Cited by 5Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The effect of metacognitive prompts using generative AI on cognitive load, task performance, and self-efficacy in online self-regulated learning

Joo, Sewon, Han, Insook, Park, Innwoo·2026·Educational Psychology

Abstract

Self-regulated learning is essential in online environments, where learners must manage large amounts of information, resulting in increased cognitive load and reduced task performance. While metacognitive prompts can support self-reflection and self-management, their classroom integration remains challenging. Recent advancements in generative AI, such as customised ChatGPT, provide new opportunities for more practical integration. To explore this potential, we conducted a study with 40 South Korean university students randomly assigned to either an experimental or a comparison group. All participants watched Python programming video lectures and completed problem-solving tasks using ChatGPT, but only the experimental group received metacognitive prompts. Cognitive load and self-efficacy were assessed through self-reported surveys, and task performance was evaluated based on problem-solving processes, outcomes, and retention tests. The results revealed significant group differences in problem-solving processes, with the experimental group showing a tendency towards lower cognitive load, higher self-efficacy, and improved task performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01443410.2026.2618717

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • These approaches keep students cognitively engaged and make it more difficult for them to drift into passive acceptance or superficial completion.

    “These approaches keep students cognitively engaged and make it more difficult for them to drift into passive acceptance or superficial completion (Lee et al., 2024; Joo et al., 2026; Lukešová & Jennings, 2025; Sun et al., 2026; R. Zhou et al., 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joo, S., Han, I., & Park, I.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Korea University (KR)
Corresponding author
Han, Insook
Venue
Educational Psychology
Published
2026-01-27
Pages
1-24
ISSN
  • 0144-3410 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5820
OpenAlex
W7125946877
Cited by
5
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
72.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
metacognitive prompts, generative AI, ChatGPT, cognitive load, self-efficacy, task performance, student self-regulation, online learning, programming education, problem solving, university students

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