← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.38910 · v1
When Does GenAI Use Support Critical Thinking? A Cross-Cultural Structural Account of Transactive Memory with GenAI
首次提交 2026-10-29 05:01
版本更新 2026-10-29 05:01
雷达观测 2026-10-30 11:25
摘要
Whether generative AI (GenAI) use helps or hinders critical thinking remains contested, and existing accounts emphasize exposure to the tool rather than how a person structures their engagement with it. Extending Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) theory to human-AI partnerships, we test a structural account of critical thinking in GenAI-assisted academic work among 891 college students in the United States and Türkiye. Self-appraised thinking ability and confidence in the partnership shaped how much practical experience a person built up with GenAI, but neither predicted critical thinking directly. That experience mattered only through two downstream behaviors, dividing and coordinating cognitive labor with the tool, and actively reworking its output rather than accepting it as given. A multigroup comparison found this structure largely invariant, with two theoretically interpretable exceptions. This study offers a structural, TMS-based account of critical thinking in GenAI-assisted work.
作者备注：Preliminary exploratory version. Results will be updated after a validation study and additional data collection
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-10-29 05:01 · 最新观测版本
When Does GenAI Use Support Critical Thinking? A Cross-Cultural Structural Account of Transactive Memory with GenAI
Whether generative AI (GenAI) use helps or hinders critical thinking remains contested, and existing accounts emphasize exposure to the tool rather than how a person structures their engagement with it. Extending Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) theory to human-AI partnerships, we test a structural account of critical thinking in GenAI-assisted academic work among 891 college students in the United States and Türkiye. Self-appraised thinking ability and confidence in the partnership shaped how much practical experience a person built up with GenAI, but neither predicted critical thinking directly. That experience mattered only through two downstream behaviors, dividing and coordinating cognitive labor with the tool, and actively reworking its output rather than accepting it as given. A multigroup comparison found this structure largely invariant, with two theoretically interpretable exceptions. This study offers a structural, TMS-based account of critical thinking in GenAI-assisted work.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