CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsArtificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Learning-to-learn in the age of generative AI: a scoping review and conceptual framework

Open access
Schorr, Isabel, Bardach, Lisa, Bühler, Babette, Kasneci, Enkelejda·2026·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100575
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With the rapid integration of generative AI (GenAI) into higher education, concerns over cognitive offloading, overreliance, and diminished critical thinking underscore an urgent need to prioritize learning-to-learn (L2L) competencies. However, the lack of a clear and detailed conceptualization of L2L, a key 21st-century skill for lifelong learning, hinders interdisciplinary research and limits the development of informed, pedagogically sound AI applications. This paper presents a scoping review of L2L definitions within pedagogical and psychological literature, based on sources retrieved from ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review follows the PRISMA-ScR framework and identifies 21 relevant publications. We propose a novel three-layered framework organized by conceptual broadness: Dimensions (dispositions like cognitive and metacognitive skills), Processes (actionable activities such as self-regulation), and Tools (concrete strategies like retrieval practice), providing entry points for researchers from varying disciplines. We further highlight existing GenAI research efforts addressing these layers, outline current limitations, and propose directions for future exploration, with a focus on higher education. By unifying L2L theory with GenAI practice, this framework provides an actionable foundation for educational technologies in an AI-driven era. • Three-layer learning-to-learn (L2L) framework (Dimensions, Processes, Tools) to guide AI‑enhanced learning system design.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100575

Cites

56 of 56 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schorr, I., Bardach, L., Bühler, B., & Kasneci, E.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Kaunas University of Technology (LT)
Corresponding author
Schorr, Isabel
ORCID
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-06
Volume
10
Pages
100575
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100575
OpenAlex
W7134232003
Cited by
3
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
43.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Jacobs Foundation
  • Baden-Württemberg Stiftung (P-EDU-23-28)
  • Kauno Technologijos Universitetas
  • Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba
  • Technische Universität München
  • European Commission (10-044-P-0001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
meta-learning, generative AI, higher education, cognitive offloading, overreliance on AI, critical thinking, metacognitive skills, student self-regulation, retrieval practice, learner agency, conceptual framework

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