Human–GenAI collaborative interactions show promise for supporting metacognition and sociometacognition, based on an exploratory expert case study¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer?·q1
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? A case study of expert use of a chat-based generative AI tool indicates the feasibility of human–computer collaborative interactions supporting metacognition and sociometacognition. → Borge 2024
Evidence¶
Borge 2024¶
Borge, M., Smith, B.K. & Aldemir, T. (2024). Using generative ai as a simulation to support higher-order thinking. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 19, 479–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-024-09437-0
q1 · i? · qualitative · r?
Exploratory case study of expert use of a chat-based generative AI tool, examining "the feasibility of using human–computer collaborative interactions to support metacognition and sociometacognition". No effect sizes are printed; findings are described as initial and limited by case-based methods.
"We present a case study of expert use of a chat-based generative AI tool to examine the feasibility of using human–computer collaborative interactions to support metacognition and sociometacognition"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Self-Regulation — outcome: instruction changes it
- Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Human teacher–GenAI collaboration in embodied mathematics learning calls for a complementary interaction model combining AI feedback with human metacognitive guidance — related
- Perceived GenAI role is systematically associated with metacognitive dimensions activated: replacement-tool users show no evaluation or elaboration, collaborator users show predominantly higher-order activity — related
- Process mining shows the ChatGPT group's revision loop centred on consulting ChatGPT, while the human-expert group strengthened connections between revising and reading, orientation and evaluation — related
- In unguided GenAI collaboration, ethnic minority preparatory students’ strategy talk co-occurred with passive sharing and uncritical acceptance, forming a plan-and-paste loop — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
genai-collaboration-supports-metacognition-feasibility |
title |
Human–GenAI collaborative interactions show promise for supporting metacognition and sociometacognition, based on an exploratory expert case study |
description |
Human–GenAI collaborative interactions show promise for supporting metacognition and sociometacognition, based on an exploratory expert case study |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-18 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — borge-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.