Abstract:Recent work has explored the use of large language models for generating tutoring responses in mathematics, yet it remains unclear how closely their instructional behavior aligns with expert human practice. We examine this question using a controlled, turn-level comparison in which expert human tutors, novice human tutors, and multiple large language models respond to the same set of math remediation conversation turns. We examine both instructional strategies and linguistic characteristics of tutoring responses, including restating and revoicing, pressing for accuracy, lexical diversity, readability, politeness, and agency. We find that large language models approach ex…
Abstract:Recent work has explored the use of large language models for generating tutoring responses in mathematics, yet it remains unclear how closely their instructional behavior aligns with expert human practice. We examine this question using a controlled, turn-level comparison in which expert human tutors, novice human tutors, and multiple large language models respond to the same set of math remediation conversation turns. We examine both instructional strategies and linguistic characteristics of tutoring responses, including restating and revoicing, pressing for accuracy, lexical diversity, readability, politeness, and agency. We find that large language models approach expert levels of perceived pedagogical quality on average but exhibit systematic differences in their instructional and linguistic profiles. In particular, large language models tend to underuse restating and revoicing strategies characteristic of expert human tutors, while producing longer, more lexically diverse, and more polite responses. Statistical analyses show that restating and revoicing, lexical diversity, and pressing for accuracy are positively associated with perceived pedagogical quality, whereas higher levels of agentic and polite language are negatively associated. Overall, recent large language models exhibit levels of perceived pedagogical quality comparable to expert human tutors, while relying on different instructional and linguistic strategies. These findings underscore the value of analyzing instructional strategies and linguistic characteristics when evaluating tutoring responses across human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2512.20780 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2512.20780v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.20780 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Segun Aroyehun [view email] [v1] Tue, 23 Dec 2025 21:29:09 UTC (56 KB)