Search and Filter

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

INSIDE the Student's Mind: Jointly Modeling Latent Reasoning and Action in LLM Student Simulators

Date
Publisher
arXiv
Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulators often reproduce observable actions but fail to capture the underlying reasoning behind them. In education, where student simulation is increasingly used for various applications such as evaluating tutoring systems, this gap is especially pronounced. Two students may submit identical submissions for entirely different reasons. We present INTERNAL STUDENT DIALOGUE (INSIDE), a student modeling framework that fine-tunes LLMs not only to act like students but also to think like them. INSIDE generates internal dialogue grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy across cognitive, affective, and action dimensions, and fine-tunes models on paired think traces and actions. We baseline against different prompting frameworks and evaluate on two axes: fidelity of simulated actions and quality of generated internal dialogue. Our evaluations show that INSIDE improves simulation fidelity in both action fidelity, matching code generation of real students, and reasoning alignment, achieving the highest alignment across models up to 57.9%.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can training language models to generate internal reasoning before writing code improve simulations of student learning behavior?
  • Setting and data: Introductory college programming course at UC Berkeley, Spring 2024 and Spring 2025, 924 students and 13,227 code submissions.
  • Method: Machine learning model development and comparative benchmark evaluation against prompted and fine-tuned language models.
Why it matters

AI-based student simulators often mimic surface actions but fail to capture the reasoning behind them, limiting their ability to diagnose misconceptions and evaluate tutoring systems.

Key findings
  • Fine-tuning models on reconstructed internal dialogue achieved the closest match to real student code distributions and the highest reasoning alignment, reaching up to 57.9%.
  • Fine-tuned models successfully replicated real students' gradual learning curves and incremental progress, whereas prompted models showed unrealistically high pass rates from the start.
  • Prompting-based models showed high internal consistency between their own reasoning and code, but produced poor action fidelity when matching real student submission trajectories.

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

What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?