RECORD
Human-Generative AI Collaborative Problem Solving Who Leads and How Students Perceive the Interactions
Human-Computer Interaction · Submitted 19 May 2024
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim The results of this study contribute to our understanding of the collaboration between students and generative AI and highlight the need to study further why some students let ChatGPT lead collaborative problem-solving and how to enhance their interaction experience through curriculum and technology design.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
This research investigates distinct human-generative AI collaboration types and students' interaction experiences when collaborating with generative AI (i.e., ChatGPT) for problem-solving tasks and how these factors relate to students' sense of agency and perceived collaborative problem solving. By analyzing the surveys and reflections of 79 undergraduate students, we identified three human-generative AI collaboration types: even contribution, human leads, and AI leads. Notably, our study shows that 77.21% of students perceived they led or had even contributed to collaborative problem-solving when collaborating with ChatGPT. On the other hand, 15.19% of the human participants indicated that the collaborations were led by ChatGPT, indicating a potential tendency for students to rely on ChatGPT. Furthermore, 67.09% of students perceived their interaction experiences with ChatGPT to be positive or mixed. We also found a positive correlation between positive interaction experience and a sense of positive agency. The results of this study contribute to our understanding of the collaboration between students and generative AI and highlight the need to study further why some students let ChatGPT lead collaborative problem-solving and how to enhance their interaction experience through curriculum and technology design.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | This research investigates distinct human-generative AI collaboration types and students' interaction experiences when collaborating with generative AI (i.e., ChatGPT) for problem-solving tasks and how these factors relate to students' sense of agency and perceived collaborative problem solving. | contribution 0.85 | 0.49 | 0.04 | asserted 0.69 |
| s1 | By analyzing the surveys and reflections of 79 undergraduate students, we identified three human-generative AI collaboration types: even contribution, human leads, and AI leads. | result 0.52 | 0.97 | 0.08 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | Notably, our study shows that 77.21% of students perceived they led or had even contributed to collaborative problem-solving when collaborating with ChatGPT. | result 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.20 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | On the other hand, 15.19% of the human participants indicated that the collaborations were led by ChatGPT, indicating a potential tendency for students to rely on ChatGPT. | result 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.08 | hedged possibility 0.91 |
| s4 | Furthermore, 67.09% of students perceived their interaction experiences with ChatGPT to be positive or mixed. | result 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.06 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | We also found a positive correlation between positive interaction experience and a sense of positive agency. | result 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.13 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | The results of this study contribute to our understanding of the collaboration between students and generative AI and highlight the need to study further why some students let ChatGPT lead collaborative problem-solving and how to enhance their interaction experience through curriculum and technology design. | future work 0.89 | 0.41 | 0.55 | asserted 0.88 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
This research investigates distinct human-generative AI collaboration types and students' interaction experiences when collaborating with generative AI (i.e., ChatGPT) for problem-solving tasks and how these factors relate to students' sense of agency and perceived collaborative problem solving. By analyzing the surveys and reflections of 79 undergraduate students, we identified three human-generative AI collaboration types: even contribution, human leads, and AI leads. Notably, our study shows that 77.21% of students perceived they led or had even contributed to collaborative problem-solving when collaborating with ChatGPT. On the other hand, 15.19% of the human participants indicated that the collaborations were led by ChatGPT, indicating a potential tendency for students to rely on ChatGPT. Furthermore, 67.09% of students perceived their interaction experiences with ChatGPT to be positive or mixed. We also found a positive correlation between positive interaction experience and a sense of positive agency. The results of this study contribute to our understanding of the collaboration between students and generative AI and highlight the need to study further why some students let ChatGPT lead collaborative problem-solving and how to enhance their interaction experience through curriculum and technology design.
Human review
How the literature uses it
1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.