from October 2024 to March 2025 and evaluate them on a subset of the Ghostbuster dataset, which includes student and LLM essays. We train multiple Bag-of-Words classifiers using GPTZero's AI Vocabulary terms as features and examine their individual contributions to classification.
Our findings show that simply checking for the presence, not the frequency, of specific AI terms yields the best results, particularly with ChatGPT-generated essays. However, performance drops to near-random when applied to Claude-generated essays, indicating that GPTZero's AI Vocabulary may not generalize well to texts generated by LLMs other than ChatGPT. Additionally, all classifiers based on GPTZero's AI Vocabulary significantly underperform compared to Bag-of-Words classifiers trained directly on the full dataset vocabulary. These findings suggest that fixed vocabularies based solely on lexical features, despite their interpretability, have limited effectiveness across different LLMs and educational writing contexts.

Can GPTZero's AI Vocabulary Distinguish Between LLM-Generated and Student-Written Essays?

We present a case study on building task-specific models for grammatical error correction and explanation generation tailored to learners of Estonian. Our approach handles whole paragraphs instead of sentences and leverages prompting proprietary large language models for generating synthetic training data, addressing the limited availability of error correction data and the complete absence of correction justification/explanation data in Estonian. We describe the chosen approach and pipeline and provide technical details for the experimental part. The final outcome is a set of open-weight models, which are released with a permissive license along with the generated synthetic error correction and explanation data.

Paragraph-level Error Correction and Explanation Generation: Case Study for Estonian

Communicative practice is critical for second language development, yet learners often lack targeted, engaging opportunities to use new grammar structures. While large language models (LLMs) can offer coherent interactions, they are not inherently aligned with pedagogical goals or proficiency levels. In this paper, we explore how LLMs can be integrated into a structured framework for contextually-constrained, grammar-focused interaction, building on an existing goal-oriented dialogue system. Through controlled simulations, we evaluate five LLMs across 75 A2-level tasks under two conditions: (i) grammar-targeted, task-anchored prompting and (ii) the addition of a lightweight post-generation validation pipeline using a grammar annotator.
Our findings show that template-based prompting alone substantially increases target-form coverage up to 91.4% for LLaMA 3.1-70B-Instruct, while reducing overly advanced grammar usage. The validation pipeline provides an additional boost in form-focused tasks, raising coverage to 96.3% without significantly degrading appropriateness.

A Framework for Proficiency-Aligned Grammar Practice in LLM-Based Dialogue Systems

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxy students in the development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) and in piloting test questions. However, to what extent these proxy students accurately emulate the behavior and characteristics of real students remains an open question. To investigate this, we collected a dataset of 489 items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), covering mathematics and reading comprehension in grades 4, 8, and 12. We then apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) model to position 11 diverse and state-of-the-art LLMs on the same ability scale as real student populations. Our findings reveal that, without guidance, strong general-purpose models consistently outperform the average student at every grade, while weaker or domain-mismatched models may align incidentally. Using grade-enforcement prompts changes models' performance, but whether they align with the average grade-level student remains highly model- and prompt-specific: no evaluated model–prompt pair fits the bill across subjects and grades, underscoring the need for new training and evaluation strategies. We conclude by providing guidelines for the selection of viable proxies based on our findings. All related code and data have been made available (https://github.com/kvadityasrivatsa/IRT-for-LLMs-as-Students).

Can LLMs Reliably Simulate Real Students' Abilities in Mathematics and Reading Comprehension?

This shared task has aimed to assess pedagogical abilities of AI tutors powered by large language models (LLMs), focusing on evaluating the quality of tutor responses aimed at student's mistake remediation within educational dialogues. The task consisted of five tracks designed to automatically evaluate the AI tutor's performance across key dimensions of mistake identification, precise location of the mistake, providing guidance, and feedback actionability, grounded in learning science principles that define good and effective tutor responses, as well as the track focusing on detection of the tutor identity. The task attracted over 50 international teams across all tracks. The submitted models were evaluated against gold-standard human annotations, and the results, while promising, show that there is still significant room for improvement in this domain: the best results for the four pedagogical ability assessment tracks range between macro F1 scores of 58.34 (for providing guidance) and 71.81 (for mistake identification) on three-class problems, with the best F1 score in the tutor identification track reaching 96.98 on a 9-class task. In this paper, we overview the main findings of the shared task, discuss the approaches taken by the teams, and analyze their performance. All resources associated with this task are made publicly available to support future
research in this critical domain (https://github.com/kaushal0494/UnifyingAITutorEvaluation/tree/main/BEA_Shared_Task_2025_Datasets).

Findings of the BEA 2025 Shared Task on Pedagogical Ability Assessment of AI-powered Tutors

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for AI-powered tutors in education highlights the need for reliable evaluation of their pedagogical abilities. In this work, we propose a reasoning-based evaluation methodology that leverages pedagogical domain knowledge to assess LLM-generated feedback in mathematical dialogues while providing insights into why a particular evaluation is given. We design structured prompts to invoke pedagogically-informed reasoning from LLMs and compare base model candidates selected for their strengths in reasoning, mathematics, and overall instruction-following. We employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), a reinforcement learning method known to improve reasoning performance, to train models to perform evaluation in four pedagogically motivated dimensions, Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Providing Guidance, and Actionability. Experimental results show that our GRPO-based models consistently outperform the base model and GPT-4.1, and surpass models trained using supervised fine-tuning in three out of four dimensions. Notably, our method achieved top-ranked performance in Actionability and competitive performance in two other dimensions in the BEA 2025 Shared Task under the team name bea-jh, underscoring the value of generating pedagogically grounded rationales for improving the quality of educational feedback evaluation.

bea-jh at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Evaluating AI-powered Tutors through Pedagogically-Informed Reasoning

This paper describes our approaches for the BEA-2025 Shared Task on assessing pedagogical ability and attributing tutor identities in AI-powered tutoring systems. We explored three methodological paradigms: in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Results indicate clear methodological strengths: SFT is highly effective for structured classification tasks such as mistake identification and feedback actionability, while ICL with advanced prompting excels at open-ended tasks involving mistake localization and instructional guidance. Additionally, fine-tuned models demonstrated strong performance in identifying tutor authorship. Our findings highlight the importance of aligning methodological strategy and task structure, providing insights toward more effective evaluations of educational AI systems.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

EduCSW: Building a Mandarin-English Code-Switched Generation Pipeline for Computer Science Learning

Similar lecture

Educators' Perceptions of Large Language Models as Tutors: Comparing Human and AI Tutors in a Blind Text-only Setting

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

EduCSW: Building a Mandarin-English Code-Switched Generation Pipeline for Computer Science Learning

Similar lecture

Educators' Perceptions of Large Language Models as Tutors: Comparing Human and AI Tutors in a Blind Text-only Setting

Downloads