谨防元认知懒惰:生成式人工智能对学习动机、过程和成绩的影响

IF 6.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Yizhou Fan, Luzhen Tang, Huixiao Le, Kejie Shen, Shufang Tan, Yueying Zhao, Yuan Shen, Xinyu Li, Dragan Gašević
{"title":"谨防元认知懒惰:生成式人工智能对学习动机、过程和成绩的影响","authors":"Yizhou Fan,&nbsp;Luzhen Tang,&nbsp;Huixiao Le,&nbsp;Kejie Shen,&nbsp;Shufang Tan,&nbsp;Yueying Zhao,&nbsp;Yuan Shen,&nbsp;Xinyu Li,&nbsp;Dragan Gašević","doi":"10.1111/bjet.13544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n \n <p>With the continuous development of technological and educational innovation, learners nowadays can obtain a variety of supports from agents such as teachers, peers, education technologies, and recently, generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT. In particular, there has been a surge of academic interest in human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence in learning. The concept of hybrid intelligence is still at a nascent stage, and how learners can benefit from a symbiotic relationship with various agents such as AI, human experts and intelligent learning systems is still unknown. The emerging concept of hybrid intelligence also lacks deep insights and understanding of the mechanisms and consequences of hybrid human-AI learning based on strong empirical research. In order to address this gap, we conducted a randomised experimental study and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances on a writing task among different groups who had support from different agents, that is, ChatGPT (also referred to as the AI group), chat with a human expert, writing analytics tools, and no extra tool. A total of 117 university students were recruited, and their multi-channel learning, performance and motivation data were collected and analysed. The results revealed that: (1) learners who received different learning support showed no difference in post-task intrinsic motivation; (2) there were significant differences in the frequency and sequences of the self-regulated learning processes among groups; (3) ChatGPT group outperformed in the essay score improvement but their knowledge gain and transfer were not significantly different. Our research found that in the absence of differences in motivation, learners with different supports still exhibited different self-regulated learning processes, ultimately leading to differentiated performance. What is particularly noteworthy is that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger “metacognitive laziness”. In conclusion, understanding and leveraging the respective strengths and weaknesses of different agents in learning is critical in the field of future hybrid intelligence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <div>\n \n <div>\n \n <h3>Practitioner notes</h3>\n <p>What is already known about this topic\n\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Hybrid intelligence, combining human and machine intelligence, aims to augment human capabilities rather than replace them, creating opportunities for more effective lifelong learning and collaboration.</li>\n \n <li>Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, has shown potential in enhancing learning by providing immediate feedback, overcoming language barriers and facilitating personalised educational experiences.</li>\n \n <li>The effectiveness of AI in educational contexts varies, with some studies highlighting its benefits in improving academic performance and motivation, while others note limitations in its ability to replace human teachers entirely.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>What this paper adds\n\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>We conducted a randomised experimental study in the lab setting and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances among different agent groups (AI, human expert and checklist tools).</li>\n \n <li>We found that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger metacognitive \"laziness\", which can potentially hinder their ability to self-regulate and engage deeply in learning.</li>\n \n <li>We also found that ChatGPT can significantly improve short-term task performance, but it may not boost intrinsic motivation and knowledge gain and transfer.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>Implications for practice and/or policy\n\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>When using AI in learning, learners should focus on deepening their understanding of knowledge and actively engage in metacognitive processes such as evaluation, monitoring, and orientation, rather than blindly following ChatGPT's feedback solely to complete tasks efficiently.</li>\n \n <li>When using AI in teaching, teachers should think about which tasks are suitable for learners to complete with the assistance of AI, pay attention to stimulating learners' intrinsic motivations, and develop scaffolding to assist learners in active learning.</li>\n \n <li>Researcher should design multi-task and cross-context studies in the future to deepen our understanding of how learners could ethically and effectively learn, regulate, collaborate and evolve with AI.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48315,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Educational Technology","volume":"56 2","pages":"489-530"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance\",\"authors\":\"Yizhou Fan,&nbsp;Luzhen Tang,&nbsp;Huixiao Le,&nbsp;Kejie Shen,&nbsp;Shufang Tan,&nbsp;Yueying Zhao,&nbsp;Yuan Shen,&nbsp;Xinyu Li,&nbsp;Dragan Gašević\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjet.13544\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n \\n <p>With the continuous development of technological and educational innovation, learners nowadays can obtain a variety of supports from agents such as teachers, peers, education technologies, and recently, generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT. In particular, there has been a surge of academic interest in human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence in learning. The concept of hybrid intelligence is still at a nascent stage, and how learners can benefit from a symbiotic relationship with various agents such as AI, human experts and intelligent learning systems is still unknown. The emerging concept of hybrid intelligence also lacks deep insights and understanding of the mechanisms and consequences of hybrid human-AI learning based on strong empirical research. In order to address this gap, we conducted a randomised experimental study and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances on a writing task among different groups who had support from different agents, that is, ChatGPT (also referred to as the AI group), chat with a human expert, writing analytics tools, and no extra tool. A total of 117 university students were recruited, and their multi-channel learning, performance and motivation data were collected and analysed. The results revealed that: (1) learners who received different learning support showed no difference in post-task intrinsic motivation; (2) there were significant differences in the frequency and sequences of the self-regulated learning processes among groups; (3) ChatGPT group outperformed in the essay score improvement but their knowledge gain and transfer were not significantly different. Our research found that in the absence of differences in motivation, learners with different supports still exhibited different self-regulated learning processes, ultimately leading to differentiated performance. What is particularly noteworthy is that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger “metacognitive laziness”. In conclusion, understanding and leveraging the respective strengths and weaknesses of different agents in learning is critical in the field of future hybrid intelligence.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <div>\\n \\n <div>\\n \\n <h3>Practitioner notes</h3>\\n <p>What is already known about this topic\\n\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>Hybrid intelligence, combining human and machine intelligence, aims to augment human capabilities rather than replace them, creating opportunities for more effective lifelong learning and collaboration.</li>\\n \\n <li>Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, has shown potential in enhancing learning by providing immediate feedback, overcoming language barriers and facilitating personalised educational experiences.</li>\\n \\n <li>The effectiveness of AI in educational contexts varies, with some studies highlighting its benefits in improving academic performance and motivation, while others note limitations in its ability to replace human teachers entirely.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>What this paper adds\\n\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>We conducted a randomised experimental study in the lab setting and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances among different agent groups (AI, human expert and checklist tools).</li>\\n \\n <li>We found that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger metacognitive \\\"laziness\\\", which can potentially hinder their ability to self-regulate and engage deeply in learning.</li>\\n \\n <li>We also found that ChatGPT can significantly improve short-term task performance, but it may not boost intrinsic motivation and knowledge gain and transfer.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>Implications for practice and/or policy\\n\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>When using AI in learning, learners should focus on deepening their understanding of knowledge and actively engage in metacognitive processes such as evaluation, monitoring, and orientation, rather than blindly following ChatGPT's feedback solely to complete tasks efficiently.</li>\\n \\n <li>When using AI in teaching, teachers should think about which tasks are suitable for learners to complete with the assistance of AI, pay attention to stimulating learners' intrinsic motivations, and develop scaffolding to assist learners in active learning.</li>\\n \\n <li>Researcher should design multi-task and cross-context studies in the future to deepen our understanding of how learners could ethically and effectively learn, regulate, collaborate and evolve with AI.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Educational Technology\",\"volume\":\"56 2\",\"pages\":\"489-530\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Educational Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13544\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Educational Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13544","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","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

