CSTutorBench is introduced, a benchmark for evaluating language models as CS tutors in VEX VR, a block-based robotics environment, and preliminary findings reveal that models perform well on surface-level criteria such as vocabulary and tone but struggle with deeper pedagogical behaviors.
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly explored as AI tutors, yet deploying them in K-12 settings raises concerns around privacy, cost, and reliance on proprietary models. Small language models (SLMs) offer a promising alternative, but selecting the right model for a specific educational context remains difficult, particularly when the target domain, such as block-based programming, is largely absent from model training data. We introduce CSTutorBench, a benchmark for evaluating language models as CS tutors in VEX VR, a block-based robotics environment. The benchmark comprises 17 scenario-based questions scored against a pedagogical rubric grounded in established tutoring and feedback research, with a human-in-the-loop LLM-as-judge pipeline for evaluation. Preliminary findings across 11 models (4B-120B parameters) reveal that models perform well on surface-level criteria such as vocabulary and tone but struggle with deeper pedagogical behaviors, particularly avoiding answer leakage and engaging with student debugging histories. In our sample, model family and instruction-tuning approach appear to be better predictors of tutoring quality than parameter count alone, though the small number of models limits the strength of this conclusion. A targeted prompt revision grounded in recent educational prompt engineering research improved scores for 10 of 11 models. These results underscore the value of context-specific, pedagogically grounded benchmarks for SLM selection in educational deployment.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are predominantly assessed based on their common sense reasoning, language comprehension, and logical reasoning abilities. While models trained in specialized domains like mathematics or coding have demonstrated remarkable advancements in logical reasoning, there remains a significant gap in evaluating their code generation capabilities. Existing benchmark datasets fall short in pinpointing specific strengths and weaknesses, impeding targeted enhancements in models’ reasoning abilities to synthesize code.
To bridge this gap, this thesis introduces two novel contributions: CodeEval and CodeQual. CodeEval is an innovative, pedagogical benchmarking method that mirrors the evaluation processes encountered in academic programming courses. It comprises a multi-dimensional benchmark dataset of 602 hand-crafted problems designed to rigorously evaluate LLMs across 24 distinct aspects of Python programming, covering three proficiency levels—beginner, intermediate, and advanced—and includes both class-based and function-based problem types with detailed problem specifications and comprehensive test suites achieving 99.1% coverage. To facilitate widespread adoption, we developed RunCodeEval, an open-source execution framework that provides researchers with a ready-to-use evaluation pipeline. Our evaluation of 15 state-of-the-art LLMs revealed consistent performance degradation with increasing complexity (validated statistically, Cohen’s d = 0.790) and universal struggles with advanced concepts like concurrency.
Code quality is inherently subjective, encompassing dimensions like readability, efficiency, and adherence to language idioms that traditional static metrics fail to capture adequately. While large language models can assess these subjective qualities, lightweight models offer practical advantages: seamless CI/CD pipeline integration, lower operational costs, and full control over model behavior. We investigate whether such models can learn to assess code quality by training on synthetic LLM annotations. We introduce CodeQual, a dataset of 5,819 code samples derived from five established sources spanning diverse domains—competitive programming, pedagogical problems, software engineering, and general benchmarks—scored by LLMs across five quality dimensions, with 655 human-annotated samples for evaluation. Our fine-tuned model, CodeQualBERT, not only matches LLM performance but exceeds inter-human agreement on all five dimensions, achieving 16–100% improvement over the inter-human agreement baseline.
Together, these contributions provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating and improving LLMs in software engineering contexts, encompassing both functional correctness assessment and subjective code quality evaluation.
FATE (FLC AI Tutor Evaluator), a specialized 8B-parameter language model designed to evaluate AI tutors, is introduced, which assesses pedagogical ability across Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Guidance, and Actionability.
Tahmid Al Hannan, Diego García, Alex K Njoroge et al.· 0 citations
E EduGuard, a safe retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) tutoring framework for introductory programming, is presented and compared against strong baselines, suggesting safe GenAI tutoring requires not only retrieval or strong prompting, but explicit pedagogical control, evidence verification, and deployment safeguards.
S. Hossain, Ruksat Khan Shayoni, M. F. Mridha et al.· 0 citations
EduClaw-Bench is introduced, a benchmark that places an agent tutor in a continuous 30-day relationship with a simulated learner grounded in knowledge tracing (KT), whose knowledge-concept mastery, from a KT model trained on real-student data, drives its answers and is probed for learning gain across 55 scenarios.
Unggi Lee, Sookbun Lee, Yeil Jeong et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as AI tutors, but a correct answer is not always a pedagogically appropriate one. In classroom learning, effective help depends not only on correctness, but also on whether a response matches the learner's current foundation, the course sequence, and the timing of concept introduction. Existing evaluations focus mainly on answer quality, leaving this instructional fit under-measured. We present the Pedagogical Suitability Index (PSI), a composite metric of six theory-informed sub-scores that evaluates how well LLM-generated tutoring responses align with learner readiness and curricular progression, and we further use PSI as a structured feedback signal for response improvement. We evaluate four LLM tutors (ChatGPT, Gemini, Gemma4, and Qwen3) across 240 scenario-based evaluations using paired standard and defective prompts, then apply a PSI-guided regeneration protocol to 62 weak-performing cases. Baseline differences across the four tested models were modest overall (PSI range: 0.557 to 0.638), and open-weight and closed models did not exhibit a clear separation in pedagogical fit. Under the tested prompt perturbations, overall PSI remained largely stable (Delta = -0.002), though sub-score trade-offs emerged. More importantly, PSI-guided feedback substantially improved weak-performing cases: 51 of 62 cases improved (82.3%). Focused manual evaluation of the 62 PSI-selected weak cases provides initial evidence that the identified weaknesses are instructionally meaningful and that many PSI-guided regenerations correspond to human-judged improvement. These results suggest that learner- and curriculum-aware alignment may matter more for effective tutoring than model category alone, and that such alignment is both measurable and improvable.
Benjamin Barlog, Hudson Craig, Zedong Peng· 0 citations
Large language models are increasingly deployed in education as tutors, teaching assistants, and content generators. These roles place demands that ordinary question answering does not: a usable education-facing model is supposed to be accurate, safe under sensitive prompts, instructionally useful, and aligned with pedagogical goals at the same time. Existing benchmarks evaluate these requirements largely in isolation, so none assesses education-facing suitability as an integrated profile. We introduce ELBench, the first benchmark to evaluate all four requirements (General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation) on the same models under a common protocol, combining curated public sources with newly synthesized safety and cultivation data. We evaluate nine models, seven frontier general-purpose systems and two education-specialized variants, and report three findings. First, module-level profiles are more informative than a single aggregate: the top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall score, yet their module leaders differ substantially, and safety is anti-correlated with practical teaching (r = -0.83). Second, the Chinese-developed models lead the safety module, the most discriminative in the suite; this advantage is largest on region-specific normative content and narrows, but does not vanish, on universal-harm content. Third, the two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and on High-Level Cultivation all models share a systematic blind spot: on the structured judgment task they converge on the same non-reference option, favoring pedagogical style over fit to the stated goal, so the module scores uniformly low and does not separate models. This raises, but does not resolve, whether domain post-training keeps pace with frontier systems on education tasks.
Yilin Jiang, Xiaorong Zhu, Fei Tan et al.· 0 citations
