Moving Beyond Review: Applying Language Models to Planning and Translation in Reflection
arXiv:2603.28596v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reflective writing is known to support the development of students' metacognitive skills, yet learners often struggle to engage in deep reflection, limiting learning gains. Although large language models (LLMs) have been shown to improve writing skills, their use as conversational agents for reflective writing has produced mixed results and has largely focused on providing feedback on reflective texts, rather than support during planning and organizing. In this paper, inspired by the Cognitive Process Theory of writing (CPT), we propose the fir — Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Richard Lee Davis, Tanja K\"aser
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Reflective writing is known to support the development of students' metacognitive skills, yet learners often struggle to engage in deep reflection, limiting learning gains. Although large language models (LLMs) have been shown to improve writing skills, their use as conversational agents for reflective writing has produced mixed results and has largely focused on providing feedback on reflective texts, rather than support during planning and organizing. In this paper, inspired by the Cognitive Process Theory of writing (CPT), we propose the first application of LLMs to the planning and translation steps of reflective writing. We introduce Pensée, a tool to explore the effects of explicit AI support during these stages by scaffolding structured reflection planning using a conversational agent, and supporting translation by automatically extracting key concepts. We evaluate Pensée in a controlled between-subjects experiment (N=93), manipulating AI support across writing phases. Results show significantly greater reflection depth and structural quality when learners receive support during planning and translation stages of CPT, though these effects reduce in a delayed post-test. Analyses of learner behavior and perceptions further illustrate how CPT-aligned conversational support shapes reflection processes and learner experience, contributing empirical evidence for theory-driven uses of LLMs in AI-supported reflective writing.
Comments: Accepted at AIED 2026
Subjects:
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.28596 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2603.28596v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28596
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Seyed Parsa Neshaei [view email] [v1] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 15:42:38 UTC (1,613 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
![[D] Those of you with 10+ years in ML — what is the public completely wrong about?](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
[D] Those of you with 10+ years in ML — what is the public completely wrong about?
For those of you who've been in ML/AI research or applied ML for 10+ years — what's the gap between what the public thinks AI is doing vs. what's actually happening at the frontier? What are we collectively underestimating or overestimating? submitted by /u/PhattRatt [link] [comments]
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
Proof of Usefulness Weight Distribution
The weights in the Proof of Usefulness algorithm were not assigned by committee consensus, philosophical preference, or gut feeling. They reflect the consistent findings of startup failure research — particularly the question of which early signals most reliably predict whether a project creates lasting value. This is what that research shows. Read All
Are Finer Citations Always Better? Rethinking Granularity for Attributed Generation
arXiv:2604.01432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Citation granularity - whether to cite individual sentences, paragraphs, or documents - is a critical design choice in attributed generation. While fine-grained citations are often preferred for precise human verification, their impact on model performance remains under-explored. We analyze four model scales (8B-120B) and demonstrate that enforcing fine-grained citations degrades attribution quality by 16-276% compared to the best-performing granularity. We observe a consistent performance pattern where attribution quality peaks at intermediate granularities (paragraph-level). Our analysis suggests that fine-grained (sentence-level) citations disrupt necessary semantic dependencies for attributing evidence to answer claims, while excessively
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!