The strategic surface learner is the lowest-scoring Stage 2 profile for 15 of 17 models, averaging 0.702 versus 0.757 across the other profiles¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Stage 2 situated tutoring, the shortcut-seeking strategic surface learner profile is the lowest-scoring of six profiles for 15 of 17 models, averaging 0.702 versus 0.757 across the other profiles. → Zixin Chen 2026

Evidence¶

Zixin Chen 2026¶

Zixin Chen, Peng Liu, Rui Sheng, Haobo Li, Jianhong Tu, Xiaodong Deng, Kashun Shum, Dayiheng Liu, Huamin Qu. (2026). Are Agents Ready to Teach? A Multi-Stage Benchmark for Real-World Teaching Workflows. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14322 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14322

q2 · i? · design · r?

Descriptive contrast from the Stage 2 results across the 17-model evaluation. The profile remains interactive but solicits shortcuts or answer confirmation; the article reports the averages 0.702 versus 0.757 and calls the gap consistent with difficulty preserving learner agency under apparent cooperation.

"In Stage 2, the strategic surface learner is the lowest-scoring of six profiles for 15 of 17 models, averaging 0.702 versus 0.757 across the other profiles."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The six long-chain Stage 3 workflows average 0.321 versus 0.559 across all other Stage 3 tasks and are the lowest-scoring family for 15 of 17 models — related
• Claude Opus 4.8 has the highest overall score (0.803) and is the only model ranking in the top three on all three stages, yet does not saturate situated tutoring (0.773) or workflows (0.704) — related
• Across 17 frontier models, Stage 1 pedagogical-judgment scores are high (mean 0.893) while rank correlations with Stage 2 (ρ=0.24) and Stage 3 (ρ=0.21) are weak, with workflow scores topping out at 0.704 — related