Affordances and limitations of using large language models to generate qualitative data about mental health perceptions in engineering

IF 5.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jeanne Sanders, John Mobley IV, Isabel Miller, Nicola W. Sochacka, Paul A. Jensen, Karin J. Jensen
{"title":"Affordances and limitations of using large language models to generate qualitative data about mental health perceptions in engineering","authors":"Jeanne Sanders,&nbsp;John Mobley IV,&nbsp;Isabel Miller,&nbsp;Nicola W. Sochacka,&nbsp;Paul A. Jensen,&nbsp;Karin J. Jensen","doi":"10.1002/jee.70037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Generative artificial intelligence (AI) large-language models (LLMs) have significant potential as research tools. However, the broader implications of using these tools are still emerging. Few studies have explored using LLMs to generate data for qualitative engineering education research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>We explore the following questions: (i) What are the affordances and limitations of using LLMs to generate qualitative data in engineering education, and (ii) in what ways might these data reproduce and reinforce dominant cultural narratives in engineering education, including narratives of high stress?</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design/Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We analyzed similarities and differences between LLM-generated conversational data (ChatGPT) and qualitative interviews with engineering faculty and undergraduate engineering students from multiple institutions. We identified patterns, affordances, limitations, and underlying biases in generated data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>LLM-generated content contained similar responses to interview content. Varying the prompt persona (e.g., demographic information) increased the response variety. When prompted for ways to decrease stress in engineering education, LLM responses more readily described opportunities for structural change, while participants' responses more often described personal changes. LLM data more frequently stereotyped a response than participants did, meaning that LLM responses lacked the nuance and variation that naturally occurs in interviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>LLMs may be a useful tool in brainstorming, for example, during protocol development and refinement. However, the bias present in the data indicates that care must be taken when engaging with LLMs to generate data. Specially trained LLMs that are based only on data from engineering education hold promise for future research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.70037","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.70037","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) large-language models (LLMs) have significant potential as research tools. However, the broader implications of using these tools are still emerging. Few studies have explored using LLMs to generate data for qualitative engineering education research.

Purpose/Hypothesis

We explore the following questions: (i) What are the affordances and limitations of using LLMs to generate qualitative data in engineering education, and (ii) in what ways might these data reproduce and reinforce dominant cultural narratives in engineering education, including narratives of high stress?

Design/Methods

We analyzed similarities and differences between LLM-generated conversational data (ChatGPT) and qualitative interviews with engineering faculty and undergraduate engineering students from multiple institutions. We identified patterns, affordances, limitations, and underlying biases in generated data.

Results

LLM-generated content contained similar responses to interview content. Varying the prompt persona (e.g., demographic information) increased the response variety. When prompted for ways to decrease stress in engineering education, LLM responses more readily described opportunities for structural change, while participants' responses more often described personal changes. LLM data more frequently stereotyped a response than participants did, meaning that LLM responses lacked the nuance and variation that naturally occurs in interviews.

Conclusions

LLMs may be a useful tool in brainstorming, for example, during protocol development and refinement. However, the bias present in the data indicates that care must be taken when engaging with LLMs to generate data. Specially trained LLMs that are based only on data from engineering education hold promise for future research.

Abstract Image

在工程中使用大型语言模型生成关于心理健康感知的定性数据的优点和局限性
生成式人工智能(AI)大语言模型(llm)作为研究工具具有巨大的潜力。然而,使用这些工具的更广泛的影响仍在出现。很少有研究探索使用法学硕士为定性工程教育研究生成数据。目的/假设我们探讨以下问题:(i)在工程教育中使用法学硕士生成定性数据的优点和局限性是什么,以及(ii)这些数据以何种方式再现和强化工程教育中的主流文化叙事,包括高压力叙事?设计/方法我们分析了llm生成的会话数据(ChatGPT)与来自多个院校的工程学院和本科工程学生的定性访谈之间的异同。我们在生成的数据中确定了模式、可用性、局限性和潜在偏差。结果法学硕士生成的内容与访谈内容的反应相似。改变提示角色(例如,人口统计信息)增加了响应的多样性。当被问及减轻工程教育压力的方法时,法学硕士的回答更容易描述结构变化的机会,而参与者的回答更多地描述个人变化。法学硕士的数据比参与者的回答更容易形成刻板印象,这意味着法学硕士的回答缺乏面试中自然出现的细微差别和变化。llm可能是头脑风暴的有用工具,例如,在协议的制定和完善过程中。然而,数据中存在的偏差表明,在与法学硕士合作生成数据时必须小心。专门训练的法学硕士只基于工程教育的数据,为未来的研究带来了希望。
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
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书