Think First, ChatGPT Later
Guiding Human–AI Collaboration for Learning Gains in Independent Human Creativity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22419938 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sarah Shi Hui Wong (0000-0003-4243-212X, Singapore Management University, corresponding author), Sophia Xuefei Qiu (Yale-NUS College) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2026-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Educational Psychology Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1040-726X • E-ISSN: 1573-336X |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10648-026-10118-7 |
| OpenAlex | W7154447070 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 112 |
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT can boost creative performance, but do these boosts translate into learning gains? This study examined whether the benefits of ChatGPT for creativity persist even when its assistance is removed, and how people can effectively use ChatGPT to enhance their learning and independent creativity. University students ( N = 196) solved a creative product improvement task either independently (human-only group) or using ChatGPT freely (general-AI group) or using ChatGPT in a guided way (regulated-AI group). Specifically, the regulated-AI group used a novel “think first, ChatGPT later” approach—they first generated their own ideas, then collaborated with ChatGPT to improve, develop, and evaluate them. Thereafter, all groups independently solved a creative product invention task. On the first task, the general-AI group produced more creative solutions than the human-only and regulated-AI groups. But without ChatGPT assistance on the second task, the general-AI group’s creativity declined to levels comparable to the human-only group. In striking contrast, despite a lack of performance gains on the first task, the regulated-AI group outperformed both the human-only and general-AI groups in independent creativity on the second task. Process analyses revealed that the general-AI group most often simply dictated ChatGPT to directly generate the solutions. Conversely, the regulated-AI group more frequently collaborated with ChatGPT to improve their self-generated ideas, in turn mediating their later advantage over the general-AI group in independent originality. Thinking of one’s own ideas first, then collaborating with ChatGPT to improve them, promotes learning gains in independent human creativity.
Creativity · Creativity technique · Generative grammar · New product development · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Creativity in Education and Neuroscience · Mind wandering and attention
Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential
Divergent thinking
Student interaction with ChatGPT can promote complex critical thinking skills
The Icap Framework
The effectiveness of creativity training
Toward Untangling Creative Self-Beliefs
Models of the Creative Process
Creativity
Ironies of automation
Creative Self-Efficacy
A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements
Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings
Learning Versus Performance
Process analytic models of creative capacities
Why Isn't Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research
Generative AI and ChatGPT
In Praise of Convergent Thinking
G*Power 3
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
The Standard Definition of Creativity
The Powerful Teacher
What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking
It is not always better to have more ideas
Automated feedback and creativity
Do we need metacognition for creativity? A necessary condition analysis of creative metacognition
Hybrid ideas of artificial intelligence and human
Divergent thinking is linked with convergent thinking; implications for models of creativity
How Does Narrow AI Impact Human Creativity
The Paradox of Artificial Creativity
Managing Your Muse
Updating the Standard Definition of Creativity to Account for the Artificial Creativity of AI
Cognitive ease at a cost
Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Impact of AI assistance on student agency
ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students
Deliberately making and correcting errors in mathematical problem-solving practice improves procedural transfer to more complex problems
Learning by teaching with deliberate errors promotes argumentative reasoning
Deliberate errors promote meaningful learning
To ask better questions, teach
Artificial Intelligence & Creativity
Idea Generation, Selection, and Evaluation
Four Text‐Mining Methods for Measuring Elaboration
Unskilled But Aware of It? Cluster Analysis of Creative Metacognition from Preschool Age to Early Adulthood
Beware of metacognitive laziness
Are LLMs actually good for learning
A new horizon for possibility thinking
A systematic quantitative review of divergent thinking assessments
Creativity in digitally mediated times
Self‐Regulation Prompts Improve Creative Performance
Contributions of Metacognition to Creative Performance and Behavior
Social psychology of creativity
Creativity
Divergent thinking
An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |