The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Chatbot application in a 5th grade science course
Open accessAbstract
This study aims to investigate the effect of chatbots that work with artificial intelligence on the success of students and their opinions about chatbots in the ‘Matter and the changing state of matter’ unit in the 5th grade science course. In addition to text-based functions, the designed chatbot includes a video accessed on the web to support students visually and aurally. The chatbot was designed using the Dialogflow program and an instant messaging program made available to students through a group created on Telegram. The study, which used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design, included 41 participants ( n = 20 for the experimental, n = 21 for the control group) studying in the 5th grade of a state secondary school in the 2020-2021 academic year. Results suggest that although there was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups in terms of academic achievement, it was determined that the chatbot application positively affected the online learning experience of the experimental group students. Students’ opinions about the chatbot included that it was useful and fun, they would like to use it for other courses, it provided useful assistance in learning outside the classroom, and it allowed them to repeat the course again. The results showed that, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, such applications could contribute positively to students’ learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, it facilitates immediate user feedback through conversations during the learning process, and provides customized contents based on the feedback [6].”
From Analysis of the effect of an artificial intelligence chatbot educational program on non-face-to-face classes: a quasi-experimental study (2022) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Only two studies reported chatbot use to have a non-significant effect on learning outcomes (Deveci Topal et al., 2021), cognition, motivation, and self-efficacy (Kumar, 2021).”
From Implementing the bashayer chatbot in Saudi higher education: measuring the influence on students' motivation and learning strategies (2023) · cites this paper as Deveci Topal et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This aligns with prior research [34], which examined the impact of chatbot integration with AI on students’ online learning experiences, indicating a positive effect.”
From Development and effects of a chatbot education program for self-directed learning in nursing students (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“However, chatbots may not significantly improve secondary school students' academic performance [3].”
From A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Effect of Chatbot Technology Use in Sustainable Education (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“Despite recent studies (e.g., Deveci Topal et al., 2021; Kumar, 2021) that found no significant influence of chatbot use on K-12 and undergraduate students' cognition and learning achievements, the results of our study highlight the significant potential of chatbot-based learning environments in enhancing and supporting cognitive learning strategies among postgraduate students.”
From Implementing the bashayer chatbot in Saudi higher education: measuring the influence on students' motivation and learning strategies (2023) · cites this paper as Deveci Topal et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 1×
“According to Neuendorf (2002), when the value of agreement percentages is 80% or greater, they are considered acceptable (Yürük, 2005).”
BackgroundChatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger
Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103862 · Cited by 770
Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis
Winkler, R., & Soellner, M. (2018) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2018.15903abstract · Cited by 581
Quality in Interpretive Engineering Education Research: Reflections on an Example Study
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20029 · Cited by 515
Chatbot learning partners: connecting learning experiences, interest and competence
Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.023 · Cited by 470
Yin, J., Goh, T.-T., Yang, B., & Xiaobin, Y. (2021) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633120952067 · Cited by 349
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(00)00059-2 · Cited by 340
Chatbots, Humbots, and the Quest for Artificial General Intelligence
Grudin, J., & Jacques, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300439 · Cited by 275
A ChatBot for Learning Chinese: Learning Achievement and Technology Acceptance
Chen, H.-L., Vicki Widarso, G., & Sutrisno, H. (2020) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633120929622 · Cited by 220
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Abbasi, S., Kazi, H., & Hussaini, N. N. (2019). Effect of chatbot systems on students learning outcomes. Sylwan: English Edition, 163(10), 49–63.
- Akpullukçu, S. (2011). The effect of inquiry based learning environment in science and technology course on the students' academic achievements, attitudes and retention level. Unpublished master thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Education Sciences, İzmir.
- Altınok, M.S. (2011). Effect of teaching heat and temperature through laboratory method on achievements of 5th grade students. Unpublished master thesis. Atatürk University, Institute of Education Sciences, Erzurum.
- Altunbay, M. & Bıçak, N. (2018). Türkçe eğitimi derslerinde “Z kuşağı” bireylerine uygun teknoloji tabanlı uygulamaların kullanımı (The use of technology based applications suitable for “generation Z” individuals in Turkish education courses). ZeitschriftfürdieWelt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 127-142.
- Atam, O. (2006). As based on constructivist approaching science and technology lesson, on subject heat-temperature prepared primary education fifth class writing effect academic succes and retention of students. Unpublished master thesis, Çukurova University, Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.
- Bağcaz, E. (2009). The effect of inquiry teaching method on students? academic success and on attitude for the science and technology lesson. Unpublished master thesis, Sakarya University Instutute of Science, Sakarya.
- Başaran, M., Doğan, E , Karaoğlu, E. , & Şahin, E. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi sürecinin getirisi olan uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği üzerine bir çalışma (A study on effectiveness of distance education, as a return of coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic process). Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 368-397. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/egitim/issue/54643/753149. Accessed 8 Feb 2021
- Demirci, N., & Yavuz, G. (2009). The effect of constructive teaching approach on pupils’ science achievement in buoyancy force. e-Journal of. New World Sciences Academy, 4(2), 508–519.
- Muramatsu, K., & Wangmo, S. (2020). Comparison of traditional and online education in bhutan. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited, 607-611. https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.20.085. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118 · Cited by 1,181
Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta‐analysis
Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13334 · Cited by 576
Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · Cited by 428
Ng, D. T. K., Tan, C. W., & Leung, J. K. L. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13454 · Cited by 591
Almasri, F. (2024) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-024-10176-3 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Deveci Topal, A., Dilek Eren, C., & Kolburan Geçer, A.
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2021-06-17
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 6241-6265
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- PMC
- PMC8211302
- OpenAlex
- W3177215441
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 22.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kocaeli Üniversitesi - AVESİS (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- chatbots, artificial intelligence in education, 5th grade science, states of matter, academic performance, student perceptions, online learning, COVID-19 pandemic, Dialogflow, telegrams, elementary school science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
