The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of ChatGPT on the US fundamentals of engineering exam: Comprehensive assessment of proficiency and potential implications for professional environmental engineering practice
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of large language models like GPT-4, demonstrating potential applications in various fields, including education. This study investigates the feasibility and effectiveness of using ChatGPT, a GPT-4 based model, in achieving satisfactory performance on the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Environmental Exam. This study further shows a significant improvement in the model's accuracy when answering FE exam questions through noninvasive prompt modifications, substantiating the utility of prompt modification as a viable approach to enhance AI performance in educational contexts. Furthermore, the findings reflect remarkable improvements in mathematical capabilities across successive iterations of ChatGPT models, showcasing their potential in solving complex engineering problems. Our paper also explores future research directions, emphasizing the importance of addressing AI challenges in education, enhancing accessibility and inclusion for diverse student populations, and developing AI-resistant exam questions to maintain examination integrity. By evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in the context of the FE Environmental Exam, this study contributes valuable insights into the potential applications and limitations of large language models in educational settings. As AI continues to evolve, these findings offer a foundation for further research into the responsible and effective integration of AI models across various disciplines, ultimately optimizing the learning experience and improving student outcomes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Similarly, Pursnani et al. evaluated ChatGPT’s performance in the context of Engineering, testing the model on the US Fundamentals of Engineering exam33. In their study, they showed that the model’s performance varied across different sections of the exam, performing exceptionally in areas such as Ethics and Professional practice, while under-performing in others such as Hydrology.”
From Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
Citations
Cites
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115
State of the art and practice in AI in education
Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12533 · Cited by 1,093
Artificial intelligence in education : challenges and opportunities for sustainable development
Pedró, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019) · MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN · Cited by 902
Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15100596 · Cited by 620
Self-citationEvaluating the Performance of ChatGPT in Ophthalmology
Antaki, F., Touma, S., Milad, D., El-Khoury, J., & Duval, R. (2023) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2023.100324 · Cited by 563
The future of medical education and research: Is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise?
Arif, T. B., Munaf, U., & Ul-Haque, I. (2023) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052 · Cited by 317
ChatGPT passing USMLE shines a spotlight on the flaws of medical education
Mbakwe, A. B., Lourentzou, I., Celi, L. A., Mechanic, O. J., & Dagan, A. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000205 · Cited by 273
Performance of ChatGPT and GPT-4 on Neurosurgery Written Board Examinations
Ali, R., Tang, O. Y., Connolly, I. D., Sullivan, P. L. Z., Shin, J. H., Fridley, J., Asaad, W. F., Cielo, D., Oyelese, A. A., Doberstein, C. E., et al. (2023) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000002632 · Cited by 272
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Gilson, 2023, How does CHATGPT perform on the United States medical licensing examination? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment, JMIR Medical Education, 9
- Hwang, 2023, Editorial position paper: Exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in education: Applications, challenges, and future research directions, Educational Technology & Society, 26
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15100596 · Cited by 620
Self-citationPham, H. C., Duong, C. D., & Nguyen, G. K. H. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103758 · Cited by 222
Ibrahim, H., Liu, F., Asim, R., Battu, B., Benabderrahmane, S., Alhafni, B., Adnan, W., Alhanai, T., AlShebli, B., Baghdadi, R., et al. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-38964-3 · Cited by 154
Generative AI chatbots in higher education: a review of an emerging research area
McGrath, C., Farazouli, A., & Pargman, T. C. (2024) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-024-01288-w · Cited by 254
Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cwiertny, D. M., & Demir, İ. (2025) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09897-9 · Cited by 223
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pursnani, V., Sermet, Y., Kurt, M., & Demir, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sermet, Yusuf
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 100183
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388490623
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 9
- FWCI
- 24.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, Fundamentals of Engineering exam, environmental engineering education, artificial intelligence in education, exam question generation, mathematical problem solving, examination integrity, accessibility and inclusion
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