Teaching Students to Question the Machine: An AI Literacy Intervention Improves Students' Regulation of LLM Use in a Science Task

TL;DR

A two-hour AI literacy workshop significantly improves middle school students' ability to critically interact with LLMs during science tasks, leading to better performance and response evaluation.

Contribution

This study demonstrates that brief, scalable AI literacy training enhances students' regulation of LLM use and improves science problem-solving outcomes in classroom settings.

Findings

Students who received training asked more follow-up questions.

Trained students more accurately judged AI response correctness.

Training led to better final answers in science tasks.

Abstract

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in schools raises concerns about students' uncritical reliance on its outputs. Effective use of large language models (LLMs) requires not only technical knowledge but also the ability to monitor, evaluate, and regulate one's interaction with the system, processes closely tied to metacognitive regulation. These skills are still developing in middle school, making students particularly vulnerable to over-trust and premature acceptance of AI outputs. Because classroom time and teacher training resources are constrained, there is a pressing need to develop and evaluate AI literacy interventions that can be implemented under realistic school conditions. We report a controlled classroom study examining whether a two-hour AI literacy workshop improves students' interaction strategies and quality of final answers in LLM-supported science problem solving. A total of 116 students (grades 8-9; ages 13-15) completed six science investigation tasks using a generative AI system. Two days prior, the intervention group attended the workshop, which combined information about how LLMs work and fail with practical guidance on prompting and response evaluation; the control group received no training. Trained students showed less uncritical reliance on the system: they more often reformulated queries, asked follow-up questions, and more accurately judged response correctness, leading to better performance. In contrast, GenAI and metacognitive self-report scores did not predict performance, suggesting that effective use of generative AI depends less on self-reported measures and more on explicit training in interaction regulation. Overall, the results show that brief, scalable AI literacy instruction can meaningfully improve how middle-school students use generative AI in school-like learning activities.