The impact of ChatGPT service on students’ performance: Moderated by training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper aims to test the effects of ChatGPT on students’ performance while using training to moderate this effect. The current paper uses a quantitative, descriptive, cause-effect approach. A cross-sectional sampling approach was used to collect the data online from 117 students in three Jordanian universities (Princess Sumaya University, University of Jordan, and German Jordanian University) by using a survey questionnaire. Data has been tested for its validity and reliability before testing hypotheses. The results indicated that the students agreed on the importance of ChatGPT (ease of use, accuracy, and plagiarism), however, most of the respondents did not agree on the importance of training on ChatGPT and they say it is easy and does not need training. The results also show that there are significant correlations among ChatGPT dimensions (ease of use, accuracy, and plagiarism). However, there is a significant correlation between training and plagiarism only, and there is an insignificance between training and both ease of use and accuracy, which supports the respondents' viewpoint that the training is not important. Finally, findings indicate that there is a significant strong correlation between all other variables (ease of Use, accuracy, and plagiarism) and students' performance, and a weak relationship with training. Finally, results show that there is a significant impact of ChatGPT (Accuracy, ease of use, and plagiarism) on students’ performance, where plagiarism has rated the highest significant effect, then accuracy, while ease of use has an insignificant effect. Moreover, results demonstrated that training has an insignificant moderation effect between ChatGPT and students’ performance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".