Annotate based on these instructions, tell me what to annotate and provide a comment for each annotation: Provide enough comments to indicate you read the entire article and were thoughtful about it. Feeling unsure what to say? Look over the slides from Week 1 "How to read a scientific article," and consider addressing these topics: 1) The major research question(s) explored. 2) What prior research was done? What research gaps does the author intend to fulfill? 3) What are their hypotheses? 4) How does the author address these gaps (i.e., methods)? 5) What's the main finding of each figure? 6) If you can choose, what is the ONE piece of data that was most important or directly addressing the question? 7) Do the author's interpretations match the evidence? (It's OK to disagree!) 8) Any critiques or further comments on the paper.

Session 1 Question 1. Choice of specific essay topic Most of participants in each group (13/18) chose topics that resonated with personal experiences or reflections, and the rest of participants regardless of group picked topics they found easy, familiar, interesting, as well as relevant to their studies and context or they had prior knowledge of. 30 Question 2. Adherence to essay structure 14/18 participants in each of three groups reported to have adhered to a specific structure when writing their essay. P6 (LLM Group) noted that they "asked ChatGPT questions to structure an essay rather than copy and paste." Question 3. Ability to Quote Quoting accuracy was significantly different across experimental conditions (Figure 6). In the LLM-assisted group, 83.3 % of participants (15/18) failed to provide a correct quotation, whereas only 11.1% (2/18) in both the Search-Engine and Brain-Only groups encountered the same difficulty. A one-way ANOVA confirmed a significant main effect of group on quoting performance, F(2, 51) = 79.98, p<.001. planned pairwise comparisons showed that the llm group performed significantly worse than search-engine p .001 and brain-only while no difference was observed between groups these results indicate reliance on an substantially impairs participants ability to produce accurate quotes whereas search-based unaided writing approaches yielded comparable superior quoting accuracy>