Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Meflex claims that a nonlinear, LLM-scaffolded business-plan canvas fosters entrepreneurial ideation by supporting reflection and meta-reflection more effectively than linear writing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 05:57 UTC pith:AQ5465DM

load-bearing objection A well-specified system paper whose exploratory study cannot carry the causal claims in the abstract; worth reviewing, not worth trusting at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.15631 v2 pith:AQ5465DM submitted 2026-02-17 cs.HC cs.SE

Meflex: A Multi-agent Scaffolding System for Entrepreneurial Ideation Iteration via Nonlinear Business Plan Writing

Lan Luo , Dongyijie Primo Pan , Junhua Zhu , Muzhi Zhou , Pan Hui This is my paper
classification cs.HC cs.SE
keywords nonlinear writingbusiness planentrepreneurship educationideationreflectionmeta-reflectionlarge language modelshuman-AI co-writing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Meflex is an LLM-backed writing system that rethinks business plan (BP) writing as a non-linear, reflective process. The paper claims that by letting users branch and extend idea cards on a visual canvas, and by generating reflection prompts and meta-reflection summaries, the system helps novice entrepreneurs develop more divergent ideas while keeping the plan coherent. The authors argue this is superior to rigid linear BP writing, which fails to match the recursive nature of real ideation. If right, it would mean writing tools can be designed to scaffold higher-order thinking instead of only polished output.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a multi-agent LLM system, Meflex, effectively scaffolds BP writing, promotes divergent thinking through LLM-supported reflection, enhances meta-reflective awareness, and reduces cognitive load during complex idea development. Evidence comes from 30 university students who used the system and reported high usability (mean scores mostly 5.5–6.5 on 7-point items) and described in interviews how the node-based canvas made their idea evolution visible and prompted revision. The paper positions this as evidence that non-linear LLM-based writing tools can support entrepreneurial ideation.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the combination of (1) an ideation canvas where users extend idea cards horizontally (refinement) or vertically (branching alternatives), and (2) a multi-agent LLM panel that provides section-specific scaffolding prompts, follows each response with an open reflective question, and automatically generates meta-reflection summaries explaining how a node evolved from earlier ones. This design aims to externalize idea trajectories so users can monitor, evaluate, and regulate their own thinking.

Load-bearing premise

The study has no control or comparison condition, so the causal claims that Meflex's specific features (canvas, reflection prompts, meta-reflection summaries) reduce cognitive load and improve ideation rest on self-reported usability scores and interview comments, which could be explained by general LLM assistance, novelty, or participant expectations.

What would settle it

A randomized experiment with two conditions—Meflex versus a linear business-plan editor with the same LLM assistant but no canvas and no reflection prompts—measuring idea count, idea novelty, plan coherence, and cognitive load under equal time budgets; if the linear version performs equally, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, LLM writing tools in education should shift from linear outline completion toward non-linear canvas interfaces.
  • Reflection prompts should be embedded after LLM outputs, not left as optional extras.
  • Meta-reflection summaries that synthesize across sections can help writers spot inconsistencies without manual cross-checking.
  • Non-linear structure may reduce cognitive load by breaking BP writing into manageable, revisable nodes.
  • The design may generalize from business plans to other structured writing tasks requiring iterative ideation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A controlled trial comparing Meflex against a linear LLM writing tool with identical content would test whether the canvas and reflection, rather than the LLM itself, drive the reported gains.
  • The claimed reduction in cognitive load could be tested objectively via dual-task or physiological measures, not just self-report.
  • The system currently tracks only text changes; mining user–LLM dialogue trajectories might reveal which prompts trigger the most consequential pivots, as the authors themselves note.
  • The results may partly reflect novelty and expectation effects common in exploratory studies; replication with a longer study period and more diverse participants would clarify.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Meflex, a multi-agent LLM-based writing system for business plan ideation. The system combines a non-linear idea canvas with structured writing modules and LLM-generated reflection/meta-reflection prompts. An exploratory user study with 30 participants collected post-task Likert-scale questionnaire responses and semi-structured interviews. The authors report that Meflex scaffolds BP writing, promotes divergent thinking, enhances meta-reflective awareness, and reduces cognitive load. The paper's central claim is that nonlinear LLM-based writing tools can better support novice entrepreneurial ideation than conventional linear BP writing.

