探索 ChatGPT 对商学院教育的影响:前景、界限和悖论

IF 2.5 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sorin Valcea, Maria Riaz Hamdani, Shuai Wang
{"title":"探索 ChatGPT 对商学院教育的影响:前景、界限和悖论","authors":"Sorin Valcea, Maria Riaz Hamdani, Shuai Wang","doi":"10.1177/10525629241261313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay explores the nuanced impact of generative AI technologies on management and business education, framed through three paradoxes: the Expertise Paradox suggests that AI’s adequate performance at lower-level tasks may weaken students’ development of higher-level thinking; the Innovation Paradox states that AI’s creativity aid could stifle original thinking; and the Equity Paradox highlights AI’s potential to provide immense gains to experts but disproportionately harm novices. We take the position that without “sensible” AI use guidelines in management education, AI is likely to have a net-negative effect on learning. This stance is based on our trials with ChatGPT on various cognitive tasks organized around the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning. We identify areas where AI tools can enhance learning, such as comprehending established subject domains, as well as areas where they exhibit significant limitations, such as logical reasoning and critical thinking. We caution against the potential deskilling in critical thinking due to students’ overreliance on AI for basic tasks. To alleviate these challenges, we recommend sensible AI uses by students that support skill development without fostering overreliance. We also suggest how faculty, administrators, and employers may support students in getting the most out of this new tool.","PeriodicalId":47308,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Business School Education: Prospects, Boundaries, and Paradoxes\",\"authors\":\"Sorin Valcea, Maria Riaz Hamdani, Shuai Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10525629241261313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay explores the nuanced impact of generative AI technologies on management and business education, framed through three paradoxes: the Expertise Paradox suggests that AI’s adequate performance at lower-level tasks may weaken students’ development of higher-level thinking; the Innovation Paradox states that AI’s creativity aid could stifle original thinking; and the Equity Paradox highlights AI’s potential to provide immense gains to experts but disproportionately harm novices. We take the position that without “sensible” AI use guidelines in management education, AI is likely to have a net-negative effect on learning. This stance is based on our trials with ChatGPT on various cognitive tasks organized around the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning. We identify areas where AI tools can enhance learning, such as comprehending established subject domains, as well as areas where they exhibit significant limitations, such as logical reasoning and critical thinking. We caution against the potential deskilling in critical thinking due to students’ overreliance on AI for basic tasks. To alleviate these challenges, we recommend sensible AI uses by students that support skill development without fostering overreliance. We also suggest how faculty, administrators, and employers may support students in getting the most out of this new tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Education\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629241261313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629241261313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过三个悖论探讨了生成式人工智能技术对管理和商业教育的微妙影响:"专业悖论 "认为,人工智能在低级任务中的充分表现可能会削弱学生在高级思维方面的发展;"创新悖论 "指出,人工智能对创造力的帮助可能会扼杀原创性思维;"公平悖论 "则强调了人工智能为专家带来巨大收益但却对新手造成不成比例伤害的潜力。我们的立场是,如果在管理教育中没有 "合理 "的人工智能使用指南,人工智能很可能会对学习产生净负面影响。这一立场是基于我们在各种认知任务中使用 ChatGPT 进行的试验,这些认知任务是围绕修订后的布卢姆学习分类学组织的。我们确定了人工智能工具可以提高学习效果的领域,如理解既定的学科领域,以及它们表现出明显局限性的领域,如逻辑推理和批判性思维。我们要警惕由于学生在完成基本任务时过度依赖人工智能而可能导致批判性思维的枯竭。为了缓解这些挑战,我们建议学生合理使用人工智能,既支持技能发展,又不助长过度依赖。我们还建议教师、管理者和雇主如何支持学生充分利用这一新工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Business School Education: Prospects, Boundaries, and Paradoxes
This essay explores the nuanced impact of generative AI technologies on management and business education, framed through three paradoxes: the Expertise Paradox suggests that AI’s adequate performance at lower-level tasks may weaken students’ development of higher-level thinking; the Innovation Paradox states that AI’s creativity aid could stifle original thinking; and the Equity Paradox highlights AI’s potential to provide immense gains to experts but disproportionately harm novices. We take the position that without “sensible” AI use guidelines in management education, AI is likely to have a net-negative effect on learning. This stance is based on our trials with ChatGPT on various cognitive tasks organized around the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning. We identify areas where AI tools can enhance learning, such as comprehending established subject domains, as well as areas where they exhibit significant limitations, such as logical reasoning and critical thinking. We caution against the potential deskilling in critical thinking due to students’ overreliance on AI for basic tasks. To alleviate these challenges, we recommend sensible AI uses by students that support skill development without fostering overreliance. We also suggest how faculty, administrators, and employers may support students in getting the most out of this new tool.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Management Education
Journal of Management Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Education (JME) encourages contributions that respond to important issues in management education. The overriding question that guides the journal’s double-blind peer review process is: Will this contribution have a significant impact on thinking and/or practice in management education? Contributions may be either conceptual or empirical in nature, and are welcomed from any topic area and any country so long as their primary focus is on learning and/or teaching issues in management or organization studies. Although our core areas of interest are organizational behavior and management, we are also interested in teaching and learning developments in related domains such as human resource management & labor relations, social issues in management, critical management studies, diversity, ethics, organizational development, production and operations, sustainability, etc. We are open to all approaches to scholarly inquiry that form the basis for high quality knowledge creation and dissemination within management teaching and learning.
×
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