Catching The Correct Answer Trap: Characterising AI Tutor Blind Spots When Analysing Student Reasoning

Automated feedback systems that rely on answer correctness will reinforce, rather than address, misconceptions when students reach the correct answer through flawed reasoning. We investigate automatic detection of these hidden misconceptions using 20,964 real student responses from the Eedi mathematics platform. Fine-tuned classifiers detect only 57% of these hidden misconceptions, and standard ML interventions do not improve on this. An open-weight reasoning model detects 84%, but at realistic prevalence, false alarms outnumber genuine detections roughly 8 to 1. We present a graduated assessment rubric that separates answer correctness from method validity, and propose a detect-verify-escalate pipeline that routes uncertain cases to diagnostic follow-up questions rather than directly to teachers. Two deployment modes adapt the pipeline: a teacher dashboard where the system filters a review queue, and an autonomous tutor where flags trigger low-cost formative follow-up.

Large language model (LLM) tutors often produce fluent step-by-step explanations, but a correct and pedagogically formatted response does not guarantee that the answer was derived from the student-facing problem. In realistic tutoring systems, the model may also have access to teacher notes, answer keys, rubrics, or retrieved solution artifacts. We study whether such private answer information can make tutor explanations answer-driven: the final answer is behaviorally available before the written explanation has justified it. Using Truncated Reasoning AUC Evaluation (TRACE), which probes how early a chain-of-thought prefix can pass a verifier, we evaluate 1000 GSM8K test problems under three paired tutoring contexts: question-only, correct answer-key, and wrong answer-key. At fixed fractions of each generated explanation, we force the model to answer immediately and verify the response against the gold numeric answer. With Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct, answer-key access raises median TRACE AUC from 0.375 to 0.900 and makes the gold answer available at the first 10% prefix in 997 of 1000 cases. The effect remains strong on the 746 examples where both question-only and answer-key explanations end with the correct answer. These results support truncated CoT auditing as a lightweight process-level diagnostic for answer-driven reasoning in math tutoring explanations.

Modeling student misconceptions in a realistic manner is critical for AI in education. In this work, we examine how large language models (LLMs) reason about misconceptions when generating distractor answers for multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a task that requires producing answers that are incorrect, yet plausible. We introduce a taxonomy over reasoning strategies for distractor generation that is grounded in learning-science literature and empirical observation, which we apply to LLM-generated reasoning traces across math and science MCQs. On the math dataset, we find that models follow a misconception-based process with potentially high diagnostic value: they recover the correct solution, articulate student errors, simulate them, and select plausible candidates. On the science dataset, on the other hand, they tend to follow a less robust approach based on semantic similarity to the correct answer. We find the most frequent failure modes to be that the model is unable to generate a correct solution or that it discards plausible distractor candidates when performing selection. Providing the correct solution in the prompt yields a relative improvement of 6.4% in alignment with human-authored distractors, highlighting the critical role of anchoring distractor generation to the correct solution. Together, our findings offer an interpretable view of how LLMs model incorrect student reasoning.