Cited by 79Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationVarious Chemistry Research Topics

An Analysis of AI-generated laboratory reports across the chemistry curriculum and student perceptions of ChatGPT

Open access
West, Joseph K., Franz, Jeanne L., Hein, Sara M., Leverentz-Culp, Hannah R., Mauser, Jonathon F., Ruff, Emily F., Zemke, Jennifer M.·2023·Journal of Chemical Education

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide AI technologies are rapidly pervading many areas of our world. AI-driven text generators such as ChatGPT are at the forefront of this due to their simplicity and accessibility. Their influence on higher education is already being observed, and perceptions among faculty and students vary widely. We have undertaken a cross-curriculum study of ChatGPT’s ability to generate laboratory reports. AI-generated reports from general, organic, analytical, physical, inorganic, and biochemistry courses were graded as if they were student reports and analyzed for grade distributions and common strengths and weaknesses. To further gauge ChatGPT’s current impact, we surveyed all students in our Spring 2023 laboratory courses regarding their awareness and use of ChatGPT. We have also laid out suggestions, guidance, and considerations for instructors who wish to prohibit ChatGPT use by their students as well as for those who wish to begin incorporating this new, powerful tool into their teaching.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00581

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. ACS Author Guidelines. J. Chem. Educ. https://publish.acs.org/ publish/author_guidelines?coden=jceda8 (Accessed August 4, 2023).
  2. Garland, C. W.; Nibler, J. W.; Shoemaker, D. P. Experiments in Physical Chemistry, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2003; pp 208- 215.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
West, J. K., Franz, J. L., Hein, S. M., Leverentz-Culp, H. R., Mauser, J. F., Ruff, E. F., & Zemke, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Winona State University (US)
  • Department of Chemistry, Winona State University, 175 W Mark St., Winona, Minnesota 55987, United States
Corresponding author
West, Joseph K.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Education
Published
2023-10-19
Volume
100
Issue
11
Pages
4351-4359
ISSN
  • 0021-9584 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1328
OpenAlex
W4387776988
Cited by
79
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 1
FWCI
18.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Chemical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Various Chemistry Research Topics
Keywords
ChatGPT, chemistry education, student perceptions of AI, generative AI in higher education, chemistry curriculum

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