随着科技和教育创新的不断发展,如今的学习者可以从教师、同伴、教育技术以及最近的ChatGPT等生成式人工智能中获得各种各样的支持。特别是,学术界对人类与人工智能协作和学习中的混合智能的兴趣激增。混合智能的概念仍处于初级阶段,学习者如何从与人工智能、人类专家和智能学习系统等各种代理的共生关系中受益仍是未知的。新兴的混合智能概念也缺乏对基于强大实证研究的混合人类-人工智能学习的机制和后果的深刻见解和理解。为了解决这一差距,我们进行了一项随机实验研究,比较了学习者的动机、自我调节的学习过程和不同小组在写作任务中的学习表现,这些小组有不同的代理支持,即ChatGPT(也称为人工智能组)、与人类专家聊天、写作分析工具,以及没有额外的工具。共招募了117名大学生,对其多渠道学习、绩效和动机数据进行了收集和分析。结果表明:(1)接受不同学习支持的学习者在任务后内在动机方面没有差异;(2)各组学生自我调节学习过程的频率和顺序存在显著差异;(3) ChatGPT组在作文成绩提升方面表现优异,但知识获取和知识转移差异不显著。我们的研究发现,在动机不存在差异的情况下,不同支持的学习者仍然表现出不同的自我调节学习过程,最终导致表现的差异。特别值得注意的是,ChatGPT等人工智能技术可能会促进学习者对技术的依赖,并可能引发“元认知懒惰”。总之,理解和利用不同智能体在学习中的各自优势和劣势是未来混合智能领域的关键。混合智能是人类和机器智能的结合,旨在增强而不是取代人类的能力,为更有效的终身学习和合作创造机会。ChatGPT等生成式人工智能已经显示出通过提供即时反馈、克服语言障碍和促进个性化教育体验来增强学习的潜力。人工智能在教育环境中的有效性各不相同,一些研究强调了它在提高学习成绩和激励方面的好处,而另一些研究则指出了它完全取代人类教师的能力的局限性。我们在实验室环境中进行了一项随机实验研究,比较了不同代理组(人工智能、人类专家和清单工具)中学习者的动机、自我调节的学习过程和学习表现。我们发现,ChatGPT等人工智能技术可能会促进学习者对技术的依赖,并可能引发元认知“懒惰”,这可能会阻碍他们自我调节和深入学习的能力。我们还发现,ChatGPT可以显著提高短期任务绩效,但可能不会提高内在动机和知识的获取和转移。在使用人工智能进行学习时,学习者应该专注于加深对知识的理解,积极参与元认知过程,如评估、监控、定向等,而不是一味地跟随ChatGPT的反馈,仅仅为了高效地完成任务。在使用AI进行教学时,教师应该考虑哪些任务适合学习者在AI的帮助下完成,注意激发学习者的内在动机,并建立脚手架来帮助学习者主动学习。研究人员应该在未来设计多任务和跨背景的研究,以加深我们对学习者如何道德地和有效地学习、调节、协作和与人工智能发展的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance

