CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 280Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Chat GPT Can Transform Autodidactic Experiences and Open Education?

Open access
Firat, Mehmet·2023
DOI 10.31219/osf.io/9ge8m
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Chat GPT, powered by the advanced GPT-3 language model from OpenAI, has reached 1 million users only in 5 days. Facebook, Netflix, Instagram, and Twitter could reach this number in 300, 1200, 75, and 720 days. With 175 billion parameters, GPT-3 can generate writing that closely resembles human language. Chat GPT can engage in multiple ongoing conversations, understand and respond to natural language input, and offer customized and interactive assistance. This makes Chat GPT a promising tool for open education, as it can improve the independence and autonomy of autodidactic learners, while also being both practical and adaptable. By providing personalized support, direction, and feedback, Chat GPT has the potential to increase motivation and engagement among autodidactic learners.

Overview

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 · 10.31219/osf.io/9ge8m

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open educational resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(1), 1-11.
  2. Gureckis, T. M., & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 464-481.
  3. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444.
  4. Manning, L. D., Jones, J. E., Buehlman, V., Deal, J. M., & Showalter, L. J. (2022). A Center- Based Model for Self-Directed Learning in Sustainability: Engaging Campus and Community as a Living Lab. In Self-Directed Learning and the Academic Evolution From Pedagogy to Andragogy (pp. 97-118). IGI Global.
  5. Zhou, Z. H. (2021). Machine learning. Springer Nature.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–277 of 277

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Firat, M.
ORCID
Firat, Mehmet
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2023-01-12
DOI
10.31219/osf.io/9ge8m
OpenAlex
W4316041216
Cited by
280
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 78
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, GPT-3, open education, personalized learning support, learner autonomy, student motivation, student engagement

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