arXiv subjects

Jordan Gutterman

Publications and source records attributed to Jordan Gutterman.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Cross-Subject Predictive Validity for Learning Outcomes of Delayed Start Behavior

Behavioral detectors provide valuable insights into learner motivation and self-regulation. Among these, delayed start, a new session-level detector, has shown great promise as a valid behavioral measure that generalizes well across systems. In this paper, we examine cross-subject predictive validity of delayed start behavior. Using iReady data from 711 grade 7 students, we find delayed starts during Math practice are predictive of standardized test performance in both Math ($\beta$=.07 SD, p=.02) and English ($\beta$=.10 SD, p=<.001). Additionally, using mixture modeling and sensitivity analyses, we use a data-driven strategy to operationalize the identification of delayed starters in practice. We identify two underlying sub-groups of interest: "early starters" (<5 minute average delay, 20% of students) and "chronic delayers" (>13 minutes average delay, 20% of students). Relative to students in neither sub-group, early starters experienced greater growth (Math $\beta$=.11 SD, p=.07; ELA $\beta$=.15 SD, p=.02), while chronic delayers had the opposite trends (Math $\beta$=-.13 SD, p=0.05; ELA $\beta$=-.11 SD, p=0.11). Session-level measures provide a new opportunity for content-independent detectors, adding a behavioral component to the traditional usage and progress based on student engagement with content. This work aims to bridge education research with classroom practice by developing interpretable measures that align with behavioral cues teachers already use during classwork sessions to monitor and support students.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Improving Hybrid Human-AI Tutoring by Differentiating Human Tutor Roles Based on Student Needs

Hybrid human-AI tutoring, where technology and humans jointly facilitate student learning, can be more beneficial than AI-only tutoring. However, preliminary evidence suggests that lower-performing students derive greater benefit from human-AI tutoring than higher-performing students. As such, this study evaluates whether a differentiated tutoring policy can effectively support both groups: human tutors initiate support for lower-performing students, while higher-performing students receive reactive, on-demand support. Using their within-grade median state test scores, we assigned 635 students (grades 5-8) to receive proactive (< median) or reactive ($\geq$ median) tutoring. Using a DiDC design, we compare outcomes across two time periods: fall (AI-only tutoring) and spring (proactive-reactive human-AI tutoring). This quasi-experimental design isolates the effects of proactive-reactive tutoring approaches by comparing the discontinuity in spring outcomes to the fall, where no such discontinuity existed. Using data around the cutoff (Imbens-Kalyanaraman criterion), we find significant overall improvements from human-AI tutoring compared to AI-only baseline: 25% increase in time on task, 36% in skill proficiency, and 61% in academic growth (standardized MAP test). Between proactive and reactive tutoring, we find comparable improvements in time-on-task and skill proficiency. However, proactive tutoring, on average, showed marginally higher MAP growth (75%, p = .065) than reactive tutoring, i.e., proactive tutoring was more beneficial to students farther below the cutoff and helped narrow achievement gaps. Our findings provide evidence that differentiated human-AI tutoring addresses the needs of both groups, offering a practical and cost-effective strategy for scaling hybrid instruction.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Coasting Through Class: Learning Opportunity Loss from Practice Avoidance During Individual Seatwork

Measures of disengagement provide insights into unproductive use of learning opportunities. Although measures of active disengagement, such as gaming the system and mind-wandering, are well studied, loss of practice time due to outright task avoidance remains relatively understudied. The current study addresses this gap by extending existing within-task measures (idle time) with two new session-level measures (delayed start and early stop) to capture loss of practice time due to task avoidance. We characterize the combined lost time as coasted time and the associated behavior as coasting behavior. Using ASSISTments logs (N = 1,425), we find that students dedicate only 40% of available classwork time to math practice and coast through the remaining 60%. Of the coasted time, 36% resulted from delayed starts, 2% from mid-practice idling, and 62% from stopping early. Delayed start and early stop showed moderate temporal stability (G = 0.73 and 0.71, respectively), suggesting that coasting is a consistent behavioral pattern. Even after excluding early stops attributable to assignment completion (i.e., early stop = 0), coasted time remained substantial at 32%. While we observe significant differences in coasting by gender and IEP status, we do not observe them by other demographic factors or school locale. Critically, students who continued working beyond the first assignment completion ("extra effort") performed significantly better on standardized tests. For research, coasting offers a new lens on opportunity loss by combining session-level disengagement with within-task disengagement. For practitioners, our results highlight the need for platform affordances that support sustained engagement and more productive use of available practice time.

cs.CY↗