A Survey on Student Use of Generative AI Chatbots for Academic Research

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Amy Deschenes, Meg McMahon
{"title":"A Survey on Student Use of Generative AI Chatbots for Academic Research","authors":"Amy Deschenes, Meg McMahon","doi":"10.18438/eblip30512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives – To understand how many undergraduate and graduate students use generative AI as part of their academic work, how often they use it, and for what tasks they use it. We also sought to identify how trustworthy students find generative AI and how they would feel about a locally maintained generative AI tool. Finally, we explored student interest in trainings related to using generative AI in academic work.  This survey will help librarians better understand the rate at which generative AI is being adopted by university students and the need for librarians to incorporate generative AI into their work.\nMethods – A team of three library staff members and one student intern created, executed, and analyzed a survey of 360 undergraduate and graduate students at Harvard University. The survey was distributed via email lists and at cafes and libraries throughout campus. Data were collected and analyzed using Qualtrics.\nResults – We found that nearly 65% of respondents have used or plan to use generative AI chatbots for academic work, even though most respondents (65%) do not find their outputs trustworthy enough for academic work. The findings show that students actively use these tools but desire guidance around effectively using them.\nConclusion – This research shows students are engaging with generative AI for academic work but do not fully trust the information that it produces. Librarians must be at the forefront of understanding the significant impact this technology will have on information-seeking behaviors and research habits. To effectively support students, librarians must know how to use these tools to advise students on how to critically evaluate AI output and effectively incorporate it into their research.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives – To understand how many undergraduate and graduate students use generative AI as part of their academic work, how often they use it, and for what tasks they use it. We also sought to identify how trustworthy students find generative AI and how they would feel about a locally maintained generative AI tool. Finally, we explored student interest in trainings related to using generative AI in academic work.  This survey will help librarians better understand the rate at which generative AI is being adopted by university students and the need for librarians to incorporate generative AI into their work. Methods – A team of three library staff members and one student intern created, executed, and analyzed a survey of 360 undergraduate and graduate students at Harvard University. The survey was distributed via email lists and at cafes and libraries throughout campus. Data were collected and analyzed using Qualtrics. Results – We found that nearly 65% of respondents have used or plan to use generative AI chatbots for academic work, even though most respondents (65%) do not find their outputs trustworthy enough for academic work. The findings show that students actively use these tools but desire guidance around effectively using them. Conclusion – This research shows students are engaging with generative AI for academic work but do not fully trust the information that it produces. Librarians must be at the forefront of understanding the significant impact this technology will have on information-seeking behaviors and research habits. To effectively support students, librarians must know how to use these tools to advise students on how to critically evaluate AI output and effectively incorporate it into their research.
关于学生在学术研究中使用生成式人工智能聊天机器人的调查
目标 - 了解有多少本科生和研究生在学术工作中使用生成式人工智能,他们使用的频率如何,以及使用它来完成哪些任务。我们还试图确定学生对生成式人工智能的信任度,以及他们对本地维护的生成式人工智能工具的看法。最后,我们还探讨了学生对在学术工作中使用生成式人工智能相关培训的兴趣。 这项调查将帮助图书馆员更好地了解大学生采用生成式人工智能的速度,以及图书馆员将生成式人工智能融入其工作的需求。方法--由三名图书馆工作人员和一名实习生组成的团队创建、执行并分析了一项针对哈佛大学 360 名本科生和研究生的调查。该调查通过电子邮件列表以及校园内的咖啡馆和图书馆分发。结果 - 我们发现,近 65% 的受访者已经使用或计划在学术工作中使用生成式人工智能聊天机器人,尽管大多数受访者(65%)认为其输出结果在学术工作中不够可信。研究结果表明,学生们积极使用这些工具,但希望得到有效使用这些工具的指导。结论--这项研究表明,学生们正在将生成式人工智能用于学术工作,但并不完全信任其生成的信息。图书馆员必须站在最前沿,了解这项技术将对信息搜索行为和研究习惯产生的重大影响。为了有效地支持学生,图书馆员必须知道如何使用这些工具,指导学生如何批判性地评估人工智能输出,并有效地将其纳入自己的研究中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信