Practice With Less AI Makes Perfect: Partially Automated AI During Training Leads to Better Worker Motivation, Engagement, and Skill Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased prevalence of human-AI collaboration is reshaping the manufacturing sector, fundamentally changing the nature of human work and training needs. While high automation improves performance when functioning correctly, it can lead to problematic human performance (e.g., defect detection accuracy, response time) when operators are required to intervene and assume manual control of decision-making responsibilities. As AI capability reaches higher levels of automation and human–AI collaboration becomes ubiquitous, addressing these performance issues is crucial. Proper worker training, focusing on skill-based, cognitive, and affective outcomes, and nurturing motivation and engagement, can be a mitigation strategy. However, most training research in manufacturing has prioritized the effectiveness of a technology for training, rather than how training design influences motivation and engagement, key to training success and longevity. The current study explored how training workers using an AI system affected their motivation, engagement, and skill acquisition. Specifically, we manipulated the level of automation of decision selection of an AI used for the training of 102 participants for a quality control task. Findings indicated that fully automated decision selection negatively impacted perceived autonomy, self-determined motivation, behavioral task engagement, and skill acquisition during training. Conversely, partially automated AI-enhanced motivation and engagement, enabling participants to better adapt to AI failure by developing necessary skills. The results suggest that involving workers in decision-making during training, using AI as a decision aid rather than a decision selector, yields more positive outcomes. This approach ensures that the human aspect of manufacturing work is not overlooked, maintaining a balance between technological advancement and human skill development, motivation, and engagement. These findings can be applied to enhance real-world manufacturing practices by designing training programs that better develop operators’ technical, methodological, and personal skills, though companies may face challenges in allocating substantial resources for training redevelopment and continuously adapting these programs to keep pace with evolving technology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".