TY - JOUR
T1 - Cognitive ease at a cost
T2 - LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry
AU - Stadler, Matthias
AU - Bannert, Maria
AU - Sailer, Michael
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/11
Y1 - 2024/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85199961412
U2 - 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386
DO - 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85199961412
SN - 0747-5632
VL - 160
JO - Computers in Human Behavior
JF - Computers in Human Behavior
M1 - 108386
ER -