How the use of artificial intelligence harms college students’ ability to learn
College students who rely on automated answers without critical reflection show a diminished ability to learn independently. A new survey suggests this habit lowers academic self-confidence and reduces the internal drive to succeed in school.
A recent study published in Scientific Reports has revealed that the over-reliance on artificial intelligence tools by college students can negatively impact their ability to learn independently. The researchers, Hui Zhao and Huijuan Gu from Zhoukou Normal University, conducted a study involving 487 undergraduate students from four universities in Henan Province, China.
The participants, ranging from freshmen to seniors and across various academic disciplines, completed an online survey measuring their use of generative AI tools, academic self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and self-directed learning capabilities.
The study found that students who habitually used artificial intelligence tools thoughtlessly, meaning they adopted machine-generated text without critically evaluating or deeply understanding the outputs, displayed weaker self-directed learning skills. These unreflective habits were linked to diminished self-efficacy, or a student's belief in their own capacity to successfully complete tasks and overcome challenges. Consequently, this lowered confidence in their abilities resulted in reduced motivation to learn.
The researchers noted that thoughtless reliance on artificial intelligence deprives students of the opportunity to struggle through complex problems, thereby limiting their self-efficacy. This lower confidence, in turn, affected their motivation to learn. The study's findings highlight the potential academic risks associated with overly dependent use of AI tools in higher education, as students who depend on automated answers may struggle to develop the necessary self-management skills and cognitive engagement needed for effective, independent learning.
Written by urgent.news from PsyPost's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.