Cited by 27Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Asking generative artificial intelligence the right questions improves writing performance

Open access
Cheng, Yixin, Fan, Yizhou, Li, Xinyu, Chen, Guanliang, Gašević, Dragan, Swiecki, Zachari·2025·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools are widely used by learners and this trend is poised to continue. However, little is known about whether and how GenAI use impacts learning and performance. This study aimed to investigate the effect of GenAI on performance by examining a key affordance of GenAI—seeking help via question asking. We compared the questions that learners asked GenAI versus a human tutor online during a writing task. Using quantitative ethnographic methods, we found that: (a) participants in the GenAI condition asked significantly more questions compared to those in the Tutor condition; (b) GenAI participants tended to ask one-off questions, while Tutor participants tended to have longer conversational exchanges; (c) GenAI participants tended to question pragmatically, asking direct questions about conceptual and procedural knowledge, while Tutor participants tended to make indirect request for feedback; (d) question asking, as measured by epistemic network analysis, mediated the relationship between experimental condition and performance—the more pragmatic the questions, and thus the more like questions in the GenAI condition, the better the performance; and (e) questions in the GenAI condition were driven by social coordination and knowledge deficits, while questions in the Tutor condition were driven by social coordination and establishing common ground. These findings suggest learners may be less hesitant to admit knowledge deficits and more wi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100374

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The quality of GenAI output has been shown to be enhanced through an iterative interaction with the user.

    “In terms of professional output, GenAI has been found to produce good quality academic texts but can also produce ‘hallucinations’ of entirely fictitious ideas pre­ sented as facts (Babl & Babl, 2023 who asked the GenAI to write aca­ demic abstracts), although the quality of the output has been shown to be enhanced through an iterative interaction with the user (Yang et al., 2025, Cheng et al., 2”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, Y., Fan, Y., Li, X., Chen, G., Gašević, D., & Swiecki, Z.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Yixin
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-06
Volume
8
Pages
100374
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408049766
Cited by
21
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 7
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62407001)
  • Australian Research Council (DP240100069, DP220101209)
  • Jacobs Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
generative AI, questioning, human tutoring, writing performance, epistemic network analysis, knowledge deficit, social coordination, common ground, knowledge gaps, AI-assisted learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review