Traditional vs. Socratic: How Chatbot Interaction Strategies Shape Self-Directed Learning?
Resumo
AI-based chatbots are increasingly used to support self-directed learning, yet little is known about how their interaction strategies shape learning. Grounded in the theory of Desirable Difficulties, we conducted a mixed-methods study investigating the effects of Traditional and Socratic interactions on undergraduate students learning Object-Oriented Programming. We analyzed immediate learning, knowledge retention, information behavior, and user experience. Exploratory findings suggest a trade-off between immediate performance and retention stability: Traditional interactions favored higher performance and greater efficiency, whereas Socratic interactions promoted more exploratory behavior and more stable knowledge retention.
Palavras-chave:
Chatbot, Socratic Method, Self-Directed Learning
Referências
Barcaui, A. (2025). ChatGPT as a cognitive crutch: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial on knowledge retention. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12:102287.
Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., et al. (2011). Making Things Hard on Yourself, But in a Good Way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2(59-68):56–64.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, 185(7.2):185–205.
Blasco, A. and Charisi, V. (2024). AI Chatbots in K-12 Education: An Experimental Study of Socratic vs. Non-Socratic Approaches and the Role of Step-by-Step Reasoning. Non-Socratic Approaches and the Role of Step-by-Step Reasoning (December 02, 2024).
Boghossian, P. (2006). Socratic Pedagogy, Critical Thinking, and Inmate Education. Journal of Correctional Education, pages 42–63.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., and Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3):354–380.
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1):73–105.
Degen, B. (2025). Resurrecting Socrates in the Age of AI: A Study Protocol for Evaluating a Socratic Tutor to Support Research Question Development in Higher Education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06294.
Duong, T. T. M., Da, C., and Hanh, N. (2024). The use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning: a systematic review through SWOT analysis approach. Frontiers in Education, 9:1328769.
Fakour, H. and Imani, M. (2025). Socratic wisdom in the age of AI: a comparative study of ChatGPT and human tutors in enhancing critical thinking skills. In Frontiers in Education, volume 10, page 1528603. Frontiers Media SA.
Favero, L., Pérez-Ortiz, J. A., Käser, T., and Oliver, N. (2024). Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by Means of a Socratic Chatbot. In International workshop on AI in education and educational research, pages 17–32. Springer.
Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1):6.
Hoppe, A., Yu, R., and Liu, J. (2026). Report on International Workshops on Investigating Learning During Web Search. SIGIR Forum, 59(2):1–8.
Joel, H. d. O., Neto, A., Rosado, B., Machado, M., de Souza, J. F., and Siqueira, S. W. (2025). A Framework for Search as Learning Experiments: Design, Implementation, and Usability Insights. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE), pages 304–315. SBC.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Kühnberger, K.-U., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., and Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103:102274.
Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., and Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–22.
Lee, H.-Y., Chen, P.-H., Huang, Y.-M., and Wu, T.-T. (2026). From Immediate Answers to Structured Inquiry: A Socratic Method-Enhanced ChatGPT System for Blended Learning Discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, page 07356331261429306.
Machado, M., Assis, E. C., Souza, J. F., and Siqueira, S. W. M. (2024). A framework to support experimentation in the context of cognitive biases in search as a learning process. In Proceedings of the 20th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems, pages 1–9.
Machado, M. d. O. C., de Alcantara Gimenez, P. J., and Siqueira, S. W. M. (2020). Raising the Dimensions and Variables for Searching as a Learning Process: A Systematic Mapping of the Literature. Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE), pages 1393–1402.
Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., and Sharma, H. (2024). A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Teaching and Learning Practice. Education Sciences, 14(6).
Paul, R. (1993). Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2019). The thinker's guide to Socratic questioning. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Reznitskaya, A. and Gregory, M. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1):29–48.
Risko, E. F. and Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9):676–688.
Roediger, H. L. and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17(3):249–255.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., and Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333(6043):776–778.
Tibau, M., Silva, R., Siqueira, S., and Nunes, B. (2026). Evaluating Knowledge Gain in Search Environments: An Exploratory Study of Learning Measurement. In Anais do XXII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação, pages 478–496, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.
Tibau, M., Siqueira, S. W. M., and Nunes, B. P. (2024). ChatGPT for chatting and searching: Repurposing search behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 46(4):101331.
Yang, Y., Urgo, K., Arguello, J., and Capra, R. (2025). Search+Chat: Integrating Search and GenAI to Support Users with Learning-Oriented Search Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pages 57–70.
