LLM Pedagogical Behavior in AI Tutoring Interactions

A central pedagogical value evaluated in AI tutor benchmarks is scaffolding: guiding students through graduated steps toward a solution. Alignment and evaluation methods for embedding scaffolding behaviour into chatbots, however, rest on an implicit assumption: that students will take up the scaffolding and engage in the conversation. To examine whether this assumption holds, we introduce an evaluation pipeline around two metrics - Chatbot Scaffolding and Student Uptake - and apply them across nine datasets of 9,490 chats, spanning AI tutor benchmarks and real-world deployments of educational chatbots. Our analysis reveals that while benchmarks assume a high-scaffolding, high-student-uptake environment, students in real-world settings exhibit lower levels of uptake overall - frequently bypassing the chatbot's pedagogical framing to drive the interaction toward their own learning goals at little interpersonal cost. We argue that bypassing scaffolding is not necessarily detrimental; rather, it frequently highlights a mismatch between a chatbot's pedagogical framing and the student's learning goals. To meaningfully evaluate the effectiveness of a chatbot's assistance, future benchmarks must move beyond the assumption that students will simply take up the scaffolding, and instead evaluate how these chatbots navigate diverse learning contexts and student-driven interaction patterns.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide personalized support in learning, several studies have raised concerns regarding their use in education. Importantly, learning depends on how students engage with LLMs. This study examined how two types of LLM-based tutors shape students' prompting practices, learning, and subsequent LLM-use: a Socratic-Guidance (SG) tutor, which structures interaction through dialogic questioning, and a Prompt-Refinement (PR) tutor that guides the formulation of effective prompts. We conducted a two-phase study in a graduate-level mobile robotics course: 66 students used either the SG or PR tutor during a 6-week intervention, followed by 52 students using an unconstrained LLM during a 3-week course project. Results show that while the SG- and PR tutors led to similar task performance and prompting patterns during guided use, they differ in learning outcomes and later LLM-use. SG-students, relative to PR-student, achieved higher learning gains in later sessions, and were more likely to adopt understanding-driven prompting strategies, which are predictive of higher understanding, when using an unconstrained LLM. Although learners perceived the SG tutor as less efficient, the findings suggest that Socratic guidance supports the development of students' capacity to learn with LLMs over time, highlighting its importance for LLM tutor design.

LLM tutoring poses a measurement problem: can a general-purpose helpfulness rubric distinguish direct answer-giving from pedagogical guidance? We audit this signal in a pre-registered study. Within each of three tutor bases, we compare conversational and pedagogical policies instantiated with the same underlying model and paired with one fixed weak simulated student. Deterministic detectors measure answer leakage and next-turn independent work. Claude Opus 4.8 is the frozen, condition-blind primary judge. After the Opus scores were fixed, GPT-5.6 Sol was prospectively specified for a post hoc robustness audit of the same 1,179 confirmatory answer-phase tutor turns under the frozen helpfulness and pedagogy rubrics. On the primary base under Opus, the policies do not differ significantly in helpfulness but are perfectly rank-separated under the pedagogy rubric (Cliff's $|δ|{=}0.10$ vs. $1.0$). Across the two judges, pedagogy contrasts retain their direction where detected, whereas the helpfulness ordering is judge-contingent, reversing between judges on two of three bases. In an Opus-only ablation, seven primary-base policies span $2.3$ points in mean judged pedagogy within a $0.25$-point band of mean judged helpfulness. Separately, answer-revealing turns are followed by less independent student work on every base, a result that is judge-invariant by construction. In this controlled setting, general-purpose helpfulness is not a reliable pedagogy signal. Tutor evaluation should pair pedagogy-targeted rubrics with deterministic process measures.