Significance. If the claims were established, Meflex would be a useful addition to entrepreneurship education and human-AI co-writing research. The system design is well-motivated: the non-linear canvas, explicit reflection prompts, and meta-reflection summaries directly address recognized limitations of existing business plan writing tools. The qualitative interview data provide rich, illustrative examples of how users experienced the tool. However, the current evaluation design is a single-arm post-test study with no control condition, no pre-test, no direct measures of the focal cognitive constructs, and a substantially modified usability instrument. The causal and cognitive claims in the abstract and discussion therefore go beyond what the evidence supports. As an exploratory design paper with appropriately softened claims, it could be a valuable contribution; in its current form, the evaluation section needs substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §5.3, §6, Abstract] The evaluation is a single-arm post-test study: 30 participants all used Meflex, with no control or comparison condition and no pre-test of the measured constructs. The abstract and §6 make causal claims such as 'promotes divergent thinking' and 'reduces cognitive load' that cannot be supported by this design. Perceived usefulness and reported experiences cannot be attributed to the system's nonlinear/reflective features as opposed to novelty, general LLM assistance, or demand characteristics. Please either reframe all causal claims as exploratory, perceived, or reported effects, or add a control/comparison condition and direct pre/post measures.
  2. [§5.1] Section 5.1 states that 'Meflex was evaluated using the standardized System Usability Scale (SUS) [6], which employs a 7-point Likert format, focusing on three dimensions: guidance, contextualization, and engagement.' This is not the standardized SUS: the SUS is a 10-item, 5-point, unidimensional scale with a specific scoring procedure. The modified instrument may be a reasonable custom questionnaire, but it cannot be described as SUS, and the resulting scores are not comparable to standard usability benchmarks. Please describe the actual instrument, report its items/scoring, and avoid invoking SUS properties such as standardization.
  3. [§5.2, §5.3] The focal constructs — divergent thinking, meta-reflective awareness, and cognitive load — are not directly measured by any validated instrument. The evidence for these constructs consists of self-selected interview quotes from a subset of participants (e.g., P8, P14, P26, P30). No systematic coding frequencies, inter-coder reliability metrics, or full thematic codebook are reported. The conclusion in §5.3 that meta-reflections 'reduced users' mental load' is an inference from a few quotes. Please report the thematic analysis more rigorously (e.g., code occurrence counts, representative evidence across the full participant set) and clearly distinguish between participant-reported perceptions and researcher inferences about cognitive constructs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] Duplicate phrase: 'BP writing BP writing is not merely about documenting...' should be corrected.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1] Table 1 contains a typo: 'Assesstechnical' should be 'Assess technical'.
  3. [§1] Grammar: 'an multi-agent system' should be 'a multi-agent system'. Also 'a non-linear writing tools' in the research question paragraph should be 'a non-linear writing tool' or 'non-linear writing tools'.
  4. [§2.3] 'The study [33] shows that early integration...' — wording is awkward; suggest 'A recent study [33] shows...' Also ensure all references are complete and accessible; some CHI entries appear in a hybrid form.
  5. [§4.2] The phrase '10-minute Zoom demo' could be clarified: was the demo remote or in-person? State the setting for reproducibility.
  6. [§5.1, Figure 2] Figure 2 is described but not shown in the text; ensure the figure is included and that the axes, item labels (Q1–Q10), and score ranges are legible. Also clarify whether Q1–Q10 correspond to the three claimed dimensions and how they were assigned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No meaningful circularity; minor self-citation in design foundation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation or parameter-fit; it is a system design plus exploratory user study. The only apparent self-citation is [25], used as the source of the five scaffolding strategies in Sec. 3.2 and as an example of BP-writing-as-pedagogy in Sec. 2.1. That citation grounds the design rationale, but