{"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 , Maria Bannert , 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 , Maria Bannert , 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}
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.
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.