AI tools like ChatGPT are popular among students who have trouble focusing and paying attention

Since their release, AI tools like ChatGPT have had a huge impact on content creation. In schools and universities, there is a raging debate over whether these tools should be allowed or banned.

Swedish researchers investigated the relationship between adolescents’ executive functioning (EF) and their use and perceived usefulness of generative AI chatbots for schoolwork. Their results are published in The Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence.

“Students who struggle with executive functions found these tools particularly helpful, especially for completing homework,” said Johan Klarin, a school psychologist and research assistant in the Department of Psychology at Lund University. “This highlights the role of these tools as a potential support for students who struggle with cognitive processes that are essential for academic success.”

However, the researchers also mentioned that overuse of these tools could hinder or delay the development of functional skills and students’ learning. “This should be carefully considered when implementing AI support in schools, and the effects should be studied longitudinally,” added Dr. Daiva Daukantaitė, project leader and associate professor at Lund University.

Perceived usefulness

The researchers conducted two studies. The first involved a sample of 385 adolescents aged 12 to 16, enrolled in four primary schools in southern Sweden. The second involved 359 students aged 15 to 19, enrolled in the same high school.

The studies found that AI chatbot usage rates were around 15% among younger teens and around 53% among older students. One possible explanation is that older students are more often given complex tasks and may therefore use AI tools more frequently. The researchers also pointed out that the two studies were conducted at different times – the “second study” almost a year after the “first study” – which could show that during this time period, AI use became more popular in general.

But more importantly, studies have shown that students who struggle the most with executive functions perceive generative AI as much more useful for schoolwork than their peers. One possible reason is that these students achieve greater productivity improvements than their classmates, the researchers said.

Support or cheat?

“The line between cheating and using AI tools as assistance should be drawn based on the intent and extent of use,” Klarin said. Using ChatGPT to complete entire tasks or solve problems and submitting the results as one’s own is cheating. Provided students critically engage with the generated content and contribute their own understanding and effort, it can be considered legitimate assistance.

Students, especially those struggling with EF, can use ChatGPT responsibly by using it for research, idea generation, and understanding complex concepts.

“Educators need to provide guidelines and frameworks for appropriate use. Teaching digital literacy and ethical considerations is also crucial,” Klarin said.

The practical feasibility of such teaching could be improved by using technology, facilitating peer support programs and providing professional development for teachers to identify and support students with EF problems, the researchers said.

Balancing AI and Academic Integrity

The findings offer a first attempt to understand the relationship between the use of AI tools in schools and EF, the researchers said.

“Our work lays the initial foundation to inform educators, policymakers, and technology developers about the role of generative AI in education and how to balance its benefits with the need to maintain academic integrity and promote real learning. It also highlights the need for supports for students, particularly those who struggle with executive functions. However, to gain a more complete understanding, additional studies are needed,” Daukantaité concluded.

However, they highlighted limitations of the study, including that students self-reported their use of AI and that generalization of the findings may not be possible because they focused on specific age groups, educational settings, and conducted their research in an environment where each student receives a free laptop – factors that may vary across situations and countries.