The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ChatGPT-Based Simulation Helps to Develop the Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Critical Thinking
Open accessAbstract
The development of IT affects society in general and the education sector in particular. The emergence of AI (in particular ChatGPT), which is constantly being improved, already causes specific problems in the organization and administration of the educational process. Still, the peculiarities of its functioning make it possible to perceive ChatGPT as learning means in the pre-service mathematics teachers’ training. The article presents the results of a study that answers the following questions: (1) "Can ChatGPT be a digital platform that generates pupils' answers (secondary school)? - Yes"; (2) "Are students (pre-service mathematics teachers) prepared to check answers that ChatGPT generates? - Yes"; (3) "Does checking answers that ChatGPT generates affect the development of students' critical thinking? - Yes". The study involved a pedagogical experiment in which authors described how ChatGPT generates solutions to math problems and what mistakes it makes. We ensured that students sometimes find mathematical mistakes in the answers generated by ChatGPT, but repeated use of ChatGPT shows its positive impact on the development of pre-service mathematics teachers’ critical thinking.
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
“A significant number of studies employed rubrics and performance-based assessments to evaluate CT in students' outputs, including essays, chatbot interactions, and project submissions [75,76,78,87,88].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
In the citing paper
“Drushlyak et al. [75] reported positive changes in CT performance following structured critique of AI-generated solutions.”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
In the citing paper
“Several studies reported increased awareness of AI limitations and improved evaluative reasoning following structured revision tasks [62,64,75].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
In the citing paper
“Drushlyak et al. [75] found positive changes in students CT after analyzing and critiquing AI-generated solutions, commenting that the inevitability of AI errors becomes a learning opportunity, prompting active interrogation and deeper reasoning.”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
In the citing paper
“Performance tasks, such as AI-augmented debates, problem-based projects, and peer review of AI-generated work, proved particularly effective for promoting evaluation and explanation skills [13,75].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Helal, M. Y. I., Elgendy, I. A., Albashrawi, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Al-Ahmadi, S., & Jeon, I. (2025) · Information Discovery and Delivery · doi:10.1108/idd-05-2025-0125 · Cited by 61
Balart, T., Díaz, B., & Shryock, K. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19030179 · Cited by 29
A bibliometric exploration of research in mathematics education (2020–2024)
Чкана, Я. О., Мартиненко, О. В., Юрченко, А. О., Gorovoy, I., & Семеніхіна, О. В. (2025) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.29333/ejmste/16561 · Cited by 17
Ziying, L., Yongchun, H., & Qiaoping, Z. (2026) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100330 · Cited by 15
Nanda, S. B., & Pradhan, D. K. (2025) · Journal of mathematics science and technology education. · doi:10.12973/jmste.2.2.153 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Prof. Dr., C. A., Drushlyak, M., Lukashova, T., Prof. Dr., D. O. M., Shamonia, V., Assoc. Prof. Dr., D. O. C. S., Semenikhina, O., & Prof. Dr., D. O. C. S.
- Affiliations
- Sumy State Pedagogical University named after A. S. Makarenko (UA)
- Venue
- International Journal of Instruction
- Publisher
- Modestum Ltd
- Published
- 2025-01-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 153-172
- ISSN
- 1308-1470 (ISSN-L)
- 1694-609X
- OpenAlex
- W4404949706
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Instruction (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, pre-service mathematics teachers, critical thinking, teacher professional development, artificial intelligence in education, mathematical problem solving, high school mathematics
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
