# Learning Through Dialogue: Engagement and Efficacy Matter More Than Explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07796 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07796/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01470/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models for Education: A Survey and Outlook](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18105/) (2024)
- [Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22954/) (2025)
- [Understanding User Experience in Large Language Model Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08329/) (2024)
- [Empowering Personalized Learning through a Conversation-based Tutoring System with Student Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14071/) (2024)
- [ComQA: A Community-sourced Dataset for Complex Factoid Question Answering with Paraphrase Clusters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09528/) (2018)
- [ShareChat: A Dataset of Chatbot Conversations in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.17843/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Beyond the Townhall: Spatial Anchoring and LLM Agents for Scalable Participatory Urban Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16348/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for learning, yet the interactional dynamics supporting users' learning and engagement are understudied. We analyze the linguistic and interactional features from both LLM and participant chats across 397 human-LLM conversations about socio-political issues to identify the mechanisms and conditions under which LLM explanations shape changes in political knowledge and confidence. Mediation analyses reveal that LLM explanatory richness partially supports confidence by fostering users' reflective insight, whereas its effect on knowledge gain operates entirely through users' cognitive engagement. Moderation analyses show that these effects are highly conditional and vary by political efficacy. Confidence gains depend on how high-efficacy users experience and resolve uncertainty. Knowledge gains depend on high-efficacy users' ability to leverage extended interaction, with longer conversations benefiting primarily reflective users. In summary, we find that learning from LLMs is an interactional achievement, not a uniform outcome of better explanations. The findings underscore the importance of aligning LLM explanatory behavior with users' engagement states to support effective learning in designing Human-AI interactive systems.