Yu, R. and Liu, J. (2025). Chat as Learning in Interactive Information Retrieval and Generation. SIGIR Forum, 59(1):1–19.
Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., et al. (2011). Making Things Hard on Yourself, But in a Good Way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2(59-68):56–64.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, 185(7.2):185–205.
Blasco, A. and Charisi, V. (2024). AI Chatbots in K-12 Education: An Experimental Study of Socratic vs. Non-Socratic Approaches and the Role of Step-by-Step Reasoning. Non-Socratic Approaches and the Role of Step-by-Step Reasoning (December 02, 2024).
Boghossian, P. (2006). Socratic Pedagogy, Critical Thinking, and Inmate Education. Journal of Correctional Education, pages 42–63.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., and Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3):354–380.
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1):73–105.
Degen, B. (2025). Resurrecting Socrates in the Age of AI: A Study Protocol for Evaluating a Socratic Tutor to Support Research Question Development in Higher Education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06294.
Duong, T. T. M., Da, C., and Hanh, N. (2024). The use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning: a systematic review through SWOT analysis approach. Frontiers in Education, 9:1328769.
Fakour, H. and Imani, M. (2025). Socratic wisdom in the age of AI: a comparative study of ChatGPT and human tutors in enhancing critical thinking skills. In Frontiers in Education, volume 10, page 1528603. Frontiers Media SA.
Favero, L., Pérez-Ortiz, J. A., Käser, T., and Oliver, N. (2024). Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by Means of a Socratic Chatbot. In International workshop on AI in education and educational research, pages 17–32. Springer.
Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1):6.
Hoppe, A., Yu, R., and Liu, J. (2026). Report on International Workshops on Investigating Learning During Web Search. SIGIR Forum, 59(2):1–8.
Joel, H. d. O., Neto, A., Rosado, B., Machado, M., de Souza, J. F., and Siqueira, S. W. (2025). A Framework for Search as Learning Experiments: Design, Implementation, and Usability Insights. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE), pages 304–315. SBC.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Kühnberger, K.-U., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., and Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103:102274.
Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., and Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–22.
Lee, H.-Y., Chen, P.-H., Huang, Y.-M., and Wu, T.-T. (2026). From Immediate Answers to Structured Inquiry: A Socratic Method-Enhanced ChatGPT System for Blended Learning Discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, page 07356331261429306.
Machado, M., Assis, E. C., Souza, J. F., and Siqueira, S. W. M. (2024). A framework to support experimentation in the context of cognitive biases in search as a learning process. In Proceedings of the 20th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems, pages 1–9.
Machado, M. d. O. C., de Alcantara Gimenez, P. J., and Siqueira, S. W. M. (2020). Raising the Dimensions and Variables for Searching as a Learning Process: A Systematic Mapping of the Literature. Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE), pages 1393–1402.
Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., and Sharma, H. (2024). A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Teaching and Learning Practice. Education Sciences, 14(6).
Paul, R. (1993). Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2019). The thinker's guide to Socratic questioning. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Reznitskaya, A. and Gregory, M. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1):29–48.
Risko, E. F. and Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9):676–688.
Roediger, H. L. and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17(3):249–255.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., and Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333(6043):776–778.
Tibau, M., Silva, R., Siqueira, S., and Nunes, B. (2026). Evaluating Knowledge Gain in Search Environments: An Exploratory Study of Learning Measurement. In Anais do XXII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação, pages 478–496, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC.
Tibau, M., Siqueira, S. W. M., and Nunes, B. P. (2024). ChatGPT for chatting and searching: Repurposing search behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 46(4):101331.
Yang, Y., Urgo, K., Arguello, J., and Capra, R. (2025). Search+Chat: Integrating Search and GenAI to Support Users with Learning-Oriented Search Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pages 57–70.
Yu, R. and Liu, J. (2025). Chat as Learning in Interactive Information Retrieval and Generation. SIGIR Forum, 59(1):1–19.
Publicado
05/10/2026
Como Citar
LOPES, Thiago J.; SIQUEIRA, Yeshuá; DE SOUZA, Jairo F.; MACHADO, Marcelo.
Traditional vs. Socratic: How Chatbot Interaction Strategies Shape Self-Directed Learning?. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE INFORMÁTICA NA EDUCAÇÃO (SBIE), 37. , 2026, Goiânia/GO.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2026
.
p. 1943-1957.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbie.2026.28139.
