Enhancing Chemistry Learning with ChatGPT and Bing Chat as Agents to Think With: A Comparative Case Study
Open accessAbstract
This study explores the potential of Generative AI chatbots (GenAIbots) such as ChatGPT and Bing Chat, in Chemistry education, within a constructionist theoretical framework. A single-case study methodology was used to analyse extensive interaction logs between students and both AI systems in simulated Chemistry learning experiences. The results highlight the ability of ChatGPT and Bing Chat to act as 'agents-to-think-with', fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, concept comprehension, creativity, and personalised learning experiences. By employing a Socratic-like questioning approach, GenAIbots nurture students' curiosity and promote active learning. The study emphasises the significance of prompt crafting, a technique to elicit desired responses from GenAIbots, fostering iterative reflections and interactions. It underlines the need for comprehensive educator training to effectively integrate these tools into classrooms. The study concludes that while ChatGPT and Bing Chat as agents-to-think-with offer promising avenues to revolutionise STEM education through a constructionist lens, fostering a more interactive, inclusive learning environment and promoting deeper comprehension and critical thinking in students across diverse Chemistry topics, ChatGPT consistently outperformed Bing Chat, providing more comprehensive, detailed, and accurate responses and skillfully addressing nuances and context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
From a constructionist perspective, GenAI tools can act as agents for interactive and engaging learning experiences.
“From a constructionist perspective, GenAI tools can act as agents for interactive and engaging learning experiences (Santos, 2023).”
From Designing experiential learning activities with generative artificial intelligence tools for authentic assessment (2024) · cites this paper as Santos, 2023
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stöhr, C., Ou, A. W., & Malmström, H. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100259 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Montesinos, L. (2024) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-12-2023-0236 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
- Authors
- Santos, R. P. D.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Luterana do Brasil (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Santos, Renato P. dos
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.11890
- OpenAlex
- W4377866086
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › 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
- generative AI chatbots, ChatGPT, Bing Chat, chemistry education, constructionism, Socratic questioning, critical thinking, problem solving, personalized learning, teacher professional development
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