CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 8Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningReflective Practices in Education

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Generative AI as a Tool for Enhancing Reflective Learning in Students

Open access
Yuan, Bo, Hu, Jiazi·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2412.02603arXiv 2412.02603
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reflection is widely recognized as a cornerstone of student development, fostering critical thinking, self-regulation, and deep conceptual understanding. Traditionally, reflective skills have been cultivated through structured feedback, mentorship, and guided self-assessment. However, these approaches often face challenges such as limited scalability, difficulties in delivering individualized feedback, and a shortage of instructors proficient in facilitating meaningful reflection. This study pioneers the use of generative AI, specifically large language models (LLMs), as an innovative solution to these limitations. By leveraging the capacity of LLMs to deliver personalized, context-sensitive feedback at scale, this research investigates their potential to serve as effective facilitators of reflective exercises, sustaining deep engagement and promoting critical thinking. Through in-depth analyses of prompt engineering strategies and simulated multi-turn dialogues grounded in a project-based learning (PBL) context, the study demonstrates that, with pedagogically aligned prompts, LLMs can serve as accessible and adaptive tools for scalable reflective guidance. Furthermore, LLM-assisted evaluation is employed to objectively assess the performance of both tutors and students across multiple dimensions of reflective learning. The findings contribute to the evolving understanding of AI's role in reflective pedagogy and point to new opportunities for advancing AI-driven intelligent tutoring systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.02603

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 The Gibbs Reflective Cycle. This six-stage framework supports reflective learning by guiding individuals through description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action planning. It provides a systematic approach to evaluating experiences, deriving meaningful insights, and formulating strategies for improvement.
Fig. 1 The Gibbs Reflective Cycle. This six-stage framework supports reflective learning by guiding individuals through description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action planning. It provides a systematic approach to evaluating experiences, deriving meaningful insights, and formulating strategies for improvement.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 The functional diagram of an ITS, illustrating four key components and their relationships. The student module continuously updates based on learner input; the tutoring module consults both the domain and student modules to generate personalized feedback; the interface functions by delivering adaptive guidance to the learner and collecting learner responses for system updates.
Fig. 2 The functional diagram of an ITS, illustrating four key components and their relationships. The student module continuously updates based on learner input; the tutoring module consults both the domain and student modules to generate personalized feedback; the interface functions by delivering adaptive guidance to the learner and collecting learner responses for system updates.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 Distribution of popular keywords across reflective dialogue sessions.
Fig. 3 Distribution of popular keywords across reflective dialogue sessions.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. E. Boyd and A. Fales, "Reflective learning: Key to learning from experience," Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 23(2), pp. 99-117, 1983.
  2. Ö. Ayduk and E. Kross, "From a distance: Implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 98(5), pp. 809-829, 2010.
  3. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, et al., "Language models are few-shot learners," 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1877-1901, 2020.
  4. A. Extance, "ChatGPT has entered the classroom: How LLMs could transform education," Nature, vol. 623, pp. 474-477, 2023.
  5. J. Anderson, C. Boyle, and B. Reiser, "Intelligent tutoring systems," Science, vol. 228(4698), pp. 456-462, 1985.
  6. H. Nwana, "Intelligent tutoring systems: An overview," Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 4, pp. 251-277, 1990.
  7. G. Gibbs, Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, 1988.
  8. C. Lin, A. Huang, and O. Lu, "Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: A systematic review," Smart Learning Environments, vol. 10, Article: 41, 2023.
  9. R. Chughtai, S. Zhang, and S. Craig, "Usability evaluation of intelligent tutoring system: ITS from a usability perspective," Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 59(1), pp. 367-371, 2015.
  10. J. Stamper, R. Xiao, and X. Hou, "Enhancing LLM-based feedback: Insights from intelligent tutoring systems and the learning sciences," 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, CCIS 2150, pp. 32-43, Springer, 2024.
  11. Y. Bai, J. Li, J. Shen, and L. Zhao, "Investigating the efficacy of ChatGPT-3.5 for tutoring in Chinese elementary education settings," IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 17, pp. 2102-2117, 2024.
  12. Y. Li, L. Sha, L. Yan, J. Lin, M. Raković, K. Galbraith, et al., "Can large language models write reflectively," Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, Article: 100140, 2023.
  13. H. Kumar, R. Xiao, B. Lawson, I. Musabirov, J. Shi, X. Wang, et al., "Supporting self-reflection at scale with large language models: Insights from randomized field experiments in classrooms," 11th ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, ACM, pp. 86-97, 2024.
  14. P. Guo, N. Saab, L. Post, and W. Admiraal, "A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures," International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 102, Article: 101586, 2020.
  15. L. Giray, "Prompt engineering with ChatGPT: A guide for academic writers," Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 51, pp. 2629-2633, 2023.
  16. J. Rogers, S. Peecksen, M. Douglas, and M. Simmons, "Validation of a reflection rubric for higher education," Reflective Practice, vol. 20(6), pp. 761-776, 2019.
  17. L. Zheng, W. Chiang, Y. Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhuang, et al., "Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and Chatbot Arena," 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 46595-46623, 2023.
  18. M. Wankhade, A. Rao, and C. Kulkarni, "A survey on sentiment analysis methods, applications, and challenges," Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 55, pp. 5731-5780, 2022.
  19. B. Cabello and N. Burstein, "Examining teachers' beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms," Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 46(4), pp. 285-294, 1995.
  20. C. Zhai, S. Wibowo, and L. Li, "The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: A systematic review," Smart Learning Environments, vol. 11, Article: 28, 2024.
  21. J. Lee, Y. Hicke, R. Yu, C. Brooks, and R. Kizilcec, "The life cycle of large language models in education: A framework for understanding sources of bias," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 55(5), pp. 1982-2002, 2024.
  22. S. Farquhar, J. Kossen, L. Kuhn, and Y. Gal, "Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy," Nature, vol. 630, pp. 625-630, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Metadata

Authors
Yuan, B., & Hu, J.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
ORCID
Yuan, Bo
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2412.02603
arXiv
2412.02603
OpenAlex
W4405057119
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
Keywords
generative AI, large language models, reflective learning, reflective practice, personalized feedback, prompt engineering, project-based learning, intelligent tutoring systems, critical thinking, student self-regulation

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Generative AI as a Tool for Enhancing Reflective Learning in Students. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2412.02603
The paper
Yuan, B., & Hu, J. (2024). Generative AI as a Tool for Enhancing Reflective Learning in Students. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2412.02603