Examining a four-process GenAI cycle reveals two distinct metacognitive regulation styles: Exploratory-Simplification and Systematic-Methodical, which show that students use combinations of strategies across the AI-SRL cycle.
Abstract
Generative AI (GenAI) is now common in university project work, yet previous studies often examine students’ trust, creativity, overload, or engagement separately. This leaves a key gap: how students regulate GenAI across a full project workflow. This exploratory study addresses that gap by examining a four-process “
AI-mediated Self-Regulated Learning
” (
AI-SRL
) cycle: (1) evaluating and selecting GenAI suggestions, (2) experiencing shifts in creative agency, (3) managing overload through filtering and summarizing, and (4) monitoring time and energy to stop or continue working with GenAI. We conducted a two-course basic qualitative design study with 97 undergraduate and graduate students. Data came from an open-ended questionnaire aligned to the four processes. We used inductive content analysis with a shared codebook, reliability checks, and cross-level comparisons. Findings show that students use combinations of strategies across the
AI-SRL
cycle. They exercise agency through goal alignment, revision, and verification, with graduates reporting stronger cross-checking and source-based justification. Creativity was described as a conditional outcome: it increased when GenAI widened ideas but declined when it replaced personal exploration. Overload was managed through targeted prompts and structured outputs, again more common among graduates. Most students did not lose track of time; they used clear stopping cues such as fatigue, repetition, or satisfaction. Together, results reveal two distinct metacognitive regulation styles: “
Exploratory-Simplification
” and “
Systematic-Methodical
”.
This work examines the self-regulatory behavior of CS students in a 200-level CS course with an emphasis on software engineering and reveals a more complex picture than prior work of how students monitor their understanding of the task and set subgoals.
J. Bacher, Christina L. Hollander, Michael Berro et al.· Annual Conference on Innovat...· 0 citations
The study concludes that chat-based AI supports students in essay writing, but its effectiveness depends on how students regulate its use across SRL phases, including the forethought, performance, and self-reflection phases.
Rifqah· Pubmedia Jurnal Pendidikan B...· 0 citations
This study intentionally delayed the introduction of an LMS-integrated LLM tool, CodeHelp, until after early-semester assessments and substantial measures of student effort had already been collected, suggesting that engagement with LLM-based tools reflects underlying self-regulatory behaviors and that the tool functio...
Laura M. Cruz Castro, Maryam K. Multani, Gabriel Castelblanco et al.· IEEE Access· 0 citations
First-year students in STEM programs face significant academic and personal challenges that can undermine retention and success, particularly for those navigating new institutional environments without prior college experience. While self- regulated learning (SRL) theory offers a well-established framework for understa...
Mehri Azizi, Nicole Chlebek, Bryan M. Dewsbury· Trends in Higher Education· 0 citations
The findings suggest that the educational value of GenAI in higher education may depend less on AI access per se than on whether feedback environments preserve student agency, evaluative judgment, and ownership during revision.
Hüseyin Ateş· International Journal of Edu...· 2 citations
This study proposes that digital learning design quality (DLQ), assessment transparency (AT), and perceived challenge-based learning (PCBL) contribute to students’ perceived career readiness by strengthening their academic confidence and self-regulatory ability.
Thanh Long Vu, Phuc Khanh Nguyen, Lai Anh Tuan Doan et al.· Multidisciplinary Science Jo...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.