12,445 papers · continuously updated · last export: 10 Aug 2026livingmeta.ai
← Browse all papers
AI evidence extraction

Intelligent Tutoring for Law Courses: Design and Evaluation of an LLM-based System

Florian Weber, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Thiemo Wambsganß, Matthias Soellner · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · 2025

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

6/10
Relevance
0/4
Quality (LMQS)
D
Evidence
0
Citations
0.00
FWCI

Methodology & findings

Study design

Design science research approach consisting of two phases: (1) requirements derivation through interviews with 14 law students, and (2) quantitative evaluation study with 40 business and law students.

Primary method

Design science research

Main result

The study evaluated CaseCoach's effectiveness through a quantitative study involving 40 business and law students. The abstract indicates the system was "designed to support students in solving complex legal problems through conversational tutoring," and the research "contributes to the development of interactive intelligent tutoring systems and expands design knowledge for AI-based educational technologies in technology-mediated learning environments."

Research paradigm

Design science research

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "Our research contributes to the development of interactive intelligent tutoring systems and expands design knowledge for AI-based educational technologies in technology-mediated learning environments," indicating that CaseCoach represents a meaningful advance in AI-based educational system design.

Risk of bias

Small sample size (n=40) may limit generalizability; Potential selection bias in recruitment of law and business students; No mention of control group in abstract, suggesting possible lack of comparison condition; No information on blinding or allocation concealment; Potential self-selection bias in the interview phase (n=14); Small sample size for quantitative study (n=40); Participant selection bias from interviews (n=14 law students); Potential self-selection bias in user study participation; Small sample size (40 students) may limit generalizability; Self-selection bias in student participation; Potential Hawthorne effect from being observed in tutoring system study

Open questions raised

  • The paper identifies the need for better support of legal writing and problem-solving through technology-mediated learning, particularly in addressing the challenge that "Many students, however, find legal writing challenging because of its complex reasoning and formal conventions."
Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 64%

Explore related topics

AI Literacy TrainingDoctoral TrainingDesign Science

Related papers

← Browse all papers