arXiv preprint ·
Student-LLM Interactions During Math Learning: Limited Epistemic Proactivity Overall, but Within-chat Change Predicts Performance Without AI
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for learning, raising a key question: can learners remain epistemically proactive, retaining responsibility for the cognitive and regulatory activities through which learning is produced while working with AI? Because this responsibility may change as interactions unfold, we examine epistemic proactivity as a developing process. We conceptualize epistemic proactivity through self-regulated learning (SRL) moves, complemented by help-seeking strategies and manifestations of epistemic vigilance. We analyzed these behaviors in 880 substantive turns from 112 secondary-school students completing open-ended mathematical-modeling practice with a general-purpose LLM (Mistral). Overall, students showed limited observable epistemic proactivity: their interactions were strongly request-dominated, with planning, monitoring, and evaluation relatively rare, although low-quality AI responses elicited more explicit evaluation. Temporal analyses qualified this picture: explicit SRL-related moves increased modestly over the chat, but help-seeking strategies became less understanding-oriented. Crucially, these temporal trajectories in help-seeking strategies predicted their post-test performance without AI beyond pre-test and aggregate patterns: students whose requests became more understanding-oriented performed better once AI assistance was removed. Thus, while students had a limited epistemic proactivity overall, its temporal development still was a critical predictor of post-test performance without AI. These results underscore the importance of examining the temporal organization of epistemic proactivity, rather than isolated prompt types, for understanding AI-supported learning. We release our fully-anonymized dataset publicly in an OSF repository.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computers & Society
From the Gettier Machine to Justified True Output: A Three-Step Account of Rational Trust in Generative AI
Unlocking with the Heart: Investigating User Perceptions of ECG-Based Biometric Authentication
Beauty Is Human: When People Love AI-Generated Art, They Think a Human Made It
Does the Citation Matter? Quality, Grounding, and Physician-Rubric Accuracy of Google's AI Overviews for Medical Information
IKTRACE: A Natural Language Processing Framework for Identifying Indigenous Knowledge Representation in Academic Literature
Get the few papers worth your time in Computers & Society every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.