The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2501.09165 · v2 · pith:D66GFNEE · submitted 2025-01-15 · cs.HC

Breaking Barriers or Building Dependency? Exploring Team-LLM Collaboration in AI-infused Classroom Debate

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:D66GFNEErecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.HC
keywords debatesclassroombarriersbreakingdependencyinteractionslearnerslearning
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Classroom debates are a unique form of collaborative learning characterized by fast-paced, high-intensity interactions that foster critical thinking and teamwork. Despite the recognized importance of debates, the role of AI tools, particularly LLM-based systems, in supporting this dynamic learning environment has been under-explored in HCI. This study addresses this opportunity by investigating the integration of LLM-based AI into real-time classroom debates. Over four weeks, 22 students in a Design History course participated in three rounds of debates with support from ChatGPT. The findings reveal how learners prompted the AI to offer insights, collaboratively processed its outputs, and divided labor in team-AI interactions. The study also surfaces key advantages of AI usage, reducing social anxiety, breaking communication barriers, and providing scaffolding for novices, alongside risks, such as information overload and cognitive dependency, which could limit learners' autonomy. We thereby discuss a set of nuanced implications for future HCI exploration.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Investigating LLM-Powered Dissenting Minority Support in Power-Imbalanced Group Decision-Making: Counterargument and Mediation as Intervention Strategies

    cs.HC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    An experiment found LLM counterarguments improved group flexibility and satisfaction while AI mediation boosted minority participation but lowered psychological safety.