The rapid emergence of generative AI in higher education has raised concerns about students’ reliance on the use of these tools for academic and personal tasks. Although generative AI can boost productivity and creativity, key learning skills may be undermined by overreliance on it.

A study conducted by researchers in the EHU’s ESCUTIC (School, Curriculum, and ICT) research group and published in the prestigious international journal Computers in Human Behavior shows that overconfidence in the responses provided by generative AI tools such as ChatGPT largely depends on a specific skill: self-regulation, in other words, each student’s ability to organise him-/herself, make an effort and reflect on what he/she is doing. In this context, “self-regulation can function as a crucial protective factor”, explained Héctor Galindo-Dominguez, lead researcher in this study and lecturer in the EHU’s department of Didactics and School Organization.

The study examined the relationship between self-regulation and overconfidence in generative AI among 404 students, with an average age of 20, enrolled on education-related degree programmes at the EHU.

The study identified a significant paradox. The students who have a clearer idea of their goals tend to place greater trust in artificial intelligence. “This isn’t due to a lack of ability, quite the opposite, in fact; they use AI as a tool to speed up their progress,” explained Dr Galindo-Domínguez. However, this increased use could open the door to a significant risk: placing too much trust in AI responses without questioning them.

Is it a good idea to use AI tools in education?

The study shows that not all dimensions of self-regulation work in the same way. “Having clear objectives (one of the factors in self-regulation) leads to greater confidence in the responses provided by AI.” However, other factors in self-regulation, such as perseverance and the ability to learn from mistakes, act as a check on this overreliance. The researcher maintained that “when these skills are present, students continue to think, review and correct their work, rather than automatically accepting what technology provides”.

According to Dr Galindo-Domínguez, this point is key because it ties in with another phenomenon identified in the research: overconfidence in artificial intelligence. “Some students tend to assume that AI-generated answers are correct or adequate, even when they are not. This overconfidence can lead to delegating important decisions or to reducing one’s own effort, which directly affects learning.”

However, the results also qualify the extent of the problem. The results of the study show that most students do not use artificial intelligence extensively, but rather on an ad hoc basis, mainly to look for information or resolve queries. “Only a smaller group displays more frequent use, which could indicate a greater degree of dependence,” he said.

Based on these findings, the study sets out a clear idea: “The debate should not be about whether artificial intelligence is good or bad, but about what kind of students use it and how they do so.” When key self-regulatory factors are lacking, the risk of overconfidence and the passive use of generative AI increases significantly. “By contrast, when these key self-regulation skills are present (such as perseverance, decision-making and the ability to learn from mistakes and learning), AI can become a useful aid without replacing independent thought,” he suggested.

The practical implications are clear. Rather than banning or restricting these tools, it is more effective to teach students how to use them judiciously. This means, for example, encouraging them to cross-check information, to explain their decisions, and not to accept answers at face value without checking them. It also involves designing activities that encourage students to reflect on the process, rather than simply presenting a final result.

Additional information

Dr Héctor Galindo-Domínguez is an assistant lecturer in the Department of Didactics and School Organization at the EHU’s Faculty of Education and Sport. The following EHU researchers also participated: Nahia Delgado from the Department of Didactics and School Organisation, Martín Sainz de la Maza from the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, and José María Etxabe from the Department of Didactics of Mathematics, Experimental and Social Sciences.