Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42215570›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Thoughtless use of generative artificial intelligence and college students' self-directed learning: a multi-group SEM analysis of gender differences.

Hui Zhao, Huijuan Gu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hui ZhaoSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Zhoukou Normal University, Zhoukou, China.
Huijuan GuSchool of Foreign Languages, Zhoukou Normal University, Zhoukou, China. valley2012@126.com.

Funding

the Henan Provincial Higher Education Research Project 2025SXHLX214the Zhoukou Normal University Education and Teaching Reform Project J2025025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies have developed rapidly and have been increasingly integrated into educational settings. While students benefit from the convenience and efficiency provided by these tools, a growing tendency toward the thoughtless use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (TUGA) has emerged. However, the specific pathways and underlying mechanisms through which such thoughtless use influences undergraduates' self-directed learning (SDL) remain insufficiently examined. Grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), this study surveyed 487 undergraduate students from Henan Province, China, using a snowball sampling approach to collect self-reported data. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to investigate the relationships among the TUGA, self-efficacy (SE), motivation (MOV), and SDL. The results demonstrate that the TUGA exerts a significant negative effect on undergraduates' SDL. Furthermore, SE and MOV partially mediate this relationship. Multi-group analysis further reveals substantial gender differences in the impact of the TUGA on SDL, MOV, and SE. By elucidating the internal mechanisms through which the TUGA undermines undergraduates' SDL, this study provides both theoretical and empirical contributions, offering practical implications for higher education institutions seeking to promote responsible AI use and strengthen students' SDL.

Indexed as

Generative Artificial IntelligenceLearningSelf-Directed Learning as TopicStudentsAdultChinaFemaleHumansLatent Class AnalysisMaleMotivationSelf EfficacySex FactorsUniversitiesYoung AdultGenerative artificial intelligenceMotivationSelf-directed learningSelf-efficacyThoughtless use

Identifiers

PMID42215570
PMCPMC13454425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.