基本信息
- 来源: arxiv
- 原始来源: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.28470v1
- 发布域名: arxiv.org
- 分类: cs.AI
- 作者: Curtis Northcutt、Inaara Hasmani、Kevin Feng 等
要点解读
这是什么
这是一篇关于 AI 教学评估平台的研究，展示了 AI 导师在 GRE 学习和人类导师在多项指标上的对比结果。
用在哪里
适合教育技术研究、AI 导师开发以及高校教学评估人员参考，以判断 AI 辅导在标准化考试中的实际效果。
可以推断的
推测：在真实课堂或在线学习环境中，使用类似平台的 AI 辅导可能提升学生的学习效率。
推测：若 AI 导师在教学设计上与人类专家相当，成本优势可能使其成为大规模考试的辅助工具。
来源摘要/节选
Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advancing model capabilities. We introduce StudentBench, a suite of AI teaching evaluations and a public platform that enables large-scale data collection with over 175,000 student-AI messages to study whether large language models (LLMs) produce learning gains equivalent to human tutoring. Using StudentBench, we measured learning gains on Quantitative and Verbal GRE questions across 2,383 human participants receiving AI tutoring, human tutoring, or no tutoring. We establish that AI tutoring is statistically equivalent to expert human tutoring for GRE learning gains (p = .015), and in five of the seven GRE domains, the best performing AI tutor surpassed the human tutor, on average. In a second study, expert human tutors compared LLM-generated lesson plans and practice problems through 2,028 pairwise rubric evaluations. Together, the two studies clearly separate AI tutors across: (1) lesson planning, (2) practice-problem creation, (3) conversational pedagogy, (4) cost, and (5) engagement. Surprisingly, one AI tutor achieved learning gains equivalent to human tutoring (p = .044) at 918 times lower cost (USD 0.0052 for AI versus USD 4.81 for human, per percentage point gained). For Quantitative GRE sessions, faster AI replies correlated with more student messages, more messages with more correct practice, and more correct practice with larger learning gains (all p < .002). The StudentBench platform is freely available at https://studentbench.org .
来源说明
当前保存的是来源摘要，不代表论文全文。请以原始来源为准。
「要点解读」由 AI Stack 依据上方已保存内容整理，不代表来源的完整表述；标注「推测：」的判断来自编辑，不是来源陈述。