AI in the genetics classroom: A useful tool but not a replacement for creative writing
Open accessAbstract
Since it became available free to the public in November of 2022, ChatGPT and other large-language model AIs have impacted the higher education classroom. Some fear that this is the end of essay-based assignments, as these are easily generated by ChatGPT. Principles of Genetics, an entry level genetics class, has previously incorporated a creative writing assignment designed to prompt students to engage with the ethics surrounding genetics in a non-traditional manner. The overarching aims of this study are the following: (1) educate students on the ethical use of AI, (2) gauge how they feel AI impacts their education using pre and post surveys, and (3) develop a creative writing assignment that can co-exist with ChatGPT while allowing students to explore its strengths and weaknesses. To this end, we collected pre- and post-surveys from 191 students in the genetics class. We used a mixed method analysis (quantitative and qualitative) to analyze students’ ratings and explanations. We found that after the study, students were less likely to use AI to write an entire paper or essay, but students also reported more positivity toward AI as a tool. Additionally, we present suggestions from students as to how they feel AI should be used in the classroom. This study and the activity used in the classroom provide an exploration of AI use in the classroom for educators to expand upon.
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
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?
Workshops and seminars offer opportunities to explore case studies, simulate ethical dilemmas, and clarify grey areas such as acceptable collaboration or AI-assisted editing.
“Workshops and seminars offer opportunities to explore case studies, simulate ethical dilemmas, and clarify grey areas such as acceptable collaboration or AI-assisted editing (Behrens et al., 2024; Duan et al., 2025; Mumtaz et al., 2025).”
From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Behrens et al., 2024
The ‘How Effective Was the Assignment’ section (page unavailable) reports that students explored ethical dilemmas through creative writing and were unsure how much AI-generated text they should edit; it calls for clearer AI-use guidelines. The paper does not describe workshops or seminars, case-study exercises, or guidance on acceptable collaboration. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 15
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- ch003 · DOI
- Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI. Yale University Press. https:// yaleb ooks. yale. edu/ book/ 97803 00264 630/ atlas-of-ai/
- Nicholes, J. (2020). Lab reports and horror stories: Exploring chemis- try majors' evaluations of scientific and creative writing. Journal for Learning through the Arts, 16(1). https:// eric. ed. gov/? id= EJ128 9956 OpenAI. (2023). https:// openai. com
- Authors
- Behrens, K. A., Marbach-Ad, G., & Kocher, T. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Corresponding author
- Behrens, Kristen A.
- Venue
- Journal of Science Education and Technology
- Published
- 2024-09-30
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 621-635
- ISSN
- 1059-0145 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1839
- OpenAlex
- W4403005058
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 5.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Science Education and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DEB-1830753)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, artificial intelligence in education, genetics education, creative writing assignments, genetic ethics, AI ethics education, student perceptions of AI, essay writing
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
