CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Technology and Pedagogy

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

Microbe Detectives VS ChatGPT: Who Solves Better

Aguirre, Angel Hernandez·2024·2024 World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC)
DOI 10.1109/weef-gedc63419.2024.10854897
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examines ChatGPT, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, to enhance learning and assessment in educational settings. The core of the research is the "Microbe Detectives" activity, where students use biochemical tests to identify microorganisms and then use ChatGPT to validate their findings. This approach is designed to improve students' laboratory skills and promote the ethical and responsible use of AI. The study includes a survey to evaluate the usability, cost, response quality, and overall student satisfaction with ChatGPT. The results indicate that although only 25% of students accurately identified the microorganism using only biochemical tests, the majority found ChatGPT helpful in exploring different outcomes and strengthening their conclusions. While some students expressed dissatisfaction with the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses, most appreciated the integration of AI into their learning activities. The study emphasises the importance of developing AI systems prioritising fairness, transparency, and accountability to build trust in their educational application. It also highlights the need for comprehensive training for educators and students to ensure the responsible and effective use of AI tools.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/weef-gedc63419.2024.10854897

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. McMinn, ChatGPT killed the classroom star: AI’s rise means it is time to rethink teaching and testing, South China Morning Post Online
  2. Bowman, A new AI chatbot might do your homework for you. Nevertheless, it is still not an A+ student, NPR
  3. Cassidy, 2023, Australian universities to return to ‘pen and paper’ exams after students caught using AI to write essays, The Guardian
  4. Rettberg, ChatGPT is multilingual but monocultural, and it is learning your values, Blog Entry

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Aguirre, A. H.
Affiliations
Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias Tecnologico de Monterrey,Mexico
Venue
2024 World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2024-12-02
Pages
1-4
DOI
10.1109/weef-gedc63419.2024.10854897
OpenAlex
W4406949853
Cited by
1
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.38
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
ChatGPT, artificial intelligence in education, responsible AI use, laboratory skills, student satisfaction, microbial identification, AI ethics in education

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