Do LLM Tutors Actually Teach? A Process-Centered Synthesis of the Tutoring Loop

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.

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.

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.