Examining Variation in How Guided AI Tutors Resolve Student Impasses
Abstract: When a student is stuck, a tutor faces the assistance dilemma: help given too early can hinder productive struggle, while help withheld too long leaves the student in a frustrating, persistent impasse (i.e., wheel spinning). Generative AI tutors increasingly use guardrails restricting answer-giving, yet little is known about how such tutors behave once an impasse persists. We analyze 20,462 student turns from 1,260 authentic sessions with a guided LLM chemistry tutor, identifying 6,630 impasse turns of three major types: conceptual errors, expressed uncertainty, or help-seeking. We then used these impasses to simulate three tutoring conditions to study variation in AI tutor guidance through impasses: baseline, no-direct-answer, and guided tutor. For a sample of 150 impasses, prompt specificity changed pedagogy: a baseline tutor provided the answer directly in 50.7% of responses, a no-direct-answer tutor asked a follow-up question every time, and the guided tutor responded in a wide variety of ways depending on the context. We then analyzed impasse trajectories in authentic interactions, finding that each additional impasse turn lowered the odds of next-turn recovery by 12.7% (AOR = 0.873, p < .001), and early dropouts were caught in recursive concept elicitation before reaching execution. The benefit of questioning decayed as impasses persisted (scripted question x depth AOR = 0.78; follow-up x depth AOR = 0.83), whereas addressing the student's error grew more beneficial (AOR = 1.14); after a failed scripted question, repeating it was followed by recovery in 28.1% of cases, compared with 39.8% when the tutor addressed the error instead. For learning analytics, these findings identify impasse depth and type as observable, turn-level dialogue signals that analytics can use to trigger graduated, state-sensitive assistance in real time.
Submission history
Access Paper:
Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Research
All newsAligned Data Can Induce Misalignment via Context Confusion
Large language models (LLMs) are frequently updated for various use cases, where filtering out misaligned training samples is a common practice for preventing post-update misalignment. However, alignment is inherently context-dependent: a recommendation that is aligned in one context may be inappropriate in another. For example, in response to the question "What should a researcher do with the research data?", recommending that the researcher preserve the data for reproducibility is aligned. In contrast, recommending data saving in response to "What should a mobile-app developer do with users…
Read at arXiv cs.AIAREX-2: Advancing Self-Improving Agents through Long-Horizon Reflective Tasks
We present AREX-2, an effort to advance the self-improving capability of LLM agents, which we define as the ability to iteratively refine a solution at test time. This ability rests on two complementary capabilities: reflection, which produces a solution better than the current one, and long-horizon execution, which keeps the iteration effective over many rounds. We hypothesize that both capabilities are domain-agnostic, and can therefore be learned in scenarios that are well suited for supervision. Accordingly, we synthesize long-horizon improvement trajectories from machine learning and alg…
Read at arXiv cs.AIMoFlow: Multi-Objective Agentic Workflow Generation
We study the generation of agentic workflows that jointly optimize multiple objectives, such as accuracy, cost, latency, robustness, and consistency. Existing methods for workflow generation typically optimize accuracy alone or a weighted sum of objectives, so each trained generator commits to one fixed trade-off and must be retrained from scratch when preferences change. To alleviate this, we propose MoFlow, which generates workflows optimized across varied preferences. Specifically, MoFlow formulates workflow generation as a multi-objective Markov decision process and solves it by leveragin…
Read at arXiv cs.AIDecode-Latency Feedback Prefill: A Model-Free Controller and Its Generalization Limits
Concurrent autoregressive inference creates a fundamental interference problem: prefilling a newly arrived long prompt can delay tokens for requests that are already decoding. Fixed prefill chunks reduce this interference, but the best chunk size depends on the model, hardware, load, and latency objective. We introduce Decode-Latency Feedback Prefill (DLFP), a model-free controller that changes only prefill work that overlaps active decodes. After a guarded scheduling cycle, DLFP uses the observed interval as proportional feedback to resize the next prefill chunk; isolated prefills remain unr…
Read at arXiv cs.AI