Learners supported by ChatGPT, a human expert, checklist tools, or no support show no significant difference in post-task intrinsic motivation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Four agent-support groups did not differ significantly on any IMI dimension of intrinsic motivation after the task. → Fan 2025

Evidence¶

Fan 2025¶

Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gasevic, D. (2025). Beware of Metacognitive Laziness: Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Learning Motivation, Processes, and Performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

ANOVA with Tukey's HSD on post-task Intrinsic Motivation Inventory responses from the randomised four-group lab experiment (114 respondents across CN, AI, HE, CL groups). All four IMI dimensions were non-significant, with small printed effects such as "η2=0.029" for Interest/Enjoyment.

"No significant difference between the four groups was observed with re- gards to Interest/Enjoyment (F=1.087, p=0.358, η2=0.029), Perceived Competence (F=0.453, p=0.716,η2=0.012), Ef- fort/Importance (F=1.152, p=0.332, η2=0.030) and Pressure/T ension (F=0.546, p=0.652, η2=0.015)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Motivation — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• GenAI-assisted education produces significantly higher learning motivation than non-GenAI approaches (g = 0.81) — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Checklist tool use significantly increases Evaluation processes, an effect not observed in the ChatGPT and human-expert groups — related
• No significant group differences in knowledge gain or knowledge transfer despite ChatGPT's task-performance advantage — related
• During revision, supported groups (AI, human expert, checklist) engage more in elaboration, organisation and orientation, while AI and human-expert groups read less than the control group — related
• The ChatGPT group achieves significantly greater essay score improvement than the other three groups — related
• Process mining shows the ChatGPT group's revision loop centred on consulting ChatGPT, while the human-expert group strengthened connections between revising and reading, orientation and evaluation — related
• Perceived GenAI role is systematically associated with metacognitive dimensions activated: replacement-tool users show no evaluation or elaboration, collaborator users show predominantly higher-order activity — related