CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Technology in Learning

Promoting active learning with ChatGPT: A constructivist approach in Sri Lankan higher education

Open access
Shan Jayasinghe·2024·Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching
DOI 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.26
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates strategies for transforming traditional didactic learning environments into active ones using ChatGPT in a resource-constrained higher education setting in Sri Lanka. It identifies 16 strategies categorized under five constructivist learning themes: active learning, social interaction, contextual learning, scaffolding, and reflective thinking. These practices leverage ChatGPT to personalize learning, foster critical thinking, encourage collaboration, enhance teaching strategies, and offer immediate feedback, addressing educational challenges in developing countries. The findings extend constructivist learning theory by demonstrating AI’s role in facilitating interactive, learner-centered experiences. The study also highlights educators’ evolving role as collaborators with AI, providing personalized support and interactive learning experiences. Practical implications include the immediate applicability of these practices in resource-constrained settings without additional resources, offering a cost-effective solution for enhancing educational quality. However, limitations such as the study’s generalizability to other contexts and the need to investigate potential negative impacts of AI are acknowledged. Future research should explore the integration of multiple AI tools and conduct similar studies in large classrooms and different contexts to enhance generalizability. Expanding this research can help leverage technology to improve educational outcomes and create sustainable, resource-efficient learning environments in the developing world.

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 · 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.26

