Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Bridging the Novice-Expert Gap via Models of Decision-Making: A Case Study on Remediating Math Mistakes

Authors
Rose E. Wang,
Qingyang Zhang,
Carly Robinson,
Susanna Loeb,
Dorottya Demszky
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Scaling high-quality tutoring remains a major challenge in education. Due to growing demand, many platforms employ novice tutors who, unlike experienced educators, struggle to address student mistakes and thus fail to seize prime learning opportunities. Our work explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) to close the novice-expert knowledge gap in remediating math mistakes. We contribute Bridge, a method that uses cognitive task analysis to translate an expert's latent thought process into a decision-making model for remediation. This involves an expert identifying (A) the student's error, (B) a remediation strategy, and (C) their intention before generating a response. We construct a dataset of 700 real tutoring conversations, annotated by experts with their decisions. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on our dataset and find that the expert's decision-making model is critical for LLMs to close the gap: responses from GPT4 with expert decisions (e.g., "simplify the problem") are +76% more preferred than without. Additionally, context-sensitive decisions are critical to closing pedagogical gaps: random decisions decrease GPT4's response quality by -97% than expert decisions. Our work shows the potential of embedding expert thought processes in LLM generations to enhance their capability to bridge novice-expert knowledge gaps. Our dataset and code can be found at: \url{https://github.com/rosewang2008/bridge}.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can artificial intelligence help novice tutors address student math mistakes as effectively as expert teachers?
  • Setting and data: 700 real tutoring conversations annotated by experts with their decisions.
  • Method: Evaluation of AI model responses with and without expert decision-making guidance.
Why it matters

Scaling high-quality tutoring remains a major challenge in education. Due to growing demand, many platforms employ novice tutors who struggle to address student math mistakes and fail to seize prime learning opportunities.

Key findings
  • In 700 math tutoring conversations, AI responses guided by expert decision-making were 76% more preferred than responses generated without expert guidance.
  • Using random decisions instead of context-specific expert decisions decreased the AI tool's tutoring response quality by 97%.
  • Embedding expert educator thought processes into AI shows potential to bridge the pedagogical gap between novice and experienced tutors.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

Who is the user?
Who age?