A Conversation with ChatGPT about the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Education: Comparative Review Based on Human–AI Collaboration
Open accessAbstract
Background/purpose -ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot designed with generative pre-trained transformer architecture, have intrigued millions of people from diverse backgrounds since its first release, and generated excitement with its groundbreaking performance in numerous use cases they have been tested.Its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant responses across a wide range of topics have also attracted the attention of researchers, and several scholars have investigated the potential uses of this AI-based tool to promote scientific work.The current study was designed with a similar purpose, and aimed to conduct scientific research on the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on education with a collaborative analysis of humanartificial intelligence.Materials/methods -The data were generated from simultaneous interviews with ChatGPT-3.5 and 4, and their responses were evaluated comparatively in terms of the accuracy, clarity, conciseness, and breadth of information provided for (1) the definition of the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education, (3) the positive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education, (4) recommendations to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.We evaluated the responses using a trichotomous rating system, and also calculated Cohen's kappa values to assess inter-rater agreements for each category of evaluation.Results -The results indicated that both versions demonstrated a strong potential to generate accurate, clear and concise information with a satisfactory breadth.As can be expected, ChatGPT-4 provided more categorized and synthesized information, and was better at demonstrating critical reasoning.Conclusion -These results indicate that ChatGPT is a promising tool that can support scientific research process in collaboration with human intelligence, and its newer versions could be developed in a way that these chatbots could be ethically and safely integrated into different stages of scientific work.
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?
Previous works in artificial intelligence show the possibility of interviewing ChatGPT for information elicitation or obtaining insights into diverse research topics.
“For instance, previous works in artificial intelligence (AI) show the possibility of interviewing ChatGPT for information elicitation or obtaining insights into diverse research topics [42-45].”
From Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools to Explain and Enhance Experiential Learning for Authentic Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
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 70 · Cited by 65
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bawaneh, A. K., & Malkawı, E. (2023). Stem Faculty Members' perspectives and challenges towards dıstance learnıng and virtual classes during COVID-19 outbreak. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 246-261.
- Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta- analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(3), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/u8gaz · DOI
- Verdecchia, P., Cavallini, C., Spanevello, A., & Angeli, F. (2020). COVID-19: ACE2centric infective disease?. Hypertension, 76(2), 294-299.
- Waluyo, E. M. (2022). Healthy Community Movement (GERMAS) And Distance, Wearing Mask, And Washing Hands (3m) In the Elderly to Prevent the Spread of Covid 19. ABDIMAS: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 5(1), 2172-2176.
- Authors
- Karakose, T., Demirkol, M., Aslan, N., Köse, H., & Yirci, R.
- Affiliations
- Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi (TR)
- Venue
- Educational Process International Journal
- Publisher
- Universitepark
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 2147-0901 (ISSN-L)
- 2564-8020
- OpenAlex
- W4383113908
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 15.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Educational Process International Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DSpace - FIRAT (Fırat University) (submittedVersion, 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 pandemic impact on education, human-AI collaboration, large language models, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3.5, artificial intelligence in science
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
