CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Struggle First, Prompt Later: How Task Complexity Shapes Learning with GenAI-Assisted Pretesting

Open access
Akgun, Mahir, Toker, Sacip·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2504.10249arXiv 2504.10249
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examines the role of AI-assisted pretesting in enhancing learning outcomes, particularly when integrated with generative AI tools like ChatGPT. Pretesting, a learning strategy in which students attempt to answer questions or solve problems before receiving instruction, has been shown to improve retention by activating prior knowledge. The adaptability and interactivity of AI-assisted pretesting introduce new opportunities for optimizing learning in digital environments. Across three experimental studies, we explored how pretesting strategies, task characteristics, and student motivation influence learning. Findings suggest that AI-assisted pretesting enhances learning outcomes, particularly for tasks requiring higher-order thinking. While adaptive AI-driven pretesting increased engagement, its benefits were most pronounced in complex, exploratory tasks rather than straightforward computational problems. These results highlight the importance of aligning pretesting strategies with task demands, demonstrating that AI can optimize learning when applied to tasks requiring deeper cognitive engagement. This research provides insights into how AI-assisted pretesting can be effectively integrated with generative AI tools to enhance both cognitive and motivational outcomes in learning environments.

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.2504.10249

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Emerging evidence suggests that adaptive AI-supported pretesting enhances learning and engagement, particularly for tasks requiring conceptual integration or iterative reasoning.

    “Emerging evidence suggests that adaptive AI-supported pretesting enhances learning and engagement, particularly for tasks requiring conceptual integration or iterative reasoning [1].”

    From Do Gains from Generative AI-Enabled Adaptive Pretesting Persist? Evidence from a Retention Study (2026) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Adaptive AI-supported pretesting enhances learning and engagement, particularly for tasks requiring conceptual integration or iterative reasoning.

    “Emerging evidence suggests that adaptive AI-supported pretesting enhances learning and engagement, particularly for tasks requiring conceptual integration or iterative reasoning [1].”

    From Do Gains from Generative AI-Enabled Adaptive Pretesting Persist? Evidence from a Retention Study (2026) · cites this paper as [1]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Saskia Giebl, Stefany Mena, Benjamin C Storm, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork, and Robert A Bjork. Answer first or google first? using the internet in ways that enhance, not impair, one's subsequent retention of needed information. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 20(1):58-75, 2021.
  2. Lindsey E Richland, Nate Kornell, and Liche Sean Kao. The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3):243, 2009.
  3. Faria Sana and Shana K Carpenter. Broader benefits of the pretesting effect: Placement matters. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(5):1908-1916, 2023.
  4. Steven C Pan, Faria Sana, Joshua Samani, James Cooke, and Joseph A Kim. Learning from errors: Students' and instructors' practices, attitudes, and beliefs. Memory, 28(9):1105-1122, 2020.
  5. Steven C Pan and Shana K Carpenter. Prequestioning and pretesting effects: a review of empirical research, theoretical perspectives, and implications for educational practice. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4):97, 2023.
  6. Kalif E Vaughn and Katherine A Rawson. When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory? Psychonomic bulletin & review, 19:899-905, 2012.
  7. Steven C Pan and Faria Sana. Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(2):237, 2021.
  8. Matthew Fisher, Mariel K Goddu, and Frank C Keil. Searching for explanations: How the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 144(3):674, 2015.
  9. Saskia Giebl, Stefany Mena, Riley Sandberg, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork, and Robert A Bjork. Thinking first versus googling first: Preferences and consequences. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(3):431, 2023.
  10. Tanmay Sinha and Manu Kapur. When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5):761-798, 2021.
  11. Ruiqi Deng, Maoli Jiang, Xinlu Yu, Yuyan Lu, and Shasha Liu. Does chatgpt enhance student learning? a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, page 105224, 2024.
  12. Andy Field and Graham J. Hole. How to Design and Report Experiments. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 2002.
  13. Tammi Vacha-Haase and Bruce Thompson. How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. Journal of counseling psychology, 51(4):473, 2004.
  14. Shana K Carpenter. Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6):1547, 2011.
  15. Jeffrey D Karpicke, Melissa Lehman, and William R Aue. Retrieval-based learning: An episodic context account. In Psychology of learning and motivation, volume 61, pages 237-284. Elsevier, 2014.
  16. Edward McAuley, Terry Duncan, and Vance V Tammen. Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 60(1):48-58, 1989.
  17. Jiaqi Yin, Tiong-Thye Goh, Bing Yang, and Yang Xiaobin. Conversation technology with micro-learning: The impact of chatbot-based learning on students' learning motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1):154-177, 2021.
  18. Andy Field. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE Publications Ltd, 5 edition, 2017. 5th Edition.
  19. Hiroko Kawaguchi Warshauer. Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18:375-400, 2015.
  20. James Hiebert and Douglas A Grouws. The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students' learning. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 1(1):371-404, 2007.
  21. Mina Lee, Megha Srivastava, Amelia Hardy, John Thickstun, Esin Durmus, Ashwin Paranjape, Ines Gerard-Ursin, Xiang Lisa Li, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, et al. Evaluating human-language model interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09746, 2022. · arXiv
  22. Nate Kornell, Matthew Jensen Hays, and Robert A Bjork. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4):989, 2009.
  23. Nate Kornell. Attempting to answer a meaningful question enhances subsequent learning even when feedback is delayed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1):106, 2014.
  24. Shana K Carpenter, Shuhebur Rahman, and Kyle Perkins. The effects of prequestions on classroom learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1):34, 2018.
  25. Elizabeth J Marsh and Suparna Rajaram. The digital expansion of the mind: Implications of internet usage for memory and cognition. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1):1-14, 2019.
  26. Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, and Daniel M Wegner. Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. science, 333(6043):776-778, 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akgun, M., & Toker, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2504.10249
arXiv
2504.10249
OpenAlex
W4415160275
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 in education, ChatGPT, task complexity, higher-order thinking skills, student motivation, prior knowledge activation, adaptive learning, exploratory tasks, learning outcomes, student engagement

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