the paper's empirical claims (usability, perceived reflection, idea development) come from a separate 30-participant study with SUS-style ratings and interviews; those results are not implied by [25] by construction. There are no equations whose predicted outputs equal their fitted inputs. The single-arm, no-control design is a methodological limitation that threatens causal claims (novelty/expectation effects), but it is not circular reasoning in the sense of the target result being identical to the input. Thus no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is low, 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a system and an exploratory empirical evaluation; there are no fitted parameters or invented theoretical entities. The central claims rest on literature-based assumptions about reflection/meta-reflection and on the fidelity of self-report data.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Reflection and meta-reflection are critical mechanisms for divergent and convergent thinking in entrepreneurial ideation.
    Adopted from the literature review (§2.2) and used as the design basis for the system. The study does not independently test whether these mechanisms cause the observed effects.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated reflective prompts and meta-reflection summaries provide effective scaffolding without causing or worsening idea fixation.
    The system assumes LLM assistance helps more than it hinders. Prior work cited by the paper [33] shows that early LLM integration can reduce idea novelty, but the system design assumes benefits dominate.
  • domain assumption The adapted System Usability Scale with 7-point Likert items (guidance, contextualization, engagement) measures usability dimensions that are meaningful for this system.
    The standard SUS uses a 5-point scale; the paper adapts it to 7-point and bundles items into three dimensions without a validation study for this adaptation (§5.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 388 in / 5032 out tokens · 115097 ms · 2026-08-04T05:57:46.787933+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Business plan (BP) writing plays a key role in entrepreneurship education by helping learners construct, evaluate, and iteratively refine their ideas. However, conventional BP writing remains a rigid, linear process that often fails to reflect the dynamic and recursive nature of entrepreneurial ideation. This mismatch is particularly challenging for novice entrepreneurial students, who struggle with the substantial cognitive demands of developing and refining ideas. While reflection and meta-reflection are critical strategies for fostering divergent and convergent thinking, existing writing tools rarely scaffold these higher-order processes. To address this gap, we present the Meflex System, a large language model (LLM)-based writing tool that integrates BP writing scaffolding with a nonlinear idea canvas to support iterative ideation through reflection and meta-reflection. We report findings from an exploratory user study with 30 participants that examined the system's usability and cognitive impact. Results show that Meflex effectively scaffolds BP writing, promotes divergent thinking through LLM-supported reflection, and enhances meta-reflective awareness while reducing cognitive load during complex idea development. These findings highlight the potential of non-linear LLM-based writing tools to foster deeper and coherent entrepreneurial thinking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15631 by Dongyijie Primo Pan, Junhua Zhu, Lan Luo, Muzhi Zhou, Pan Hui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three primary sections: the idea iteration canvas, the structural writing workspace, and the LLM assistant panel. 3 Meflex System 3.1 System Overview The Meflex system interface in Fig.1 is designed to support business plan writ￾ing through the scaffolding, consisting of three primary sections: the ideation canvas, the structure writing workspace, and the LLM assistant panel. The ideation canvas ( [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: User Satisfaction with Scaffolding P12, P16, P21). Whether participants were familiar with business plan writ￾ing or not, the assistant offered tailored prompts and follow-up questions that adjusted to their current progress and input. For example, P21 with less expe￾rienced participant shared, "I didn’t know much about business plans, but the assistant broke things down for me and asked simple questions t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Procedia CIRP84, 1120–1127 (2019)

