Metacognition meets AI : Empowering reflective writing with large language models
Open accessAbstract
Reflective writing is known as a useful method in learning sciences to improve the metacognitive skills of students. However, students struggle to structure their reflections properly, limiting the possible learning gains. Previous works in educational technologies literature have explored the paradigms of learning from worked and modelling examples, but (a) their application to the domain of reflective writing is rare, (b) such methods might not scale properly to large‐scale classrooms, and (c) they do not necessarily take the learning needs of each student into account. In this work, we suggest two approaches of integrating AI‐enabled support in digital systems designed around learning from worked and modelling examples paradigms, to provide personalized learning and feedback to students using large language models (LLMs). We evaluate Reflectium, our reflective writing assistant, show benefits of integrating AI support into the learning from examples modalities and compare the perception of the users and their interaction behaviour when using each version of our tool. Our work sheds light on the applicability of generative LLMs to different types of providing support using the learning from examples paradigm, in the domain of reflective writing. Practitioner notes: What is already known about this topic Reflective writing fosters metacognitive skills and improves learning gains and personal growth. The learning from worked and modelling examples paradigms is effective for skill acquisition and applying the acquired knowledge. Existing reflective writing assistants usually lack dynamic, AI‐driven feedback or interactivity, limiting personalization and adaptability to each user's own needs in the learning process. What this paper adds It introduces Reflectium, an AI‐enabled reflective writing assistant, integrating intelligent and interactive writing support for both the learning from worked and modelling examples paradigms. It demonstrates the use of a fine‐tuned large language model (LLM) for providing feedback in the learning from worked examples version, and an LLM‐powered conversational agent simulating instructor interactions for the learning from modelling examples version. It reports findings from a user study comparing the positive impact of artificial intelligence (AI) support on learners' performance, interaction behaviour and learning experience. Implications for practice and/or policy Digital tutoring systems for teaching reflective writing using the learning from worked examples paradigm should incorporate adaptive AI feedback to enhance learning gains. Conversational agents simulating peers/instructors and powered by LLMs can provide scalable, interactive support for learning from modelling examples, notably in large‐scale educational settings. Reflective writing tools should be evaluated for their impact on different aspects of the learning process, such as task performance, interaction behaviour and user experience, to guide future improvements. Educators and policymakers should consider the integration of AI‐driven reflective writing tools into teaching curricula to enhance reflective practices and metacognitive skill development.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Effective AI use helps students develop critical and metacognitive skills when implemented through guided, reflective practices rather than passive consumption.
“Studies have shown that effective AI use helps students develop critical and metacognitive skills when implemented through guided, reflective practices rather than passive consumption (Essel et al., 2024; Neshaei et al., 2025).”
From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Neshaei et al., 2025
genAI provides novel affordances previously limited by technological capabilities, such as adaptive and interactive feedback.
“genAI provides novel affordances previously limited by technological capabilities, such as adaptive and interactive feedback (Bauer, Richters, et al., 2025;Neshaei et al., 2025).”
From How do students regulate their learning with a genAI chatbot? (2026) · cites this paper as Neshaei et al., 2025
Cites
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later
Hart, S. G. (2006) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120605000909 · Cited by 4,297 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design
Sweller, J. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 · Cited by 3,801 · see citing works
The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review
Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818 · Cited by 883 · see citing works
Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses
Chin, C. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690600621100 · Cited by 566 · see citing works
(2013) · doi:10.4324/9781315059051 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Mirowski, P., Mathewson, K. W., Pittman, J., & Evans, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581225 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants
Lee, M., Gero, K. I., Chung, J. J. Y., Shum, S. B., Raheja, V., Shen, H., Venugopalan, S., Wambsganss, T., Zhou, D., Alghamdi, E. A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Self-citationAL: An Adaptive Learning Support System for Argumentation Skills
Wambsganss, T., Niklaus, C., Cetto, M., Söllner, M., Handschuh, S., & Leimeister, J. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376732 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Kim, J., Suh, S., Chilton, L. B., & Xia, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3563657.3595996 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Kumar, H., Xiao, R., Lawson, B., Musabirov, I., Shi, J., Wang, X., Luo, H., Williams, J. J., Rafferty, A. N., Stamper, J., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale · doi:10.1145/3657604.3662042 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Neshaei, S. P., Rietsche, R., Su, X., & Wambsganss, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645169 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yan, L., Pammer‐Schindler, V., Mills, C., Nguyen, A., & Gašević, D. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70000 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Jayasinghe, S., Gamage, K. A. A., Yang, D., Cheng, C., Disanayake, C., & Apeji, U. D. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16010137 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
How do students regulate their learning with a genAI chatbot?
Lim, L., & Bannert, M. (2026) · Learning Letters · doi:10.20851/ll.v8.61
- Authors
- Neshaei, S. P., Mejia‐Domenzain, P., Davis, R. L., & Käser, T.
- Affiliations
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Neshaei, Seyed Parsa
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-05-12
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1864-1896
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W4410305657
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 7
- FWCI
- 40.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- infoscience.epfl.ch
- Licence
- Locations
- British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Singapore Eye Research Institute
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
- Keywords
- reflective writing, metacognition, large language models, AI-generated feedback, chatbots, personalized learning, user experience, generative AI in education, fine-tuned language models
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