When LLM Tutoring Responses Work: Evidence from Student Programming Conversations

As students increasingly use LLM tutors in computer science education, one question becomes especially important: what kind of response helps a student continue productively? Prior work has studied how students use LLMs in computer science education, but less is known about how tutoring response styles are associated with student follow-up across programming help-seeking contexts. This paper analyzes StudyChat (UMass, 2026), a public dataset of student and ChatGPT tutoring conversations from an artificial intelligence course. We transformed StudyChat into 16,851 assistant-response interactions from 203 students and 2,214 conversations. Using local LLM-assisted annotation with Gemma 4, we labeled student help-seeking situations, student state, assistant response style, and student next-turn outcome. Human validation showed 82\% agreement with the LLM-assisted labels (Cohen's $\kappa=.74$). We analyzed productive continuation and unresolved continuation across the full dataset and across help-seeking contexts. Globally, response style was significantly associated with productive continuation, $\chi^2(7)=100.39$, $p<.001$, $V=.078$, and unresolved continuation, $\chi^2(7)=125.77$, $p<.001$, $V=.087$, though effect sizes were small. Verification feedback had the highest productive-continuation rate (82.4\%), while direct answers had the lowest (62.7\%). Descriptively, response-style score ranges were smallest in low-confusion conceptual contexts (.017) and largest in high-cognitive-load contexts (.203). More detailed comparisons showed situation-dependent response patterns. For example, stepwise guidance was followed by greater confusion decrease in high-cognitive-load code requests, while direct answers were followed by more unresolved continuation in high-load debugging. These findings support context-aware evaluation and design of AI tutoring responses for programming education.