    Albers, A.A., Tekaat, J., Kühn, I.A., Dumitrescu, I.R.: Requirement profiles as a foundation for customer-centric ideation in business-to-business markets. Procedia CIRP84, 1120–1127 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Journal of advanced nursing18(8), 1188–1192 (1993)

    Atkins, S., Murphy, K.: Reflection: a review of the literature. Journal of advanced nursing18(8), 1188–1192 (1993)

    1993

  3. [3]

    Long range planning26(6), 82–88 (1993)

    Baker, W.H., Addams, H.L., Davis, B.: Business planning in successful small firms. Long range planning26(6), 82–88 (1993)

    1993

  4. [4]

    Pearson UK (2018)

    Bock, A.J.: The business model book: Design, build and adapt business ideas that drive business growth. Pearson UK (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research (2025)

    Bohlayer, C., Timm, J.M., Halberstadt, J.: Navigating the dimensions of criticality: exploring reflective processes in critical entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Usability evaluation in industry189(194), 4–7 (1996) 12 Lan Luo, Dongyijie Primo Pan, Junhua Zhu, Muzhi Zhou, and Pan Hui

    Brooke, J., et al.: Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry189(194), 4–7 (1996) 12 Lan Luo, Dongyijie Primo Pan, Junhua Zhu, Muzhi Zhou, and Pan Hui

    1996

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems

    Choi, Y., Kang, E.J., Choi, S., Lee, M.K., Kim, J.: Proxona: Support- ing creators’ sensemaking and ideation with llm-powered audience per- sonas. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems. CHI ’25, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3714034, https://doi...

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    In: Cyberspace Safety and Security: 10th In- ternational Symposium, CSS 2018, Amalfi, Italy, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings

    Clarizia, F., Colace, F., Lombardi, M., Pascale, F., Santaniello, D.: Chatbot: An education support system for student. In: Cyberspace Safety and Security: 10th In- ternational Symposium, CSS 2018, Amalfi, Italy, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings

    2018

  9. [9]

    Long range planning47(6), 379–389 (2014)

    DaSilva, C.M., Trkman, P.: Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long range planning47(6), 379–389 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    pp. 291–302. Springer (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11336 (2025)

    Diallo, A., Bikakis, A., Dickens, L., Hunter, A., Miller, R.: Rule-guided feedback: Enhancing reasoning by enforcing rule adherence in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11336 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Euro- pean Journal of philosophy32(1), 85–99 (2024)

    Dozzi, M.D.: Is (self-) reflection a form of intentionality? sartre’s dilemma. Euro- pean Journal of philosophy32(1), 85–99 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    South African Journal of Higher Education32(6), 425–439 (2018)

    Du Toit, P.H.: A meta-reflection on my emerging as a scholar of action research. South African Journal of Higher Education32(6), 425–439 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Global Journal of Business Pedagogy (GJBP)4(1) (2020)

    Envick,B.R.:Designthinkingmethodsforbusinessplandevelopment:Astructured approach to idea generation that promotes creativity. Global Journal of Business Pedagogy (GJBP)4(1) (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Journal of small business man- agement53(1), 75–93 (2015)

    Fayolle,A.,Gailly,B.:Theimpactofentrepreneurshipeducationonentrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of small business man- agement53(1), 75–93 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS)2(2), 49–67 (2011)

    Georgiev, G.V., Nagai, Y.: Model of meta-reflection and in-depth analysis of knowl- edge creation process in design. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS)2(2), 49–67 (2011)

    2011

  17. [17]

    Studies in Business and Economics14(1), 60–71 (2019)

    Greavu, A.: An overview of business writing: Challenges and solutions. Studies in Business and Economics14(1), 60–71 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Computers & Education54(1), 230–243 (2010)

    Greene, J.A., Bolick, C.M., Robertson, J.: Fostering historical knowledge and thinking skills using hypermedia learning environments: The role of self-regulated learning. Computers & Education54(1), 230–243 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Routledge (1998)

    Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A.C.: Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Routledge (1998)

    1998

  20. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interac- tion for Work

    He, J., Houde, S., Gonzalez, G.E., Silva Moran, D.A., Ross, S.I., Muller, M., Weisz, J.D.: Ai and the future of collaborative work: Group ideation with an llm in a virtual canvas. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interac- tion for Work. CHIWORK ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2024). ...

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Academy of management learning & education3(3), 258–273 (2004)

    Honig, B.: Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based busi- ness planning. Academy of management learning & education3(3), 258–273 (2004)

    2004

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10582 (2024)

    Huang, R., Martin, L.J., Callison-Burch, C., et al.: What-if: Exploring branch- ing narratives by meta-prompting large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10582 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Jackson, A.: The advantage of an iterative writing process for novels and short stories (2022) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

    2022

  24. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems

    Jeon, H., Yoon, S., Lee, K., Kim, S.H., Kim, E.H., Cho, S., Ko, Y., Yang, S., Dabbish, L., Zimmerman, J., Kim, E.m., Lim, H.: Letters from future self: Aug- menting the letter-exchange exercise with llm-based agents to enhance young adults’ career exploration. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’25, Ass...

