Hybrid LLM-Embedded Dialogue Agents for Learner Reflection: Designing Responsive and Theory-Driven Interactions
Organizations: University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA · Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA · Bowie State University Bowie, Maryland, USA
Abstract
Dialogue systems have long supported learner reflections, with theoretically grounded, rule-based designs offering structured scaffolding but often struggling to respond to shifts in engagement. Large Language Models (LLMs), in contrast, can generate context-sensitive responses but are not informed by decades of research on how learning interactions should be structured, raising questions about their alignment with pedagogical theories. This paper presents a hybrid dialogue system that embeds LLM responsiveness within a theory-aligned, rule-based framework to support learner reflections in a culturally responsive robotics summer camp. The rule-based structure grounds dialogue in self-regulated learning theory, while the LLM decides when and how to prompt deeper reflections, responding to evolving conversation context. We analyze themes across dialogues to explore how our hybrid system shaped learner reflections. Our findings indicate that LLM-embedded dialogues supported richer learner reflections on goals and activities, but also introduced challenges due to repetitiveness and misalignment in prompts, reducing engagement.
Figures & tables
by coding'' to the system's prompt, which failed the relevance check and triggered the LLM to reprompt with That's a great starting point! What specific coding skills or tools do you think you'll use to make your robot walk and talk?''| Category | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| LLM Triggers | Under this category, we specifically looked for instances where LLM was triggered for learner goals, plans, activities, feelings. This also includes changes in these components. We also noted instances where LLM failed to trigger. | Robot: No worries! What would you like to do instead? (Goal) Robot: That’s a great starting point! What specific coding skills or tools do you think you’ll use to make your robot walk and talk? (Plan) |
| LLM Reprompts | Under this category, we coded for if the LLM reprompts were either in-context with the conversation and learner inputs or were they out of context. We also looked for instances where the response contained hallucination or bias. | Robot: That’s alright, not every day is about finishing. Sometimes just trying counts too! Can you think of one thing you started, explored, or even just thought about today? (in-context) Robot: Her hair is an interesting choice. Can you think of a way that working on her hair might be connected to what we talked about earlier, like building a robot that can walk and talk? (out-of-context) |
| Learner Reflection | Under this category, we coded for if the learner reflected on their design goals, plans, actions, or changes to these components or their feelings. We also code for if any of these reflections were elicited due to an LLM reprompt in the previous turn. | Learner: I think I’ll do it by putting fur on you (Action) Learner: I coded my robot to move and say word problems (Goal) (LLM) |
| Emotion | Under this category, we coded for explicit mentions of positive sentiments (or logical reasoning steps) and negative sentiments. The default code under this category was neutral. | Learner: because i love robots (positive) Learner: leaveeeeeee meeeeee alone (negative) Learner: make you move (neutral) |
| Engagement | We this category, we coded for explicit moments which defined high-engagements (providing elaborate response) or low-engagements (mentioning the intention not to talk, or a continuous sequence of “no” in response) | Learner: ok but i have to go bye (low-engagement) Learner: move right for 3 secs and then you’ll spin and dance just move your arms (high-engagement) |
| Category | Metric | Total | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Session Overview | |||
| Dialogue Turns | 357 | 39.66 (6.46) | |
| Session Duration (min) | – | 6.00 (2.00) | |
| 2. Turn-Level Metrics | |||
| System Turns | 213 | 23.67 (3.64) | |
| Learner Turns | 144 | 16.00 (2.91) | |
| Evaluation | Metric | Count / Mean (SD) |
| 1. Response Verbosity | ||
| Learner response word count before LLM prompt or re-prompt | 2.59 (1.13) | |
| Immediate learner response word count post LLM prompt or re-prompt | 3.55 (3.07) | |
| Expansion Factor b/w post prompt (or re-prompt) and pre prompt lengths | 1.75 (3.27) | |
| 2. Relevance Check Quality | ||
| LLM correctly triggered (TP) | 23 | |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.