mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI

arXiv 2606.05983 ↗First posted 4 Jun 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2026.

Builds on

12 of 70 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
  2. 2024When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysiscited by 106
  3. 2025Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Taskcited by 106
  4. 2023The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AIcited by 87
  5. 2024Beware of Metacognitive Laziness: Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Learning Motivation, Processes, and Performancecited by 58
  6. 2023Prompt Problems: A New Programming Exercise for the Generative AI Eracited by 31
  7. 2025Are We on the Right Way to Assessing LLM-as-a-Judge?cited by 24
  8. 2024Generative AI Literacy: Twelve Defining Competenciescited by 13
  9. 2024GLAT: The Generative AI Literacy Assessment Testcited by 10
  10. 2025AI Literacy in K-12 and Higher Education in the Wake of Generative AI: An Integrative Reviewcited by 4
  11. 2025Assessing Problem Decomposition in CS1 for the GenAI Eracited by 3
  12. 2026Cognitive Amplification vs Cognitive Delegation in Human-AI Systems: A Metric Frameworkcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.