Exploring the utilization and deficiencies of Generative Artificial Intelligence in students' cognitive and emotional needs: a systematic mini-review.

IF 3 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence Pub Date : 2024-11-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frai.2024.1493566
Elvis Ortega-Ochoa, Josep-Maria Sabaté, Marta Arguedas, Jordi Conesa, Thanasis Daradoumis, Santi Caballé
{"title":"Exploring the utilization and deficiencies of Generative Artificial Intelligence in students' cognitive and emotional needs: a systematic mini-review.","authors":"Elvis Ortega-Ochoa, Josep-Maria Sabaté, Marta Arguedas, Jordi Conesa, Thanasis Daradoumis, Santi Caballé","doi":"10.3389/frai.2024.1493566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite advances in educational technology, the specific ways in which Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) and Large Language Models cater to learners' nuanced cognitive and emotional needs are not fully understood. This mini-review methodically describes GAI's practical implementations and limitations in meeting these needs. It included journal and conference papers from 2019 to 2024, focusing on empirical studies that employ GAI tools in educational contexts while addressing their practical utility and ethical considerations. The selection criteria excluded non-English studies, non-empirical research, and works published before 2019. From the dataset obtained from Scopus and Web of Science as of June 18, 2024, four significant studies were reviewed. These studies involved tools like ChatGPT and emphasized their effectiveness in boosting student engagement and emotional regulation through interactive learning environments with instant feedback. Nonetheless, the review reveals substantial deficiencies in GAI's capacity to promote critical thinking and maintain response accuracy, potentially leading to learner confusion. Moreover, the ability of these tools to tailor learning experiences and offer emotional support remains limited, often not satisfying individual learner requirements. The findings from the included studies suggest limited generalizability beyond specific GAI versions, with studies being cross-sectional and involving small participant pools. Practical implications underscore the need to develop teaching strategies leveraging GAI to enhance critical thinking. There is also a need to improve the accuracy of GAI tools' responses. Lastly, deep analysis of intervention approval is needed in cases where GAI does not meet acceptable error margins to mitigate potential negative impacts on learning experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":33315,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","volume":"7 ","pages":"1493566"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586364/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1493566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite advances in educational technology, the specific ways in which Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) and Large Language Models cater to learners' nuanced cognitive and emotional needs are not fully understood. This mini-review methodically describes GAI's practical implementations and limitations in meeting these needs. It included journal and conference papers from 2019 to 2024, focusing on empirical studies that employ GAI tools in educational contexts while addressing their practical utility and ethical considerations. The selection criteria excluded non-English studies, non-empirical research, and works published before 2019. From the dataset obtained from Scopus and Web of Science as of June 18, 2024, four significant studies were reviewed. These studies involved tools like ChatGPT and emphasized their effectiveness in boosting student engagement and emotional regulation through interactive learning environments with instant feedback. Nonetheless, the review reveals substantial deficiencies in GAI's capacity to promote critical thinking and maintain response accuracy, potentially leading to learner confusion. Moreover, the ability of these tools to tailor learning experiences and offer emotional support remains limited, often not satisfying individual learner requirements. The findings from the included studies suggest limited generalizability beyond specific GAI versions, with studies being cross-sectional and involving small participant pools. Practical implications underscore the need to develop teaching strategies leveraging GAI to enhance critical thinking. There is also a need to improve the accuracy of GAI tools' responses. Lastly, deep analysis of intervention approval is needed in cases where GAI does not meet acceptable error margins to mitigate potential negative impacts on learning experiences.

探索生成式人工智能在学生认知和情感需求方面的应用和不足:系统性小综述。
尽管教育技术在不断进步,但人们对生成式人工智能(GAI)和大型语言模型满足学习者细微的认知和情感需求的具体方式并不完全了解。这篇微型综述有条不紊地描述了 GAI 在满足这些需求方面的实际应用和局限性。它收录了2019年至2024年的期刊论文和会议论文,重点关注在教育背景下使用GAI工具的实证研究,同时探讨其实际效用和伦理考虑因素。选择标准排除了非英语研究、非实证研究以及2019年之前发表的作品。从截至 2024 年 6 月 18 日从 Scopus 和 Web of Science 获取的数据集中,审查了四项重要研究。这些研究涉及 ChatGPT 等工具,并强调了它们通过即时反馈的互动学习环境提高学生参与度和情绪调节能力的有效性。然而,综述显示,GAI 在促进批判性思维和保持反应准确性方面存在重大缺陷,可能会导致学习者产生困惑。此外,这些工具定制学习体验和提供情感支持的能力仍然有限,往往不能满足学习者的个性化要求。所纳入研究的结果表明,除了特定的 GAI 版本外,其他研究的普遍性有限,而且这些研究都是横断面研究,涉及的参与者人数较少。实际意义强调,有必要利用 GAI 制定教学策略,以提高批判性思维能力。此外,还需要提高 GAI 工具反应的准确性。最后,在 GAI 不符合可接受误差范围的情况下,需要对干预批准进行深入分析,以减轻对学习经验的潜在负面影响。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.50%
发文量
272
审稿时长
13 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