认知轻松是有代价的:法律硕士减少了学生的脑力劳动,但影响了学生科学探究的深度

IF 9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Matthias Stadler , Maria Bannert , Michael Sailer
{"title":"认知轻松是有代价的:法律硕士减少了学生的脑力劳动,但影响了学生科学探究的深度","authors":"Matthias Stadler ,&nbsp;Maria Bannert ,&nbsp;Michael Sailer","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study explores the cognitive load and learning outcomes associated with using large language models (LLMs) versus traditional search engines for information gathering during learning. A total of 91 university students were randomly assigned to either use ChatGPT3.5 or Google to research the socio-scientific issue of nanoparticles in sunscreen to derive valid recommendations and justifications. The study aimed to investigate potential differences in cognitive load, as well as the quality and homogeneity of the students' recommendations and justifications. Results indicated that students using LLMs experienced significantly lower cognitive load. However, despite this reduction, these students demonstrated lower-quality reasoning and argumentation in their final recommendations compared to those who used traditional search engines. Further, the homogeneity of the recommendations and justifications did not differ significantly between the two groups, suggesting that LLMs did not restrict the diversity of students’ perspectives. These findings highlight the nuanced implications of digital tools on learning, suggesting that while LLMs can decrease the cognitive burden associated with information gathering during a learning task, they may not promote deeper engagement with content necessary for high-quality learning per se.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48471,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 108386"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002541/pdfft?md5=9847cca1c82d7d2f77122b9b2db1ae95&pid=1-s2.0-S0747563224002541-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Stadler ,&nbsp;Maria Bannert ,&nbsp;Michael Sailer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study explores the cognitive load and learning outcomes associated with using large language models (LLMs) versus traditional search engines for information gathering during learning. A total of 91 university students were randomly assigned to either use ChatGPT3.5 or Google to research the socio-scientific issue of nanoparticles in sunscreen to derive valid recommendations and justifications. The study aimed to investigate potential differences in cognitive load, as well as the quality and homogeneity of the students' recommendations and justifications. Results indicated that students using LLMs experienced significantly lower cognitive load. However, despite this reduction, these students demonstrated lower-quality reasoning and argumentation in their final recommendations compared to those who used traditional search engines. Further, the homogeneity of the recommendations and justifications did not differ significantly between the two groups, suggesting that LLMs did not restrict the diversity of students’ perspectives. These findings highlight the nuanced implications of digital tools on learning, suggesting that while LLMs can decrease the cognitive burden associated with information gathering during a learning task, they may not promote deeper engagement with content necessary for high-quality learning per se.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"160 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108386\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002541/pdfft?md5=9847cca1c82d7d2f77122b9b2db1ae95&pid=1-s2.0-S0747563224002541-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002541\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002541","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了在学习过程中使用大型语言模型(LLM)和传统搜索引擎收集信息的认知负荷和学习效果。共有 91 名大学生被随机分配使用 ChatGPT3.5 或 Google 研究防晒霜中的纳米粒子这一社会科学问题,以得出有效的建议和理由。研究旨在调查认知负荷的潜在差异,以及学生建议和理由的质量和同质性。结果表明,使用 LLM 的学生的认知负荷明显较低。然而,尽管认知负荷降低了,与使用传统搜索引擎的学生相比,这些学生在最终推荐中表现出的推理和论证质量却较低。此外,两组学生的建议和理由的同质性没有明显差异,这表明 LLMs 并没有限制学生观点的多样性。这些发现凸显了数字工具对学习的细微影响,表明尽管 LLMs 可以减轻学习任务中与信息收集相关的认知负担,但它们可能不会促进学生更深入地参与高质量学习本身所必需的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry

This study explores the cognitive load and learning outcomes associated with using large language models (LLMs) versus traditional search engines for information gathering during learning. A total of 91 university students were randomly assigned to either use ChatGPT3.5 or Google to research the socio-scientific issue of nanoparticles in sunscreen to derive valid recommendations and justifications. The study aimed to investigate potential differences in cognitive load, as well as the quality and homogeneity of the students' recommendations and justifications. Results indicated that students using LLMs experienced significantly lower cognitive load. However, despite this reduction, these students demonstrated lower-quality reasoning and argumentation in their final recommendations compared to those who used traditional search engines. Further, the homogeneity of the recommendations and justifications did not differ significantly between the two groups, suggesting that LLMs did not restrict the diversity of students’ perspectives. These findings highlight the nuanced implications of digital tools on learning, suggesting that while LLMs can decrease the cognitive burden associated with information gathering during a learning task, they may not promote deeper engagement with content necessary for high-quality learning per se.

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
CiteScore
19.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
381
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Computers in Human Behavior is a scholarly journal that explores the psychological aspects of computer use. It covers original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, and software and book reviews. The journal examines both the use of computers in psychology, psychiatry, and related fields, and the psychological impact of computer use on individuals, groups, and society. Articles discuss topics such as professional practice, training, research, human development, learning, cognition, personality, and social interactions. It focuses on human interactions with computers, considering the computer as a medium through which human behaviors are shaped and expressed. Professionals interested in the psychological aspects of computer use will find this journal valuable, even with limited knowledge of computers.
×
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