How well do Large Language Models Recognize Instructional Moves? Establishing Baselines for Foundation Models in Educational Discourse

TL;DR

This study evaluates how well large language models can classify instructional moves in educational transcripts without customization, revealing moderate performance that improves with prompt design but remains limited in reliability.

Contribution

It provides the first baseline assessment of foundation models' ability to interpret authentic educational discourse using standard prompting methods.

Findings

Few-shot prompting improves classification performance.

Performance varies significantly across different instructional moves.

Higher recall often increases false positives.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in educational technologies for a variety of tasks, from generating instructional materials and assisting with assessment design to tutoring. While prior work has investigated how models can be adapted or optimized for specific tasks, far less is known about how well LLMs perform at interpreting authentic educational scenarios without significant customization. As LLM-based systems become widely adopted by learners and educators in everyday academic contexts, understanding their out-of-the-box capabilities is increasingly important for setting expectations and benchmarking. We compared six LLMs to estimate their baseline performance on a simple but important task: classifying instructional moves in authentic classroom transcripts. We evaluated typical prompting methods: zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting. We found that while zero-shot performance was moderate, providing comprehensive examples (few-shot prompting) significantly improved performance for state-of-the-art models, with the strongest configuration reaching Cohen's Kappa = 0.58 against expert-coded annotations. At the same time, improvements were neither uniform nor complete: performance varied considerably by instructional move, and higher recall frequently came at the cost of increased false positives. Overall, these findings indicate that foundation models demonstrate meaningful yet limited capacity to interpret instructional discourse, with prompt design helping to surface capability but not eliminating fundamental reliability constraints.