Generative AI has been found, and will likely be found increasingly, useful in education. However, existing AI-for-education studies provide inconsistent evidence on its average effects. More broadly, research on prior educational technologies shows that average effects often mask substantial heterogeneity across student populations. Motivated by this evidence, this study examines heterogeneity in students'learning behavior with AI, which students benefit from AI assistance, and how learner profiles and learning behavior shape these patterns. To this end, we recruited 318 university students to participate in structured learning experiments lasting up to 125 minutes. Our findings indicate that students'learning behavior is strongly associated with learning outcomes, with behaviors characterized by proactive and critical engagement, rather than limited engagement, associated with significantly better performance. These behavioral differences are related to learner profiles, with students from higher-ranking universities and those with greater prior knowledge tending to benefit more, consistent with their greater likelihood of adopting proactive interaction strategies. Accounting for learning behavior substantially weakens or eliminates the associations between learner profiles and learning outcomes, suggesting that how students use AI is a key pathway through which background differences are linked to learning gains. Overall, this work provides a deeper understanding of AI assistance in education by showing how differences in learner profiles and learning behavior shape who benefits from AI-supported learning. These insights can help educators and students better navigate and integrate AI into educational practices.
Jingwei Yi, Yueqi Xie, Jiyan He et al.· 0 citations
Complex tasks often decompose into parallelizable yet interdependent subtasks, making orchestration critical to the performance of multi-agent systems (MAS). Existing evaluations typically rely on end-to-end execution, which conflates orchestration-plan quality with worker capabilities, tool reliability, and environmental noise. Moreover, the time and token costs of real execution grow rapidly with workflow scale, making systematic evaluation expensive. We present OrchBench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating multi-agent orchestration plans in isolation. Starting from real-world tasks, OrchBench constructs directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that encode task dependencies, with controlled sizes and degrees of parallelism. Given a DAG, a per-agent context limit, and an agent budget, the evaluated planner assigns subtasks to agents and specifies cross-agent information transfers and their retention ratios. A deterministic simulator evaluates the resulting plan without invoking worker agents and returns interpretable measures of result quality, makespan, and token cost. The simulated scores produced by OrchBench correlate strongly with quality scores from Claude Code executions, achieving a Pearson correlation of \(r=0.816\), while requiring only \(1.3\%\) of the tokens and \(10.3\%\) of the wall-clock time. Across diverse planners and workflow scales, we find that preserving task-critical information is more important than simply increasing the number of agents, and the benefits of parallelism diminish as coordination failures accumulate. These results establish OrchBench as an efficient and interpretable benchmark for comparing and diagnosing multi-agent orchestration plans.