With the continuous development of technological and educational innovation, learners nowadays can obtain a variety of supports from agents such as teachers, peers, education technologies, and recently, generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT. In particular, there has been a surge of academic interest in human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence in learning. The concept of hybrid intelligence is still at a nascent stage, and how learners can benefit from a symbiotic relationship with various agents such as AI, human experts and intelligent learning systems is still unknown. The emerging concept of hybrid intelligence also lacks deep insights and understanding of the mechanisms and consequences of hybrid human-AI learning based on strong empirical research. In order to address this gap, we conducted a randomised experimental study and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances on a writing task among different groups who had support from different agents, that is, ChatGPT (also referred to as the AI group), chat with a human expert, writing analytics tools, and no extra tool. A total of 117 university students were recruited, and their multi-channel learning, performance and motivation data were collected and analysed. The results revealed that: (1) learners who received different learning support showed no difference in post-task intrinsic motivation; (2) there were significant differences in the frequency and sequences of the self-regulated learning processes among groups; (3) ChatGPT group outperformed in the essay score improvement but their knowledge gain and transfer were not significantly different. Our research found that in the absence of differences in motivation, learners with different supports still exhibited different self-regulated learning processes, ultimately leading to differentiated performance. What is particularly noteworthy is that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger “metacognitive laziness”. In conclusion, understanding and leveraging the respective strengths and weaknesses of different agents in learning is critical in the field of future hybrid intelligence.

Practitioner notes

What is already known about this topic

  • Hybrid intelligence, combining human and machine intelligence, aims to augment human capabilities rather than replace them, creating opportunities for more effective lifelong learning and collaboration.
  • Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, has shown potential in enhancing learning by providing immediate feedback, overcoming language barriers and facilitating personalised educational experiences.
  • The effectiveness of AI in educational contexts varies, with some studies highlighting its benefits in improving academic performance and motivation, while others note limitations in its ability to replace human teachers entirely.

What this paper adds

  • We conducted a randomised experimental study in the lab setting and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances among different agent groups (AI, human expert and checklist tools).
  • We found that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger metacognitive "laziness", which can potentially hinder their ability to self-regulate and engage deeply in learning.
  • We also found that ChatGPT can significantly improve short-term task performance, but it may not boost intrinsic motivation and knowledge gain and transfer.

Implications for practice and/or policy

  • When using AI in learning, learners should focus on deepening their understanding of knowledge and actively engage in metacognitive processes such as evaluation, monitoring, and orientation, rather than blindly following ChatGPT's feedback solely to complete tasks efficiently.
  • When using AI in teaching, teachers should think about which tasks are suitable for learners to complete with the assistance of AI, pay attention to stimulating learners' intrinsic motivations, and develop scaffolding to assist learners in active learning.
  • Researcher should design multi-task and cross-context studies in the future to deepen our understanding of how learners could ethically and effectively learn, regulate, collaborate and evolve with AI.
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
British Journal of Educational Technology
British Journal of Educational Technology EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: BJET is a primary source for academics and professionals in the fields of digital educational and training technology throughout the world. The Journal is published by Wiley on behalf of The British Educational Research Association (BERA). It publishes theoretical perspectives, methodological developments and high quality empirical research that demonstrate whether and how applications of instructional/educational technology systems, networks, tools and resources lead to improvements in formal and non-formal education at all levels, from early years through to higher, technical and vocational education, professional development and corporate training.
×
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