ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Mapping the Distribution and Depth of Metacognitive Processes in Generative AI-Assisted Learning: Evidence from Interaction Logs and Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocols.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used as a cognitive aid in education, yet no single process measure captures how learners monitor and control GenAI-assisted work. Guided by a reciprocal monitoring-control account of metacognition, this descriptive, exploratory study examined what interaction logs and concurrent think-aloud speech make observable during a 90 min instructional-design task. Seventy-nine undergraduates from 11 majors completed the task with DeepSeek support. The same two-dimensional rubric was applied separately to both records: each retained semantic unit received one primary operational category (planning, monitoring, or regulation) and one evidence-depth label (implicit, awareness, strategic, or reflective). Planning was treated as prospective control and regulation as adaptive control after evaluation or feedback. The interaction-log and think-aloud records yielded 274 and 193 retained instances, respectively. In both sources, regulation was the most frequent primary label and monitoring the least frequent, while evidence-depth ratings were concentrated at awareness and strategic. The combined strategic and reflective share was 25.4 percentage points higher in think-aloud than in interaction-log monitoring units and 9.9 points higher in think-aloud than in interaction-log planning units; for regulation, it was 14.0 points higher in interaction-log than in think-aloud units. These aggregate contrasts are descriptive because coded instances are nested within participants and the sources are paired within individuals. The central contribution is that verbalized monitoring information and enacted control leave different observable traces. Combining the sources therefore provides a fuller account of metacognitive activity than either record alone, without establishing monitoring accuracy, process effectiveness, or learning outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.