Evaluation of ChatGPT’s Real-Life Implementation in Undergraduate Dental Education: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT seems to offer a range of benefits in academic education while also raising concerns. Relevant literature encompasses issues of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, as well as pedagogy and educational affordances; yet, no real-life implementation of ChatGPT in the educational process has been reported to our knowledge so far. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods study aimed to evaluate the implementation of ChatGPT in the educational process, both quantitatively and qualitatively. METHODS: In March 2023, a total of 77 second-year dental students of the European University Cyprus were divided into 2 groups and asked to compose a learning assignment on "Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection in the Dental Office," working collaboratively in small subgroups, as part of the educational semester program of the Dentomaxillofacial Radiology module. Careful planning ensured a seamless integration of ChatGPT, addressing potential challenges. One group searched the internet for scientific resources to perform the task and the other group used ChatGPT for this purpose. Both groups developed a PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp) presentation based on their research and presented it in class. The ChatGPT group students additionally registered all interactions with the language model during the prompting process and evaluated the final outcome; they also answered an open-ended evaluation questionnaire, including questions on their learning experience. Finally, all students undertook a knowledge examination on the topic, and the grades between the 2 groups were compared statistically, whereas the free-text comments of the questionnaires were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Out of the 77 students, 39 were assigned to the ChatGPT group and 38 to the literature research group. Seventy students undertook the multiple choice question knowledge examination, and examination grades ranged from 5 to 10 on the 0-10 grading scale. The Mann-Whitney U test showed that students of the ChatGPT group performed significantly better (P=.045) than students of the literature research group. The evaluation questionnaires revealed the benefits (human-like interface, immediate response, and wide knowledge base), the limitations (need for rephrasing the prompts to get a relevant answer, general content, false citations, and incapability to provide images or videos), and the prospects (in education, clinical practice, continuing education, and research) of ChatGPT. CONCLUSIONS: Students using ChatGPT for their learning assignments performed significantly better in the knowledge examination than their fellow students who used the literature research methodology. Students adapted quickly to the technological environment of the language model, recognized its opportunities and limitations, and used it creatively and efficiently. Implications for practice: the study underscores the adaptability of students to technological innovations including ChatGPT and its potential to enhance educational outcomes. Educators should consider integrating ChatGPT into curriculum design; awareness programs are warranted to educate both students and educators about the limitations of ChatGPT, encouraging critical engagement and responsible use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".