arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2509.01914

How Real Is AI Tutoring? Comparing Simulated and Human Dialogues in One-on-One Instruction

Ruijia Li·Yuan-Hao Jiang·Jiatong Wang·Bo Jiang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Heuristic and scaffolded teacher-student dialogues are widely regarded as critical for fostering students' higher-order thinking and deep learning. However, large language models (LLMs) currently face challenges in generating pedagogically rich interactions. This study systematically investigates the structural and behavioral differences between AI-simulated and authentic human tutoring dialogues. We conducted a quantitative comparison using an Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) coding scheme and Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA). The results show that human dialogues are significantly superior to their AI counterparts in utterance length, as well as in questioning (I-Q) and general feedback (F-F) behaviors. More importantly, ENA results reveal a fundamental divergence in interactional patterns: human dialogues are more cognitively guided and diverse, centered around a "question-factual response-feedback" teaching loop that clearly reflects pedagogical guidance and student-driven thinking; in contrast, simulated dialogues exhibit a pattern of structural simplification and behavioral convergence, revolving around an "explanation-simplistic response" loop that is essentially a simple information transfer between the teacher and student. These findings illuminate key limitations in current AI-generated tutoring and provide empirical guidance for designing and evaluating more pedagogically effective generative educational dialogue systems.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CLcs.MA

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ruijia Li, Yuan-Hao Jiang, Jiatong Wang, Bo Jiang. 2025-09-02. How Real Is AI Tutoring? Comparing Simulated and Human Dialogues in One-on-One Instruction. https://doi.org/10.58459/icce.2025.6066

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.CL subjectcs.MA subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MAS-ProVe: Understanding the Process Verification of Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit high variance in their reasoning trajectories. Process verification, which evaluates intermediate steps in trajectories, has shown promise in general reasoning settings, and has been suggested as a potential tool for guiding coordination of MAS; however, its actual effectiveness in MAS remains unclear. To fill this gap, we present MAS-ProVe, a systematic empirical study of process verification for multi-agent systems (MAS). Our study spans three verification paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reward models, and process reward models), evaluated across two levels of verification granularity (agent-level and iteration-level). We further examine five representative verifiers and four context management strategies, and conduct experiments over six diverse MAS frameworks on multiple reasoning benchmarks. We find that process-level verification does not consistently improve performance and frequently exhibits high variance, highlighting the difficulty of reliably evaluating partial multi-agent trajectories. Among the methods studied, LLM-as-a-Judge generally outperforms reward-based approaches, with trained judges surpassing general-purpose LLMs. We further observe a small performance gap between LLMs acting as judges and as single agents, and identify a context-length-performance trade-off in verification. Overall, our results suggest that effective and robust process verification for MAS remains an open challenge, requiring further advances beyond current paradigms. Code is available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/MAS-ProVe.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

ChatDev 2.0: A No-Code Multi-Agent Platform for Developing Everything

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown strong potential for solving complex tasks, yet their development forces a tradeoff: code frameworks are expressive but engineering-intensive, while no-code builders simplify authoring but constrain agent interactions to author-defined workflows. We present ChatDev 2.0: DevAll (hereafter DevAll), a no-code platform for building, executing, and inspecting heterogeneous MAS that delivers both high expressiveness and ease of use. In terms of expressiveness, DevAll pairs a declarative executable graph abstraction with a cycle-aware execution engine, so that heterogeneous agents and dynamic and cyclic interactions can be represented and executed within a single framework. For ease of use, an integrated visual interface lets users author, run, monitor, and inspect MAS, including human-in-the-loop steps, entirely without writing code. Experiments demonstrate that DevAll reproduces state-of-the-art MAS across three representative tasks at competitive performance and without task-specific orchestration code, highlighting its effectiveness as a general-purpose platform for LLM-based MAS. DevAll is available at https://github.com/OpenBMB/ChatDev.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

MA-RAG: Multi-Agent Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Query-Driven Summarization of Longitudinal Parkinson's Disease Assessments

Accurate interpretation of single-visit and longitudinal clinical assessments for Parkinson's disease is time-consuming and often depends on specialist expertise. Although large language models (LLMs) can generate natural language summaries, they frequently lack domain-specific clinical grounding and struggle to produce factually correct and temporally consistent responses for structured longitudinal assessment data. To address these limitations, we propose MA-RAG, a query-driven multi-agent retrieval-augmented generation framework that decomposes clinical reasoning into domain-specialized agents, combines structured fact extraction, and synthesizes clinically grounded summaries through a final verification stage. The framework supports four clinical analysis tasks: single-session, trajectory, comparison, and cohort summarization. We evaluate MA-RAG using objective metrics, namely Fact Precision, Hallucination Rate, Temporal Fidelity, and Semantic Similarity, together with subjective evaluations conducted by clinical experts. Compared to Traditional, RAG-only, and Single-agent RAG baselines, MA-RAG substantially improves factual correctness, achieving up to a 122% relative increase in Fact Precision (from 0.436 to 0.990) and reducing the Hallucination Rate by up to 98% (from 0.564 to 0.010), while consistently receiving top ratings from clinical experts for organization and clinical usefulness. These results demonstrate that domain-specialized multi-agent reasoning enables reliable query-driven summarization of structured longitudinal clinical assessment data.

cs.CL↗