PreprintCited by 6Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Enhancing Chemistry Learning with ChatGPT and Bing Chat as Agents to Think With: A Comparative Case Study

Open access
Santos, Renato P. dos·2023·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.11890

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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)
OpenAlex
W4377866086
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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