Tutor Move Taxonomy: A Theory-Aligned Framework for Analyzing Instructional Moves in Tutoring

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide conversational practice for English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners. Effective ESL tutoring, however, requires more than fluent response generation: a tutor must select an appropriate pedagogical action based on learner behavior and dialogue context. Human-tutoring research offers principles for adaptive support, but they are often task-specific and remain insufficiently integrated into LLM-based ESL tutor training and evaluation. We present TACT (Taxonomy-Aligned Conversational Tutor), a human-grounded framework for post-training and evaluating pedagogically adaptive ESL tutors. Drawing on established literature, we develop two complementary taxonomies: the Tutor-Strategy Taxonomy with 13 tutor response strategies and the Student-Move Taxonomy characterizing learner behavior by move type and status. Using these taxonomies, we construct TACTCorpus, which enriches 260 authentic teacher-student conversations with 32,379 annotations and quality-controlled augmented training data. We then post-train Qwen3.5-4B through supervised fine-tuning followed by taxonomy-aligned Group Relative Policy Optimization, producing TACTutor and optimizing it for scaffolding quality rather than reference imitation alone. On TACTBench, a strategy-balanced diagnostic benchmark comprising 78 authentic tutoring contexts, TACTutor improves over its backbone by 20.30% and outperforms all evaluated proprietary baselines under the same protocol, while maintaining backbone performance on established external educational benchmarks; in a blinded study with 50 learners, it also receives the highest overall mean rating among the evaluated tutors. We release the data, benchmark, and model weights, providing an open foundation for developing pedagogically adaptive ESL tutors.

Adaptive scaffolding enhances learning, yet the field lacks robust methods for measuring it within authentic tutoring dialogue. This gap has become more pressing with the rise of remote human tutoring and large language model-based systems. We introduce an embedding-based approach that analyzes scaffolding dynamics by aligning the semantics of dialogue turns, problem statements, and correct solutions. Specifically, we operationalize alignment by computing cosine similarity between tutor and student contributions and task-relevant content. We apply this framework to 1,576 real-world mathematics tutoring dialogues from the Eedi Question Anchored Tutoring Dialogues dataset. The analysis reveals systematic differences in task alignment and distinct temporal patterns in how participants ground their contributions in problem and solution content. Further, mixed-effects models show that role-specific semantic alignment predicts tutorial progression beyond baseline features such as message order and length. Tutor contributions exhibited stronger grounding in problem content early in interactions. In contrast, student solution alignment was modestly positively associated with progression. These findings support scaffolding as a continuous, role-sensitive process grounded in task semantics. By capturing role-specific alignment over time, this approach provides a principled method for analyzing instructional dialogue and evaluating conversational tutoring systems.

Existing student models in educational applications largely focus on student responses to questions. However, as tutoring becomes more accessible at large scale, it is important to analyze dialogues between tutors and students, which may reveal fine-grained evidence on student knowledge. In this work, we propose a unified framework that models both student responses to questions and tutor-posed subtasks during dialogues on a shared item response theory (IRT) scale. We first identify mathematical subtasks in tutoring dialogues, rewrite them into self-contained questions, and identify the correctness of student responses to these subtasks. We then develop an IRT framework that estimates question/subtask difficulty from text, tracks students' evolving abilities across question-answering and dialogue interactions, and a novel method to leverages tutor moves between consecutive subtasks to regularize their difficulty values. We evaluate our framework on two real-world math education datasets containing both human- and AI-tutored dialogues. Results show that our framework outperforms strong baselines on both question difficulty prediction and response correctness prediction.