Shortcut to Knowledge or Shortcut to Thinking? Investigating AI-Induced Metacognitive Laziness in Future Doctors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21649/akemu.v31iSpl2.6096Keywords:
AI Reliance, metacognitive laziness, medical education, technology enhanced education, artificial intelligence, medical students, metacognitionAbstract
Background: The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning has transformed industries, including education and healthcare. In medical education, AI is increasingly used for personalized learning and clinical decision-making. However, growing reliance on AI may contribute to metacognitive laziness, where students engage less in critical thinking and self-regulation.
Objective: This study examines the relationship extent of AI reliance in medical students and its relationship with metacognitive laziness.
Methods: The study involved medical and dental students, with data collected via a four-point Likert scale-based questionnaire. Content validity was ensured by expert ratings on relevance and clarity, and reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. Descriptive statistics with median response category were used to describe students’ AI reliance, and Spearman’s rank correlation was used to analyze the relationship between AI reliance and metacognitive laziness, with a significance level set at p = 0.05.
Results: The initial 47-item questionnaire was refined to 36 items, with an S-CVI/Ave of 0.88 and a CCA of 90%. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.936, indicating excellent reliability. The survey revealed that 74.4% of students relied on AI for learning, with 61.3% reporting decreased motivation for independent analysis and 62.4% expressing concerns about its impact on future patient care. Spearman’s rank correlation showed a moderate positive relationship (ρ = 0.621, p = 0.000).
Conclusion: The increasing reliance on AI among medical students is associated with metacognitive laziness, emphasizing the need for careful AI integration to promote independent learning and critical thinking.
References
1. Bühler MM, Jelinek T, Nübel K. Training and Preparing Tomorrow’s Workforce for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Educ Sci. 2022;12(11):782. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110782
2. Holstein K, Aleven V, Rummel N. A conceptual framework for human–AI hybrid adaptivity in education. In: Artificial Intelligence in Education: 21st International Conference, AIED 2020, July 6–10, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 21. Springer; 2020. p. 240-54. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_20
3. Akata Z, Balliet D, De Rijke M, Dignum F, Dignum V, Eiben G, et al. A Research Agenda for Hybrid Intelligence: Augmenting Human Intellect with Collaborative, Adaptive, Responsible, and Explainable Artificial Intelligence Comp. 2020;53(8):18-28. doi:10.1109/MC.2020.2996587
4. Flavell JH. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. Am Psychol. 1979;34(10):906-11. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
5. Alter A, Oppenheimer D, Epley N, Eyre R. Overcoming Intuition: Metacognitive Difficulty Activates Analytic Reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007;136(4):569–76. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
6. Fan Y, Tang L, Le H, Shen K, Tan S, Zhao Y, et al. Beware of Metacognitive Laziness: Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Learning Motivation, Processes, and Performance. Br J of Educ Technol. 2024;56:489-530. doi:10.1111/bjet.13544
7. Alam F, Lim M, Zulkipli I. Integrating AI in Medical Education: Embracing Ethical Usage and Critical Understanding. Front Med. 2023;10:1279707(7):543. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1279707
8. Esbin HB. Hidden costs of artificial intelligence: metacognitive laziness and imagination deficit. LinkedIn; 2025. [Cited on 25 April 2025]. Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hidden-costs-artificial-intelligence-metacognitive-esbin-phd-0xqvc/
9. Tejani AS, Elhalawani H, Moy L, Kohli M, Kahn CE. Artificial Intelligence and Radiology Education. Radiol Artif Intell. 2022;5(1):220084. doi: 10.1148/ryai.220084
10. Masters K. Artificial intelligence in medical education. Med Teach. 2019;41(9):976–80. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1595557
11. Capinding AT. Development and Validation of Instruments for Assessing the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Students in Higher Education. Int J Educ Method. 2024;10(2):197-211. doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.10.2.997
12. Fawaz M, El-Malti W, Alreshidi SM, Kavuran E. Exploring Health Sciences Students’ Perspectives on Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Qualitative Study. Nurs Health Sci. 2025;27(1): 70030. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.70030
13. Falebita OS, Kok, PJ. Artificial Intelligence Tools Usage: A Structural Equation Modeling of Undergraduates’ Technological Readiness, Self-Efficacy and Attitudes. J STEM Educ Res. 2025; 8, 257-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-024-00132-1
14. Krosnick JA. Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol. 1999. 50(1), 537-67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
15. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen S V. Focus on research methods: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459–67. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20199
16. Yusoff MSB. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Educ in Med J. 2019;11(2):49–54.
17. Silva AM. Content validity of the questionnaire on learning experiences associated with the use of digital information and communication technologies by undergraduates. EPESS. 2015;3:66–73. Available from: www.isres.org
18. Li Q, Qin Y. AI in medical education: medical student perception, curriculum recommendations and design suggestions. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1);852. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04700-8
19. Kwak Y, Ahn JW, Seo YH. Influence of AI ethics awareness, attitude, anxiety, and self-efficacy on nursing students’ behavioral intentions. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1);267. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01048-0
20. Esiyok E, Gokcearslan S, Küçükergin KG. Acceptance of Educational Use of AI Chatbots in the Context of Self-Directed Learning with Technology and ICT Self-Efficacy of Undergraduate Students. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2024;41(1):1-10. doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2303557
21. Jackson P, Ponath Sukumaran G, Babu C, Tony MC, Jack DS, Reshma VR, et al. Artificial intelligence in medical education - perception among medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):804. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05760-0
22. Weidener L, Fischer M. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects. JMIR Med Educ. 2024;10(1):51247. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/51247
23. Risko EF, Gilbert SJ. Cognitive Offloading. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(9):676–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
24. Bastani H, Bastani O, Sungu A, Ge H, Kabakcı O, Mariman R. Generative AI Can Harm Learning. The Wharton School Research Paper. 2024;15;4895486. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4895486
25. Straw I. The automation of bias in medical Artificial Intelligence (AI): Decoding the past to create a better future. Artif Intell Med. 2020;110:101965. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2020.101965
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Annals of King Edward Medical University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For comments publications@kemu.edu.pk