Impact of GPT Use on Essay Writing Performance and Cognitive Abilities

The essay writing task is derived from the Analytical Writing section in the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE), which is a worldwide and standardized computer-based exam developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The participants' essays will be scored on a scale from 0 to 6 by an automatic and validated third-party scoring tool that is also developed by ETS.

Cognitive effort is quantified by monitoring changes in pupil size. To achieve this, pupil diameters are recorded throughout the writing task using a near-infrared eye tracker, specifically the Tobii Pro Fusion model. At the start of the experiment, individual baseline pupil diameters are measured during a 30-second relaxation task.

This is a one-item scale:

Using the same grading rubric from before, what score do you think your essay should get (0 being the lowest and 6 being the highest)?

The score ranges from 0 to 6. A higher score indicates higher self-perceived writing performance. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

This is a one-item Likert scale adapted from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-task load index (NASA-TLX; Hart, 2006; Hart & Staveland, 1988):

On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how hard you have to work to accomplish your level of performance.

The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "very low" and 7 being "very high"). A higher score indicates higher self-perceived cognitive effort. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

References:

• Hart, S. G. (2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909
• Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139-183). North-Holland.

Cognitive Effort is quantified by monitoring changes in the cortical hemodynamic activity in the frontal lobe. To achieve this, the brain activity is recorded throughout the writing task using a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), specifically the NIRSport2 model.

This is a one-item Likert sub-scale adapted from the Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal scale (PASA; Gaab, 2009; Pollak et al., 2020):

On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statement on perceived stress: The analytical writing assignment was stressful to me.

The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher self-perceived stress. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

References:

• Gaab, J. (2009). PASA-Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal. A questionnaire for the assessment of cognitive appraisals of situations. Verhaltenstherapie, 19(2), 114-115.
• Pollak, A., Paliga, M., Pulopulos, M. M., Kozusznik, B., & Kozusznik, M. W. (2020). Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106469

This is a one-item Likert sub-scale adapted from the Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal scale (PASA; Gaab, 2009; Pollak et al., 2020):

On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statement on perceived challenge: I find the analytical writing assignment a challenge.

The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher self-perceived challenge. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

References:

• Gaab, J. (2009). PASA-Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal. A questionnaire for the assessment of cognitive appraisals of situations. Verhaltenstherapie, 19(2), 114-115.
• Pollak, A., Paliga, M., Pulopulos, M. M., Kozusznik, B., & Kozusznik, M. W. (2020). Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106469

This is a sixteen-item Likert scale that measures three dimensions of writing self-efficacy: ideation, convention and self-regulation (Bruning et al., 2013). The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher self-efficacy. The three dimensions will be treated separately, each as a continuous variable.

Reference:

• Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of educational psychology, 105(1), 25.

This is a four-item Likert scale adapted from the situational interest scale (Hulleman et al., 2010). This scale measures participants' situational interest in analytical writing:

On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statements on your interest in the analytical writing assignment that you just completed?

• The analytical writing assignment was interesting.
• Working on the essay was fun.
• I enjoyed writing the essay.
• The analytical writing assignment was enjoyable.

The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher situational interest. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

Reference:

• Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880.

This is a two-item Likert scale that measures participants' behavioral intention in using ChatGPT in the future for essay writing tasks (Albayati, 2024):

On a scale of 1 to 7, how much would you agree or disagree with the following statements on using ChatGPT in essay writing assignments?

• If I have access to ChatGPT, I would use it for essay writing tasks.
• I plan to use ChatGPT in the future if I have an essay writing task.

The Likert score ranges from 1 to 7 (1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree"). A higher score indicates higher behavioral intention in using ChatGPT. The variable is treated as a continuous variable.

Reference:

• Albayati, H. (2024). Investigating undergraduate students' perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A user acceptance perspective study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203