The Role of Instructional Guidance in Generative AI-Assisted Learning: Empirical Evidence from Construction Engineering Education
Authors: Xiaoyu Hou, Bo Xiao, Hexu Liu, Shane Mueller
Organizations: Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton, MI. 49931, U.S.A. · Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton, MI. 49931 · Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering, Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, MI. 49008 · Dept. of Psychology and Human Factors, Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton, MI. 49931
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support self-directed learning, yet student interaction with such systems often remains unstructured, limiting engagement in deeper cognitive processes. This study examines how instructional guidance shapes student and AI interaction in construction education. A five-step prompting framework grounded in Generative Learning Theory (GLT) is introduced to guide learner interaction during review activities. A controlled experiment compares three learning conditions: slide-based learning, unprompted AI-supported learning, and prompted AI-supported learning. Learning performance is assessed using multiple-choice and open-ended tasks, and user experience is measured using the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Performance differences are concentrated on tasks requiring explanation and reasoning. The prompted condition achieves higher open-ended scores, with an improvement of approximately 2 or 3 points on a scale of 18 (p < 0.01), while no significant differences are observed in multiple-choice performance. The unprompted condition remains comparable to slide-based learning. These findings indicate that the effectiveness of AI-supported learning depends on how interaction is structured. The proposed framework provides a basis for integrating learning science principles into generative AI systems for construction education.
Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly adopted in design education, yet evaluating its educational value through final outcomes provides an incomplete picture. This study compares two ecologically plausible workflows in an architectural conceptual design task: GenAI-assisted image generation and ArchDaily-based precedent search. The comparison concerns complete workflows rather than the isolated contributions. Thirty-six students completed a two-phase design task, first designing independently and then revising with their assigned workflow. Eight judges rated design performance, while participants reported task-specific and general creative self-efficacy and cognitive load after each phase. Difference-in-differences analyses showed no significant overall differences between the GenAI and precedent-search workflows in design performance, cognitive workload, or task-specific creative self-efficacy. Beyond these null overall effects, three patterns were observed. General creative self-efficacy showed a significant relative decline under the GenAI workflow. A subgroup analysis suggested higher revision-phase performance among novice students using GenAI than among those using precedent search (F (1,32) = 4.303, p = 0.046). However, this exploratory interaction should be interpreted cautiously due to low rating reliability, small subgroup cells, and imprecise estimation. Third, exploratory prompt analyses suggested that iterative, task-specific prompting strategies (CD3, CD6) were associated with cognitive load reductions at the uncorrected level, but neither association survived multiple-comparison correction. Overall, the GenAI workflow did not produce uniform gains. Its educational value may depend on pedagogical framing, learner characteristics, and human-AI interaction structure, underscoring the need to preserve creative agency and develop prompt literacy.
The four dominant learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism show significant conceptual limitations as generative artificial intelligence (AI) proliferates in educational settings. These frameworks were formulated before the emergence of AI systems capable of generating, synthesizing, and reasoning about knowledge. This article critically examines each learning theory and identifies assumptions challenged by the affordances of generative AI. Drawing on research in distributed cognition, extended mind, human-AI collaboration, AI literacy, cognitive offloading, and metacognition, the article proposes Generativism as a learning theory for the generative AI age. Generativism posits that learning increasingly occurs through the iterative co-construction of knowledge between human learners and AI systems. The proposed framework is organized around four constructs (epistemic partnership, distributed agency, generative literacy, and adaptive metacognition) and four principles specifying the relations among them. The framework offers a foundation for rethinking instructional design, learning, assessment, and expertise development in contexts where generative AI plays an integral role in cognition.
Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.