Shaping the Future of Education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Over the last decade, technological advancements, especially artificial intelligence (AI), have significantly transformed educational practices. Recently, the development and adoption of Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT), particularly OpenAI’s ChatGPT, has sparked considerable interest. The unprecedented capabilities of these models, such as generating humanlike text and facilitating automated conversations, have broad implications in various sectors, including education and health. Despite their immense potential, concerns regarding their widespread use and opacity have been raised within the scientific community. ChatGPT, the latest version of the GPT series, has displayed remarkable proficiency, passed the US bar law exam, and amassed over a million subscribers shortly after its launch. However, its impact on the education sector has elicited mixed reactions, with some educators heralding it as a progressive step and others raising alarms over its potential to reduce analytical skills and promote misconduct. This paper aims to delve into these discussions, exploring the potential and problems associated with applying advanced AI models in education. It builds on extant literature and contributes to understanding how these technologies reshape educational norms in the “new AI gold rush” era.

Related collections

Most cited references 84

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Language Models are Few-Shot Learners

Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder … (2020)

Recent work has demonstrated substantial gains on many NLP tasks and benchmarks by pre-training on a large corpus of text followed by fine-tuning on a specific task. While typically task-agnostic in architecture, this method still requires task-specific fine-tuning datasets of thousands or tens of thousands of examples. By contrast, humans can generally perform a new language task from only a few examples or from simple instructions - something which current NLP systems still largely struggle to do. Here we show that scaling up language models greatly improves task-agnostic, few-shot performance, sometimes even reaching competitiveness with prior state-of-the-art fine-tuning approaches. Specifically, we train GPT-3, an autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters, 10x more than any previous non-sparse language model, and test its performance in the few-shot setting. For all tasks, GPT-3 is applied without any gradient updates or fine-tuning, with tasks and few-shot demonstrations specified purely via text interaction with the model. GPT-3 achieves strong performance on many NLP datasets, including translation, question-answering, and cloze tasks, as well as several tasks that require on-the-fly reasoning or domain adaptation, such as unscrambling words, using a novel word in a sentence, or performing 3-digit arithmetic. At the same time, we also identify some datasets where GPT-3's few-shot learning still struggles, as well as some datasets where GPT-3 faces methodological issues related to training on large web corpora. Finally, we find that GPT-3 can generate samples of news articles which human evaluators have difficulty distinguishing from articles written by humans. We discuss broader societal impacts of this finding and of GPT-3 in general. 40+32 pages

0 comments Cited 502 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns

Malik Sallam (2023)

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational large language model (LLM). The potential applications of LLMs in health care education, research, and practice could be promising if the associated valid concerns are proactively examined and addressed. The current systematic review aimed to investigate the utility of ChatGPT in health care education, research, and practice and to highlight its potential limitations. Using the PRIMSA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted to retrieve English records in PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar (published research or preprints) that examined ChatGPT in the context of health care education, research, or practice. A total of 60 records were eligible for inclusion. Benefits of ChatGPT were cited in 51/60 (85.0%) records and included: (1) improved scientific writing and enhancing research equity and versatility; (2) utility in health care research (efficient analysis of datasets, code generation, literature reviews, saving time to focus on experimental design, and drug discovery and development); (3) benefits in health care practice (streamlining the workflow, cost saving, documentation, personalized medicine, and improved health literacy); and (4) benefits in health care education including improved personalized learning and the focus on critical thinking and problem-based learning. Concerns regarding ChatGPT use were stated in 58/60 (96.7%) records including ethical, copyright, transparency, and legal issues, the risk of bias, plagiarism, lack of originality, inaccurate content with risk of hallucination, limited knowledge, incorrect citations, cybersecurity issues, and risk of infodemics. The promising applications of ChatGPT can induce paradigm shifts in health care education, research, and practice. However, the embrace of this AI chatbot should be conducted with extreme caution considering its potential limitations. As it currently stands, ChatGPT does not qualify to be listed as an author in scientific articles unless the ICMJE/COPE guidelines are revised or amended. An initiative involving all stakeholders in health care education, research, and practice is urgently needed. This will help to set a code of ethics to guide the responsible use of ChatGPT among other LLMs in health care and academia.

0 comments Cited 277 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment

Aidan Gilson, Conrad W Safranek, Thomas Huang … (2023)

Background Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a 175-billion-parameter natural language processing model that can generate conversation-style responses to user input. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on questions within the scope of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 exams, as well as to analyze responses for user interpretability. Methods We used 2 sets of multiple-choice questions to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance, each with questions pertaining to Step 1 and Step 2. The first set was derived from AMBOSS, a commonly used question bank for medical students, which also provides statistics on question difficulty and the performance on an exam relative to the user base. The second set was the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) free 120 questions. ChatGPT’s performance was compared to 2 other large language models, GPT-3 and InstructGPT. The text output of each ChatGPT response was evaluated across 3 qualitative metrics: logical justification of the answer selected, presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. Results Of the 4 data sets, AMBOSS-Step1 , AMBOSS-Step2 , NBME-Free-Step1 , and NBME-Free-Step2 , ChatGPT achieved accuracies of 44% (44/100), 42% (42/100), 64.4% (56/87), and 57.8% (59/102), respectively. ChatGPT outperformed InstructGPT by 8.15% on average across all data sets, and GPT-3 performed similarly to random chance. The model demonstrated a significant decrease in performance as question difficulty increased ( P =.01) within the AMBOSS-Step1 data set. We found that logical justification for ChatGPT’s answer selection was present in 100% of outputs of the NBME data sets. Internal information to the question was present in 96.8% (183/189) of all questions. The presence of information external to the question was 44.5% and 27% lower for incorrect answers relative to correct answers on the NBME-Free-Step1 ( P <.001) and NBME-Free-Step2 ( P =.001) data sets, respectively. Conclusions ChatGPT marks a significant improvement in natural language processing models on the tasks of medical question answering. By performing at a greater than 60% threshold on the NBME-Free-Step-1 data set, we show that the model achieves the equivalent of a passing score for a third-year medical student. Additionally, we highlight ChatGPT’s capacity to provide logic and informational context across the majority of answers. These facts taken together make a compelling case for the potential applications of ChatGPT as an interactive medical education tool to support learning.

0 comments Cited 265 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Simone Grassini: (View ORCID Profile)

Journal

Title: Education Sciences

Abbreviated Title: Education Sciences

Publisher: MDPI AG

ISSN (Electronic): 2227-7102

Publication date Created: July 2023

Publication date (Electronic): July 07 2023

Volume: 13

Issue: 7

Page: 692

Article

DOI: 10.3390/educsci13070692

SO-VID: 023c47a4-9b2c-4f74-92f4-99378898d59d

License:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

History

Data availability:

Shaping the Future of Education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Educational Challenges

Most cited references 84

Language Models are Few-Shot Learners

ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns

How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Article

History

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 198

Cited by 10

Most referenced authors 614