Effective tutoring requires distinguishing optimal, valid but suboptimal, and incorrect student solutions, a distinction central to intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) but untested for LLM-based tutors. As LLMs are increasingly explored as conversational complements to ITS, evaluating their diagnostic precision is essential. We present a benchmark of seven LLM feedback agents in propositional logic using knowledge-graph-derived ground truth across 10,836 solution--feedback pairs and three feedback conditions. Models achieved near-ceiling performance on optimal steps but systematically over-rejected valid but suboptimal reasoning and over-validated incorrect solutions, precisely where adaptive tutoring matters most. These failures persisted across models regardless of solution context, suggesting architectural rather than informational limits. Moreover, accurate diagnosis did not reliably produce pedagogically actionable feedback, revealing a gap between diagnostic judgment and instructional effectiveness. Our findings suggest that LLMs are better suited for hybrid architectures where KG-grounded models handle diagnosis while LLMs support open-ended scaffolding and dialogue.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as AI tutors, but a correct answer is not always a pedagogically appropriate one. In classroom learning, effective help depends not only on correctness, but also on whether a response matches the learner's current foundation, the course sequence, and the timing of concept introduction. Existing evaluations focus mainly on answer quality, leaving this instructional fit under-measured. We present the Pedagogical Suitability Index (PSI), a composite metric of six theory-informed sub-scores that evaluates how well LLM-generated tutoring responses align with learner readiness and curricular progression, and we further use PSI as a structured feedback signal for response improvement. We evaluate four LLM tutors (ChatGPT, Gemini, Gemma4, and Qwen3) across 240 scenario-based evaluations using paired standard and defective prompts, then apply a PSI-guided regeneration protocol to 62 weak-performing cases. Baseline differences across the four tested models were modest overall (PSI range: 0.557 to 0.638), and open-weight and closed models did not exhibit a clear separation in pedagogical fit. Under the tested prompt perturbations, overall PSI remained largely stable (Delta = -0.002), though sub-score trade-offs emerged. More importantly, PSI-guided feedback substantially improved weak-performing cases: 51 of 62 cases improved (82.3%). Focused manual evaluation of the 62 PSI-selected weak cases provides initial evidence that the identified weaknesses are instructionally meaningful and that many PSI-guided regenerations correspond to human-judged improvement. These results suggest that learner- and curriculum-aware alignment may matter more for effective tutoring than model category alone, and that such alignment is both measurable and improvable.
Large language model tutors are easy to build in a notebook and hard to run in a real course. We describe ITAS (Intelligent Teaching Assistant System), a multi-agent tutoring system that a graduate quantum computing course used for a semester at Old Dominion University. The system has three layers. The teaching layer is a Spoke-and-Wheel of three parallel specialist agents (Video, Code, Guidance) followed by a Synthesizer, plus a separate autograder that evaluates both the correctness and the approach of checkpoint submissions. The operational layer is four Cloud Run microservices with session state in Cloud SQL and interaction events streamed through Pub/Sub to BigQuery. The feedback layer is a narrow-scope conversational agent that answers instructor questions over per-lesson pseudonymized event streams, addressing what we call the Blind Instructor Problem: LLM tutors accumulate more data about students than the instructor can reach through routine channels. The architecture is a direct response to specific failures of an earlier prototype, and we describe which of those fixes carried forward and which were dropped for this iteration. We report on a pilot deployment (five students, one course, one semester) interpreted as system-behavior evidence rather than learning-outcome evidence: the teaching layer handled 334 chat turns without the task-boundary hallucinations that domain consolidation would have risked, the operational layer captured 10,628 events across five modules, and the feedback layer surfaced two findings the instructor acted on mid-semester. We do not claim the pilot generalizes. We do claim that the system as described is one workable answer to the question of what an LLM-based ITS needs to look like end-to-end to run in a real course.
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.