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Al Shloul, T., Mazhar, T., Abbas, Q., Iqbal, M., Ghadi, Y. Y., Shahzad, T., Mallek, F., & Hamam, H. (2024). Role of activity- based learning and ChatGPT on students' performance in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100219 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C.- C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a crossnational study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37-55. https://doi. org/10.1080/095006900289994 · DOI
  3. Alqahtani, T. M., Yusop, F. D., & Halili, S. H. (2023). Content validity of the constructivist learning in higher education settings (CLHES) scale in the context of the flipped classroom in higher education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 268. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41599-023-01754-3 · DOI
  4. Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349- 369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00369153 · DOI
  5. Asad, M. M., Naz, A., Churi, P., & Tahanzadeh, M. M. (2021). Virtual reality as pedagogical tool to enhance experiential learning: A systematic literature review. Education Research International, 2021(1), 7061623. https://doi. org/10.1155/2021/7061623 · DOI
  6. Bano, S., & Taylor, J. (2015). Universities and the knowledge- based economy: Perceptions from a developing country. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), 242-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.956696 · DOI
  7. Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436-449. https://doi. org/10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2 · DOI
  8. Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1865-1875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.006 · DOI
  9. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in learning? In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Routledge Falmer.
  10. Broadhead, L.-A. (2024). Insidious chatter versus critical thinking: Resisting the Eurocentric siren song of AI in the classroom. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.9 · DOI
  11. Chacon, J. A., & Janssen, H. (2021). Teaching critical thinking and problem-solving skills to healthcare professionals. Medical Science Educator, 31(1), 235-239. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40670-020-01128-3 · DOI
  12. Cohen, A., & Singh, D. (2020). Effective student feedback as a marker for student success. South African Journal of Higher Education, 34(5), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.20853/34-5- 4259 · DOI
  13. Fantinelli, S., Cortini, M., Di Fiore, T., Iervese, S., & Galanti, T. (2024). Bridging the gap between theoretical learning and pactical application: A qualitative study in the Italian educational context. Education Sciences, 14(2), 198. https:// www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/2/198
  14. Glewwe, P., & Muralidharan, K. (2016). Improving education outcomes in developing countries: Evidence, knowledge gaps, and policy implications. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 5, pp. 653-743). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0-444-63459-7.00010-5 · DOI
  15. Gopinathan, S., Kaur, A. H., Veeraya, S., & Raman, M. (2022). The role of digital collaboration in student engagement towards enhancing student participation during COVID-19. Sustainability, 14(11), 6844.
  16. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., & Smith, F. (2008). Pedagogical renewal: Improving the quality of classroom interaction in Nigerian primary schools. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijedudev.2007.02.008 · DOI
  18. Hasanein, A., Sobaih, A., & Elshaer, I. (2024). Examining Google Gemini's acceptance and usage in higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-9. https:// doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.5 · DOI
  19. Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2023). Drivers and consequences of ChatGPT use in higher education: Key stakeholder perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(11), 2599-2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110181 · DOI
  20. Holbrey, C. E. (2020). Kahoot! Using a game-based approach to blended learning to support effective learning environments and student engagement in traditional lecture theatres. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(2), 191- 202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1737568 · DOI
  21. Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78-82. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009 · DOI
  22. Hung, W. (2019). Problem design in PBL. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 249-272). Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119173243. · DOI
  23. Kamali, J., Paknejad, A., & Poorghorban, A. (2024). Exploring the challenges and affordances of integrating ChatGPT into language classrooms from teachers' points of view: An ecological perspective. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2. · DOI
  24. Khan, T., Johnston, K., & Ophoff, J. (2019). The impact of an augmented reality application on learning motivation of students. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2019(1), 7208494. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7208494 · DOI · Paper page
  25. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303- 323. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029002303 · DOI
  26. Knapp, N. F. (2018). The shape activity: Social constructivism in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816181 · DOI
  27. Kumar, V., & Sharma, D. (2016). Creating collaborative and convenient learning environment using cloud-based Moodle LMS: An instructor and administrator perspective. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 11(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.4018/ IJWLTT.2016010103 · DOI
  28. Leite, B. S. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in chemistry teaching: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot's content responses. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.13 · DOI
  29. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299561597_
  30. Luckin, R., Rudolph, J., Grünert, M., & Tan, S. (2024). Exploring the future of learning and the relationship between human intelligence and AI. An interview with Professor Rose Luckin. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 346-363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.27 · DOI
  31. Mantei, J., & Kervin, L. K. (2009). "Authentic" learning experiences: What does this mean and where is the literacy learning? Bridging Divides: National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy, Hobart, Australia.
  32. McNiff, J. (2016). You and your action research project. Routledge.
  33. Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivist learning on the web. Educational Technology, 40(6), 5-18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428633
  34. Oros, A. L. (2007). Let's debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311. https://doi. org/10.1080/15512160701558273 · DOI
  35. Osterman, K. F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education and Urban Society, 22(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124590022002002 · DOI
  36. Parker, S. T., Langer, J., & Milbrath, C. (2010). Biology and knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to psychogenesis. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/ lib/swin/detail.action?docID=227466
  37. Popenici, S. (2023). The critique of AI as a foundation for judicious use in higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.2.4 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Popenici, S., Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). A critical perspective on generative AI and learning futures.: An interview with Stefan Popenici. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 311-331. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.2.5 · DOI
  39. Porcaro, D. (2011). Applying constructivism in instructivist learning cultures. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 5(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/17504971111121919 · DOI
  40. Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1085493
  41. Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team- skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. learninstruc.2006.03.005 · DOI
  42. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017 · DOI
  43. Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From solution to problem? International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 425-432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijedudev.2011.03.005 · DOI
  44. Schweisfurth, M. (2023). Disaster didacticism: Pedagogical interventions and the 'learning crisis'. International Journal of Educational Development, 96, 102707. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102707 · DOI
  45. Schweisfurth, M., & Elliott, J. (2019). When 'best practice' meets the pedagogical nexus: Recontextualisation, reframing and resilience. Comparative Education, 55(1), 1-8. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1544801 · DOI
  46. Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 50(2), 90-99. https://dme.childrenshospital.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Optional-_Teaching-Critical- Thinking-and-Problem-Solving-Skills.pdf
  47. Stadler, M., Horrer, A., & Fischer, M. R. (2024). Crafting medical MCQs with generative AI: A how-to guide on leveraging ChatGPT. GMS Journal of Medical Education, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001675 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centred education: A framework for policy and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375-390. https://doi.org/10.108 0/17508487.2017.1281829 · DOI
  49. Van Ryzin, M. J., Roseth, C. J., & McClure, H. (2020). The effects of cooperative learning on peer relations, academic support, and engagement in learning among students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(4), 283-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1806016 · DOI
  50. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. https:// doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi. org/10.2307/30036540 · DOI · Paper page
  52. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. http://www. jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9vz4
  53. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976. · DOI
  54. tb00381.x Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(3), 161-172. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/42923724
  55. Yu, H. (2024). The application and challenges of ChatGPT in educational transformation: New demands for teachers' roles. Heliyon, 10(2), e24289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. heliyon.2024.e24289 Copyright: © 2024. · DOI
  56. Shan Jayasinghe. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jayasinghe, S.
Affiliations
Southampton Solent University (GB)
Corresponding author
Shan Jayasinghe
Venue
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching
Publisher
Kaplan Business School, Australia
Published
2024-08-26
Volume
7
Issue
2
ISSN
2591-801X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.26
OpenAlex
W4401859113
Cited by
30
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Solent University Research Portal (Solent University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
Keywords
ChatGPT, active learning, constructivist learning theory, artificial intelligence in higher education, resource-constrained education, scaffolding, reflective thinking, personalized learning, critical thinking, cooperative learning, developing countries

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