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Education+ Training55(8/9), 804–814 (2013)

    Jones, C., Penaluna, A.: Moving beyond the business plan in enterprise education. Education+ Training55(8/9), 804–814 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    In: 2025 5th Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (ICAIE)

    Junhua, Z., Lan, L.: Designing the future of entrepreneurship education: Exploring an ai-empowered scaffold system for business plan development. In: 2025 5th Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (ICAIE). pp. 184–193. IEEE (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Journal of business venturing24(1), 27–45 (2009)

    Karlsson, T., Honig, B.: Judging a business by its cover: An institutional perspec- tive on new ventures and the business plan. Journal of business venturing24(1), 27–45 (2009)

    2009

  28. [28]

    Academy of Management Journal61(6), 2265–2295 (2018)

    Kier, A.S., McMullen, J.S.: Entrepreneurial imaginativeness in new venture ideation. Academy of Management Journal61(6), 2265–2295 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Lin, S., Warner, J., Zamfirescu-Pereira, J., Lee, M.G., Jain, S., Cai, S., Lertvit- tayakumjorn, P., Huang, M.X., Zhai, S., Hartmann, B., et al.: Rambler: Supporting writing with speech via llm-assisted gist manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–19 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 (2024)

    Liu, A., Feng, B., Xue, B., Wang, B., Wu, B., Lu, C., Zhao, C., Deng, C., Zhang, C., Ruan, C., et al.: Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Small Business Economics54(3), 791–818 (2020)

    Mansoori, Y., Lackéus, M.: Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking. Small Business Economics54(3), 791–818 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Neidell,L.:Takingaflyeronwindtechnology.PlanningReview16(6),28–48(1988)

    1988

  33. [33]

    Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation5(2), 27–45 (2019)

    Ogutveren-Gonul, O.: Teaching and implementing ideation in entrepreneurship: A systematic approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation5(2), 27–45 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems

    Qin, P., Yang, C.L., Li, J., Wen, J., Lee, Y.C.: Timing matters: How using llms at different timings influences writers’ perceptions and ideation outcomes in ai-assisted ideation. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’25, Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA (2025). https://doi.org/10....

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences209, 433–438 (2015)

    Razdorskaya, O.: Reflection and creativity: the need for symbiosis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences209, 433–438 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    In: 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC)

    Reagle, C., Maggioni, V., Boicu, M., Albanese, M., Joshi, M., Sklarew, D., Peixoto, N.: From idea to prototype: introducing students to entrepreneurship. In: 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC). pp. 71–75. IEEE (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122(8), e2422455122 (2025)

    Reinhart, A., Markey, B., Laudenbach, M., Pantusen, K., Yurko, R., Weinberg, G., Brown, D.W.: Do llms write like humans? variation in grammatical and rhetori- cal styles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122(8), e2422455122 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Technical Communication Quarterly17(1), 110–135 (2007) 14 Lan Luo, Dongyijie Primo Pan, Junhua Zhu, Muzhi Zhou, and Pan Hui

    Robidoux, C.: Rhetorically structured content: Developing a collaborative single- sourcing curriculum. Technical Communication Quarterly17(1), 110–135 (2007) 14 Lan Luo, Dongyijie Primo Pan, Junhua Zhu, Muzhi Zhou, and Pan Hui

    2007

  39. [39]

    Rosseel, J., Anseel, F.: When reflection hinders creative problem-solving: a test of alternativereflectionstrategies.JournalofBusinessandPsychology37(2),429–441 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT)11(3), 39–55 (2021)

    Roy, D.: Concept mapping and summary writing as complementary strategies for developing efl content comprehension. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT)11(3), 39–55 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

