Stranges Tori N, MacNutt Meaghan J
School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Adv Physiol Educ. 2025 Jun 1;49(2):582-592. doi: 10.1152/advan.00241.2024. Epub 2025 Apr 18.
Reflective writing is widely used in health sciences education, but overreliance on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) could undermine the reflective writing process. To explore this concern, students in three undergraduate courses with reflective writing assignments and policies permitting GenAI use were asked to retrospectively and anonymously self-report their GenAI-related behaviors and attitudes. Only 33% of respondents ( = 310) reported ever using GenAI on a reflective writing assignment. Among GenAI users, 81% reported that usage was motivated by learning, efficiency, and/or (to a significantly lesser extent) grades. Eighty-six percent of users reported benefits to learning, efficiency, and/or grades, but 10% reported that learning was hindered by using GenAI. Most GenAI users (83%) believed their usage of GenAI was ethical, and only 4% regretted their use. Notably, 19% of users and 38% of nonusers wished they had used GenAI more. Overall, only four assignments (representing 1.3% of respondents and 0.3% of submissions) were reportedly "mostly written by GenAI." Instead, most students reported using GenAI selectively and in ways that were supportive rather than substitutive of their own reflective process. This finding inspires optimism that reflective writing assignments have retained their pedagogical value in the early GenAI era and that most students are well intentioned in their usage of GenAI. Heterogeneity in self-reported student behavior, motivations, and perceptions of GenAI's benefits and harms highlights the need for further research into factors influencing GenAI adoption and usage. Understanding and responding to this diversity will be crucial for developing inclusive and equitable strategies to help maximize GenAI's benefits while minimizing its harms. We examined students' use of GenAI tools to complete reflective writing assignments in health and exercise science courses where these tools were permitted. Findings do not support common concerns about student overuse and misuse of GenAI tools. Instead, we provide evidence that students are using GenAI tools selectively and in ways they believe to be ethical and supportive of their learning. Tremendous variability in student behavior and attitudes warrants further consideration.
反思性写作在健康科学教育中被广泛使用，但过度依赖生成式人工智能（GenAI）可能会破坏反思性写作过程。为了探究这一问题，我们对三门本科课程的学生进行了调查，这些课程布置了反思性写作作业，并且政策允许使用GenAI。我们要求学生回顾并匿名自我报告他们与GenAI相关的行为和态度。只有33%的受访者（n = 310）报告曾在反思性写作作业中使用过GenAI。在使用GenAI的学生中，81%报告使用的动机是学习、提高效率和/或（在显著较小程度上）成绩。86%的使用者报告在学习、效率和/或成绩方面有好处，但10%的使用者报告使用GenAI会阻碍学习。大多数使用GenAI的学生（83%）认为他们使用GenAI是符合道德的，只有4%的学生后悔使用。值得注意的是，19%的使用者和38%的非使用者希望他们能更多地使用GenAI。总体而言，据报告只有四项作业（占受访者的1.3%和提交作业的0.3%）“主要由GenAI撰写”。相反，大多数学生报告有选择地使用GenAI，并且是以支持而不是取代他们自己反思过程的方式使用。这一发现激发了人们的乐观情绪，即反思性写作作业在GenAI早期时代仍保留其教学价值，并且大多数学生在使用GenAI时是出于善意的。学生自我报告的行为、动机以及对GenAI利弊的看法存在异质性，这凸显了对影响GenAI采用和使用的因素进行进一步研究的必要性。理解并应对这种多样性对于制定包容性和公平的策略至关重要，这些策略有助于在最大限度地发挥GenAI益处的同时最小化其危害。我们研究了健康与运动科学课程中，学生使用GenAI工具完成反思性写作作业的情况，这些课程允许使用这些工具。研究结果并不支持对学生过度使用和滥用GenAI工具的普遍担忧。相反，我们提供的证据表明，学生有选择地使用GenAI工具，并且是以他们认为符合道德且支持学习的方式使用。学生行为和态度的巨大差异值得进一步考虑。
