Automatically Inferring Teachers' Geometric Content Knowledge: A Skills Based Approach
On the map: LLM reasoning → Spatial and embodied reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Assessing teachers' geometric content knowledge is essential for geometry instructional quality and student learning, but difficult to scale. The Van Hiele model characterizes geometric reasoning through five hierarchical levels. Traditional Van Hiele assessment relies on manual expert analysis of open-ended responses. This process is time-consuming, costly, and prevents large-scale evaluation. This study develops an automated approach for diagnosing teachers' Van Hiele reasoning levels using large language models grounded in educational theory. Our central hypothesis is that integrating explicit skills information significantly improves Van Hiele classification. In collaboration with mathematics education researchers, we built a structured skills dictionary decomposing the Van Hiele levels into 33 fine-grained reasoning skills. Through a custom web platform, 31 pre-service teachers solved geometry problems, yielding 226 responses. Expert researchers then annotated each response with its Van Hiele level and demonstrated skills from the dictionary. Using this annotated dataset, we implemented two classification approaches: (1) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and (2) multi-task learning (MTL). Each approach compared a skills-aware variant incorporating the skills dictionary against a baseline without skills information. Results showed that for both methods, skills-aware variants significantly outperformed baselines across multiple evaluation metrics. This work provides the first automated approach for Van Hiele level classification from open-ended responses. It offers a scalable, theory-grounded method for assessing teachers' geometric reasoning that can enable large-scale evaluation and support adaptive, personalized teacher learning systems.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Spatial and embodied reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.
Builds on
8 of 32 references.
References · 8
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
- 2024The Faiss librarycited by 376
- 2023Applying Large Language Models and Chain-of-Thought for Automatic Scoringcited by 69
- 2022No Task Left Behind: Multi-Task Learning of Knowledge Tracing and Option Tracing for Better Student Assessmentcited by 8
- 2020Neural Multi-Task Learning for Teacher Question Detection in Online Classroomscited by 6
- 2024Evaluating Students' Open-ended Written Responses with LLMs: Using the RAG Framework for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Largecited by 6
- 2024Beyond Scores: A Modular RAG-Based System for Automatic Short Answer Scoring with Feedbackcited by 5
- 2024Toward Optimal Search and Retrieval for RAGcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025An Ontology-Based Approach to Optimizing Geometry Problem Sets for Skill Development
- 2024Mathfish: Evaluating Language Model Math Reasoning via Grounding in Educational Curricula
- 2025Benchmarking Large Language Models for Diagnosing Students' Cognitive Skills from Handwritten Math Work
- 2026MisEdu-RAG: A Misconception-Aware Dual-Hypergraph RAG for Novice Math Teachers
- 2025Personalized Auto-Grading and Feedback System for Constructive Geometry Tasks Using Large Language Models on an Online Math Platform
- 2026GeoMathCode: Understanding Interleaved Math-Code Reasoning for Geometry Problem Solving
- 2025GeoSense: Evaluating Identification and Application of Geometric Principles in Multimodal Reasoning
- 2025DrawEduMath: Evaluating Vision Language Models with Expert-Annotated Students' Hand-Drawn Math Images