    Ruan, S., Jiang, L., Xu, Q., Liu, Z., Davis, G.M., Brunskill, E., Landay, J.A.: Englishbot: An ai-powered conversational system for second language learning. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. pp. 434–444 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    The Cambridge handbook of creativity413, 446 (2010)

    Runco, M.A., et al.: Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. The Cambridge handbook of creativity413, 446 (2010)

    2010

  43. [43]

    Journal of European indus- trial training20(7), 29–36 (1996)

    Sadler-Smith, E.: Learning styles: a holistic approach. Journal of European indus- trial training20(7), 29–36 (1996)

    1996

  44. [44]

    International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Re- search23(3), 465–485 (2017)

    Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Schiuma, G., Passiante, G.: Activating en- trepreneurial learning processes for transforming university students’ idea into entrepreneurial practices. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Re- search23(3), 465–485 (2017)

    2017

  45. [45]

    Comput- ers & Education87, 309–325 (2015)

    Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., Karakostas, A.: Promoting academically productive talk with conversational agent interventions in collaborative learning settings. Comput- ers & Education87, 309–325 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    Management in education 31(3), 111–117 (2017)

    Thorpe,A.,Garside,D.:(co)meta-reflectionasamethodfortheprofessionaldevel- opment of academic middle leaders in higher education. Management in education 31(3), 111–117 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12665 (2024)

    Venkatraman, S., Tripto, N.I., Lee, D.: Collabstory: Multi-llm collaborative story generation and authorship analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12665 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Wambsganss, T., Kueng, T., Soellner, M., Leimeister, J.M.: Arguetutor: An adap- tive dialog-based learning system for argumentation skills. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. pp. 1–13 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    kelly is a warm person, joseph is a role model

    Wan, Y., Pu, G., Sun, J., Garimella, A., Chang, K.W., Peng, N.: " kelly is a warm person, joseph is a role model": Gender biases in llm-generated reference letters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09219 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems

    Wang, L., Yurechko, K., Dani, P., Chen, Q.Z., Zhang, A.X.: End user author- ing of personalized content classifiers: Comparing example labeling, rule writ- ing, and llm prompting. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’25, Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA (2025). https://doi.org/10....

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    In: Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., XintongBao, X., Zhang, W., Dai, S., Chen, K., Li, W., Huang, G.,Tang,S.,Zhuang,Y.:Meta-reflection:Afeedback-freereflectionlearningframe- work. In: Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 3958–3976 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Heliyon9(6) (2023)

    Wardoyo, C., Narmaditya, B.S., Handayati, P., Fauzan, S., Prayitno, P.H., Sahid, S., Wibowo, A.: Determinant factors of entrepreneurial ideation among university students: A systematic literature review. Heliyon9(6) (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems

    Weber, F., Wambsganss, T., Neshaei, S.P., Soellner, M.: Legalwriter: An intel- ligent writing support system for structured and persuasive legal case writing for novice law students. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’24, Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA (2024). https://doi.org/...

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    The Journal of Engineering En- trepreneurship5(1), 31–48 (2014)

    Wheadon, J.D., Duval-Couetil, N.: Business plan development activities as a pedagogical tool in entrepreneurship education. The Journal of Engineering En- trepreneurship5(1), 31–48 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems

    Zhang, C., Ju, K., Bidoshi, P., Yen, Y.C.G., Rzeszotarski, J.M.: Friction: Deciphering writing feedback into writing revisions through llm-assisted re- flection. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems. CHI ’25, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.37143...

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02901 (2024)

    Zhang,Y.,Jin,H.,Meng,D.,Wang,J.,Tan,J.:Acomprehensivesurveyonprocess- oriented automatic text summarization with exploration of llm-based methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02901 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Educational psychologist25(1), 3–17 (1990)

    Zimmerman, B.J.: Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist25(1), 3–17 (1990)

    1990

  58. [58]

    In: Professional learning in higher education and communities: Towards a new vision for action research, pp

    Zuber-Skerritt, O.: Critical reflection. In: Professional learning in higher education and communities: Towards a new vision for action research, pp. 76–101. Springer (2015)

    2015