The Generative AI Cognitive Exchange in Colombian International Relations Training

Abstract

Spanish

This four-semester investigation of 141 Colombian international relations students identified a cognitive exchange associated with ChatGPT-4 usage. AI-using students showed improved strategic thinking (d = 0.99) but deteriorated critical thinking (d = −1.31). Analytical delegation strongly predicted critical decline (r = −.72), while verification offered moderate protection. Effects intensified temporally, suggesting cumulative cognitive consequences.

Keywords

AI-enhanced learning cognitive independence strategic thinking critical thinking international trade education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alshahrani

(2023). Revolutionizing blended learning: Exploring current trends and future research directions in the era of ChatGPT [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Business and Information Management (ICBIM 2023), Bangkok, Thailand, August 18–20, 2023 (pp. 41–47). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBIM59872.2023.10303267

de la Puente

Torres

O. J. M.

Guzmán Murillo

H. J.

Marquez Carrascal

J. X.

Rico

(2025). Digital immersion technologies transform agricultural learning: A study of interactive educational platforms among rural Colombian university students. Research in Science & Technological Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2025.2491079

de la Puente Pacheco

M. A.

Torres

Blanco Troncoso

A. L.

Guzmán Murillo

H. J.

Carrascal

J. X. M.

(2025). Enhancing critical thinking and argumentation skills in Colombian undergraduate diplomacy students: ChatGPT-assisted and traditional debate methods. Journal of Political Science Education, 21(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2025.2449936

Evans

Richardson

J. T. E.

Waring

(2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12015

Grinschgl

Papenmeier

Meyerhoff

H. S.

(2023). Mutual interplay between cognitive offloading and secondary task performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(6), 2250–2261. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02312-3

Luo

Fleming

S. M.

(2019). A role for metamemory in cognitive offloading. Cognition, 193, 104012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104012

Iqbal

M. Z.

Campbell

A. G.

(2023). Real-time hand interaction and self-directed machine learning agents in immersive learning environments. Computers and Education: X Reality, 3, Article 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2023.100038

Lavrov

E. A.

Logvinenko

V. G.

Osadchyi

V. V.

Siryk

O. Ye.

Chybiriak

Y. I.

(2023). Adaptive learning system based on cognitive independence. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3535, 113–127. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3535/paper07.pdf

Sadiq

Qambar

Zheng

(2025). The impact of students’ use of ChatGPT on their research skills: The mediating effects of autonomous motivation, engagement, and self-directed learning. Education and Information Technologies, 30(4), 4185–4216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12981-9

10.

Light

Manso

(2014). Colombia and the educational challenges of the twenty-first century. Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International. http://mapeal.cippec.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/LIGHT-y-MANSO-An-educational-revolution-to-support....pdf

11.

Lugo

de la Puente Pacheco

M. A.

Barrientos

Navarro

Cardenas

(2024). Examining educational pathways: Mathematics licensure training. Cogent Education, 11(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2372197

12.

Nisiforou

E. A.

(2013). Using eye tracking and electroencephalography to assess and evaluate students’ cognitive dimensions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1093, 79–86. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1093/paper12.pdf

13.

Nori

Boccia

Palmiero

Piccardi

(2023). The contribution of field independence in virtual spatial updating. Current Psychology, 42(6), 4567–4576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01788-3

14.

Pratsri

Nilsook

Wannapiroon

(2021). Augmented intelligence coaching system [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress: Innovation Electricals and Electronics (RI2C 2021), Bangkok, Thailand, September 1–3, 2021 (pp. 176–182). https://doi.org/10.1109/RI2C51727.2021.9559817

15.

Rittschof

K. A.

(2010). Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: Implications for instructional systems design and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6

16.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

17.

Schuster

Stebner

Leutner

Wirth

(2020). Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: An experimental training study. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09237-5

18.

Thankachan

J. A.

Srinivasan

(2024). A mathematical formulation of learner cognition for personalised learning experiences. Cognitive Systems Research, 88, Article 101283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101283

19.

Vázquez-Parra

J. C.

Malagón-Castro

L. E.

Suarez-Brito

Valencia-González

G. C.

(2024). Complex thinking and profile of Colombian university teachers. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1336049. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1336049

20.

Zhang

Yue

X.-G.

Dong

R. K.

(2024). Unlocking potential: Key factors shaping undergraduate self-directed learning in AI-enhanced educational environments. Systems, 12(9), Article 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090332