ChatGPT is not a pocket calculator -- Problems of AI-chatbots for teaching Geography

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03196v1
• Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:35:21 GMT
• Title: ChatGPT is not a pocket calculator -- Problems of AI-chatbots for teaching Geography
• Authors: Simon Scheider, Harm Bartholomeus, Judith Verstegen
• Abstract summary: ChatGPT can be fraudulent because it threatens the validity of assessments. Based on a preliminary survey on ChatGPT's quality in answering questions in Geography and GIScience, we demonstrate that this assumption might be fairly naive.
• Score: 0.11049608786515837
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The recent success of large language models and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT in various knowledge domains has a severe impact on teaching and learning Geography and GIScience. The underlying revolution is often compared to the introduction of pocket calculators, suggesting analogous adaptations that prioritize higher-level skills over other learning content. However, using ChatGPT can be fraudulent because it threatens the validity of assessments. The success of such a strategy therefore rests on the assumption that lower-level learning goals are substitutable by AI, and supervision and assessments can be refocused on higher-level goals. Based on a preliminary survey on ChatGPT's quality in answering questions in Geography and GIScience, we demonstrate that this assumption might be fairly naive, and effective control in assessments and supervision is required.

Related papers

• Benchmarking ChatGPT on Algorithmic Reasoning [58.50071292008407]
  We evaluate ChatGPT's ability to solve algorithm problems from the CLRS benchmark suite that is designed for GNNs. We find that ChatGPT outperforms specialist GNN models, using Python to successfully solve these problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T13:39:06Z)
• Using ChatGPT for Science Learning: A Study on Pre-service Teachers' Lesson Planning [0.7416846035207727]
  This study analyzed lesson plans developed by 29 pre-service elementary teachers from a Korean university. 14 types of teaching and learning methods/strategies were identified in the lesson plans. The study identified both appropriate and inappropriate use cases of ChatGPT in lesson planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T22:52:04Z)
• Student Mastery or AI Deception? Analyzing ChatGPT's Assessment Proficiency and Evaluating Detection Strategies [1.633179643849375]
  Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT have a disruptive effect on learning and assessment. This work investigates the performance of ChatGPT by evaluating it across three courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T20:10:13Z)
• Transformative Effects of ChatGPT on Modern Education: Emerging Era of AI Chatbots [36.760677949631514]
  ChatGPT was released to provide coherent and useful replies based on analysis of large volumes of data. Our preliminary evaluation concludes that ChatGPT performed differently in each subject area including finance, coding and maths. There are clear drawbacks in its use, such as the possibility of producing inaccurate or false data. Academic regulations and evaluation practices need to be updated, should ChatGPT be used as a tool in education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T17:35:57Z)
• ChatGPT-Crawler: Find out if ChatGPT really knows what it's talking about [15.19126287569545]
  This research examines the responses generated by ChatGPT from different Conversational QA corpora. The study employed BERT similarity scores to compare these responses with correct answers and obtain Natural Language Inference(NLI) labels. The study identified instances where ChatGPT provided incorrect answers to questions, providing insights into areas where the model may be prone to error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T18:42:47Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• ChatGPT is a Knowledgeable but Inexperienced Solver: An Investigation of Commonsense Problem in Large Language Models [49.52083248451775]
  Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in NLP. We specifically focus on ChatGPT, a widely used and easily accessible LLM. We conduct a series of experiments on 11 datasets to evaluate ChatGPT's commonsense abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T03:05:43Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• Learning gain differences between ChatGPT and human tutor generated algebra hints [4.438259529250529]
  We conduct the first learning gain evaluation of ChatGPT by comparing the efficacy of its hints with hints authored by human tutors. We find that 70% of hints produced by ChatGPT passed our manual quality checks and that both human and ChatGPT conditions produced positive learning gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T07:20:48Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)
• A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures [47.64219291655723]
  ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, has been trained using massive amounts of data and simulates human conversation. It has garnered significant attention due to its ability to effectively answer a broad range of human inquiries. However, a comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's failures is lacking, which is the focus of this study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T04:21:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.