Supporting or Replacing Students' Reasoning? Cognitive Offloading in AI-Assisted Proof Learning

Eason Chen; Sophia Judicke; Kayla Beigh; Xinyi Tang; Isabel Wang; Nina Yuan; Zimo Xiao; Chuangji Li; Shizhuo Li; Reed Luttmer; Shreya Singh; Maria Yampolsky; Naman Parikh; Yvonne Zhao; Meiyi Chen; Scarlett Huang; Anishka Mohanty; Gregory Johnson; John Mackey; Jionghao Lin; Ken Koedinger

arXiv · 2610.31481

Supporting or Replacing Students' Reasoning? Cognitive Offloading in AI-Assisted Proof Learning

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We studied 153 students in an undergraduate proof-based mathematics course with staggered-access to an AI support system. Students were randomly assigned to receive an AI chatbot and a homework-feedback interface earlier or later in the course. During the period when only the early-access group had access, their homework scores were 2.56 points higher, but exam performance did not differ significantly between groups, suggesting that improved AI-supported homework performance did not translate into detectable gains on a subsequent exam. After all students received access, every additional 100 messages sent to the AI chatbot was associated with a 3.02-point lower score on the subsequent exam. A mediation analysis showed a significant indirect association linking lower baseline self-efficacy to greater chatbot use and, in turn, lower exam scores: a one-point decrease in self-efficacy corresponded to 0.62 fewer exam points through chatbot use. These findings raise concerns that students may use the chatbot to offload their cognitive reasoning. Use of the homework-feedback interface, which required students to submit their proof attempts before receiving feedback, was not negatively associated with exam performance. We recommend against using a chatbot for AI tutoring and suggest exploring a tutor embedded in the course activities.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Eason Chen, Sophia Judicke, Kayla Beigh, Xinyi Tang, Isabel Wang, Nina Yuan, Zimo Xiao, Chuangji Li, Shizhuo Li, Reed Luttmer, Shreya Singh, Maria Yampolsky, Naman Parikh, Yvonne Zhao, Meiyi Chen, Scarlett Huang, Anishka Mohanty, Gregory Johnson, John Mackey, Jionghao Lin, Ken Koedinger. 2026-10-22. Supporting or Replacing Students' Reasoning? Cognitive Offloading in AI-Assisted Proof Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.31481

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Atlas: Making Sense of Long Horizon Agent Trajectories

AI agents can now search literature, generate hypotheses, analyze datasets, and run experiments at a scale difficult for researchers to match. Yet scaling scientific execution does not automatically scale researchers' ability to make sense of what agents produce. When researchers return to a long-horizon run, they must evaluate work they did not monitor: what the agent produced, which decisions shaped those outputs, and whether those decisions served the research goal. We frame this post-run sensemaking as a representation problem across three linked levels: goal, decision, and artifact. From this framework we developed Atlas, an agentic workspace with a trajectory tree, which renders the run as a branching structure showing what the agent chose and set aside, and artifact projections over six representations. In a within-subjects study (N=14), participants reported higher decision transparency, artifact sensemaking, and goal connection with Atlas than with a standard baseline, together with substantially lower subjective workload.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Better Ideas: How Human-AI Collaboration Shapes Scientific Ideas and Human Perceptions

As AI increasingly becomes a collaborator in scientific research, its impact may extend beyond improving ideas to reshaping how they are evaluated, attributed, and perceived by humans. Yet existing research has largely examined these dimensions in isolation. We present a unified empirical study of Human-AI scientific ideation, investigating two complementary perspectives: i) how AI collaboration shapes scientific ideas and their evaluation, and ii) how firsthand collaboration reshapes human perceptions of AI. Through a shared experimental setting involving Human-AI and Human-Human research teams, human and LLM evaluators, collaboration-provenance analysis, and participant surveys, we uncover several counterintuitive findings. First, AI collaboration shows no significant advantage in human-evaluated idea quality, while iterative revision consistently improves quality. Second, AI judges can approximate human scores yet disagree on idea rankings; notably, an AI judge favors AI-assisted proposals without a corresponding advantage in human evaluations. Third, collaboration provenance remains only partially detectable, revealing substantial overlap between Human-AI and Human-Human scientific outputs. Finally, firsthand AI collaboration is associated with greater perceived usefulness but smaller efficiency gains than expected, suggesting a nuanced recalibration of human expectations. Overall, our findings challenge the notion that AI's value in scientific ideation lies primarily in producing better ideas, revealing instead its broader influence on scientific creation, evaluation, attribution, and human perceptions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Impacts of generative AI skill development on academic adaptation and learning outcomes among university students

Understanding how university students perceive the development of their generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) skills over time can clarify how GenAI use relates to learning and academic outcomes. This study examined perceived skill-development trajectories, changes in learning practices, and associated academic gains using a retrospective questionnaire with 313 analyzed responses and interviews with 18 students across subject areas. Descriptive and comparative analyses and exploratory structural equation modeling (SEM) were integrated with thematic analysis. Perceived developmental trajectories were heterogeneous: 34.2% of students reported rapid early improvement followed by a plateau, 28.4% steady improvement, and 21.1% delayed acceleration. Development was also uneven across skills, with improvement in evaluating GenAI outputs perceived as more challenging; assignments were the most frequently selected driver of skill growth. Interviews further indicated increasingly specific prompting, tailored verification, and selective delegation, although some students reported stable routines, dependence, skipped reasoning, or improvements attributable partly to better GenAI tools. Academic gains were reported more often for assignments than for examinations. The SEM indicated a positive indirect association between perceived skill growth and academic gains through adaptation of assignment processes, whereas academic gains did not clearly differ across developmental trajectory groups after multiplicity correction. The findings suggest that perceived GenAI skill development varies in both trajectory and skill domain and is associated with changes in learning practices and differentiated academic benefits.

cs.HC↗