AI evidence extraction

The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review

Chunpeng Zhai, Santoso Wibowo, Lily D. Li · Smart Learning Environments · 2024

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

8/10

Relevance

0/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

1,009

Citations

102.17

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7

Methodology & findings

Study design

Systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines.

Main result

The systematic review found that over-reliance on AI dialogue systems impacts cognitive abilities, as "individuals increasingly favor fast and optimal solutions over slow ones constrained by practicality." The study identified five primary ethical concerns: "hallucination, algorithmic bias, plagiarism, privacy concerns, and transparency concerns" that drive over-reliance. Key evidence includes that "68% were correctly identified as such (true positives), while 14% of authentic abstracts were mistakenly categorized as chatbot-generated (false positives)" when ChatGPT-generated abstracts were evaluated. Additionally, plagiarism detection tools "could only detect plagiarism in less than 15% of cases," demonstrating significant limitations in academic integrity safeguards.

Research paradigm

Interpretive/Qualitative

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "over-reliance stemming from ethical issues of AI impacts cognitive abilities, as individuals increasingly favor fast and optimal solutions over slow ones constrained by practicality. This tendency explains why users prefer efficient cognitive shortcuts, or heuristics, even amidst the ethical issues presented by AI technologies." They further state that "the rationale for this study stems from the urgent need to delve into the ethical quandaries posed by AI dialogue systems within educational settings. It aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how these systems influence users' cognitive skills and to develop a framework for navigating the ethical pitfalls associated with their use."

Risk of bias

Selection bias: Only articles published in English from 2017-2023 were included, potentially excluding relevant non-English literature; Database selection bias: Limited to four databases (ProQuest, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Web of Science); other databases may contain relevant studies; Publication bias: Only peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings included; grey literature excluded; Study design bias: Systematic review focuses on available literature; studies with null or negative results may be underrepresented; Publication bias: only English-language articles included; Selection bias: limited to 2017-2023 timeframe; Database selection bias: only four databases searched; Study selection bias: authors excluded editorials, opinion pieces, dissertations, and non-English publications; Sampling bias: focus on higher education contexts only, excluding primary/secondary school contexts; Publication bias: Only English-language peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings included; editorials, opinion pieces, dissertations, and trade publications excluded; Selection bias: Limited to articles published 2017-2023 focusing specifically on AI dialogue systems with generative modules; Geographic bias: Emphasis on higher education contexts with potential overrepresentation of developed country perspectives; Scope bias: Limited to research and education contexts; not inclusive of primary/secondary school students; Database bias: Results dependent on four selected databases; other relevant sources may exist

Limitations

The authors state that "This research primarily draws data from the context of higher education, thereby not considering the cognitive developmental differences across various age groups, such as teenagers and primary or secondary school students
These younger cohorts are typically not included in independent research studies, yet their cognitive abilities and learning processes could be significantly impacted by AI dialogue systems in ways distinct from those observed in older students." Additionally, the authors acknowledge that "the existing literature, while acknowledging these ethical concerns, lacks a comprehensive analysis of their impacts or offering strategies for mitigating these risks."

Open questions raised

Limited research examining how ethical issues of AI contribute to students' over-reliance on AI dialogue systems
Lack of comprehensive analysis on long-term implications of over-reliance on AI for decision-making, critical thinking, and analytical thinking
Absence of studies examining cognitive developmental differences across various age groups (teenagers, primary/secondary school students) in relation to AI dialogue systems
Need for more inclusive approaches considering different educational levels and age groups
Limited investigation of strategies and technological interventions to alleviate challenges of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems
Lack of comprehensive analysis of how ethical concerns impact cognitive abilities (decision-making, critical thinking, analytical thinking)

Extracted from: pdfAgreement 82%

Explore related topics

Responsible AI Use Human-AI Collaboration