Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using ChatGPT for Method Development and Green Chemistry Education in Upper-Level Laboratory Courses

Ruff, Emily F., Franz, Jeanne L., West, Joseph K.·2024·Journal of Chemical Education
DOI 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00193
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are being used for outlining, writing assistance, and higher-level research tasks in many areas of science. The purpose of the work described here was to assess ChatGPT version 3.5’s ability to help upper-level Analytical and Inorganic Chemistry students find methods and green modifications to use in laboratory proposals. Some students found that ChatGPT provided a helpful starting point, but it mostly gave vague and erroneous responses when asked to provide upper-level methods in these areas, particularly in green chemistry. Few ChatGPT suggestions were useful for students’ proposals. Students usually used reasonable prompts, and they often evaluated ChatGPT outputs correctly; however, most students reported they were not confident using its responses. Some lacked confidence in ChatGPT outputs because it rarely provided references, and some said they preferred formal literature searching. Despite ChatGPT’s deficiencies in producing usable methods, we found evidence that these were valuable exercises for helping students think critically about procedures and artificial intelligence (AI) outputs. An accompanying anonymous survey suggested that student opinions of ChatGPT and AI technologies varied depending on what they had used them for. Based on this work, we offer suggestions for other instructors who wish to design similar method development assignments that incorporate LLMs.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00193

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. ACS Approval Program ; American Chemical Society, 2024. https://www.acs.org/education/policies/acs-approval-program.html (accessed 02-08-2024).
  2. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00817 · DOI
  3. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00547 · DOI
  4. 10.1021/ed079p524 · DOI
  5. Smith T. L., 2017, Chem. Educ., 22, 177
  6. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00093 · DOI
  7. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01140 · DOI
  8. 10.1021/ed400130s · DOI
  9. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00160 · DOI
  10. 10.1021/ed1011103 · DOI
  11. 10.1021/ed400595j · DOI
  12. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00854 · DOI
  13. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00102 · DOI
  14. 10.1021/ed082p1794 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s00897990314a · DOI
  16. 10.1021/ed073p1026 · DOI
  17. 10.1021/ed5007019 · DOI
  18. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01251 · DOI
  19. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00035 · DOI
  20. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00113 · DOI
  21. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00826 · DOI
  22. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00843 · DOI
  23. 10.1021/ed085p1519 · DOI
  24. 10.1021/ed200756z · DOI
  25. 10.1021/ed300468r · DOI
  26. Novak M., 2007, Chem. Educ., 12, 414
  27. 10.1007/s00897000453a · DOI
  28. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00678 · DOI
  29. Anderson L. W., 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Complete
  30. Anastas P. T., 1998, Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice
  31. 12 Principles of Green Chemistry ; American Chemical Society, 2024. https://www.acs.org/greenchemistry/principles/12-principles-of-green-chemistry.html (accessed 02-13-2024).
  32. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00161 · DOI
  33. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00947 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100170 · DOI
  35. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00006 · DOI
  36. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00063 · DOI
  37. 10.1039/D3RP00088E · DOI
  38. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00361 · DOI
  39. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027 · DOI
  40. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00288 · DOI
  41. 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00619 · DOI
  42. 10.3390/life12091430 · DOI
  43. 10.1021/jacs.3c05819 · DOI
  44. 10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-3zcfl-v3 · DOI
  45. 10.1038/s41592-023-02087-4 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1126/science.adm9788 · DOI
  47. 2023, ACS Axial
  48. Mullin, R. The tricky ethics of AI in the lab. Chemical & Engineering News ; American Chemical Society, 2023. https://cen.acs.org/business/informatics/tricky-ethics-AI-lab/101/i31 (accessed 09-26-2023).
  49. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00248 · DOI
  50. 10.1021/cr068359e · DOI
  51. 10.1016/S0731-7085(01)00661-6 · DOI
  52. 10.1021/jf070413k · DOI
  53. 10.1098/rsos.191378 · DOI
  54. 10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.008 · DOI
  56. 10.1038/s41598-024-52549-8 · DOI

Cited by

See all 40

Metadata

Authors
Ruff, E. F., Franz, J. L., & West, J. K.
Affiliations
Department of Chemistry, Winona State University, 175 W Mark St., Winona, Minnesota 55987, United States
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Chemical Education
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2024-07-23
Volume
101
Issue
8
Pages
3224-3232
ISSN
  • 0021-9584
  • 1938-1328
DOI
10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00193
Cited by
40
References
13
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Winona State University

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.