Students rated ChatGPT highly for completing activities more quickly, among the highest-scoring survey items in both courses¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Item Q1, on whether ChatGPT allowed students to complete activities more quickly, received some of the highest scores across both courses (9.36 ± 2.01 biology; 9.76 ± 0.76 mathematics). → Elizondo-García ME 2025

Evidence¶

Elizondo-García ME 2025¶

Elizondo-García ME, Hernández-De la Cerda H, Benavides-García IG, Caratozzolo P and Membrillo-Hernández J (2025) Who is solving the challenge? The use of ChatGPT in mathematics and biology courses using challenge-based learning. Front. Educ. 10:1417642. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1417642

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Item-level analysis of the concluding survey (Likert scale 1–10) administered after the ChatGPT-assisted activities in both courses. The high scores in this dimension suggest, in the article's words, that "students perceived ChatGPT as a helpful and user-friendly tool for completing tasks."

"Q1, which evaluated whether ChatGPT allowed students to complete activities more quickly, received some of the highest scores across both courses (9.36 ± 2.01 in “Fundamentals of Biological Systems” and 9.76 ± 0.76 in “Mathematics and Data Science for Decision Making”)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Survey items on critical evaluation and validation of ChatGPT outputs (Q11–Q13) received the lowest scores in both courses despite explicit validation instructions — related
• In a voluntary group survey, all 12 module-activity items had a median of 4, with M5 implementation items rated highest — related
• Students in the mathematics and data science course rated acceptance of the AI tool higher on average than students in the biology course — related
• Undergraduate learners rated CyberAGENTS positively, with scenario authenticity highest and challenge difficulty alignment lowest — related
• Student ratings of the AI-generated materials ranged from an average of 8.5 to 9.9 out of 10 across validated modules, based on over 600 voluntary anonymous evaluations. — related
• Students rated the flipped-learning component highest and the GenAI module lower, with GenAI rated stronger for ideation than for time saving or direct output use — reports the opposite
• Students rate LLM-generated simplified instructions positively, averaging 7.83 on a 1-10 usefulness scale across 42 ratings in a live cybersecurity course — related
• Lesson designers report LLM-generated lessons save substantial time drafting scenarios and multiple-choice questions — related
• Students' perceived deep-learning benefits of LLMs declined over the term while satisfaction and time savings remained high — related
• Voluntary classroom uptake of teacher-assigned AI discussions was high on average (85.0% classroom participation) but heterogeneous across teachers and discussions — related
• Teachers rated ChatGPT as improving lesson-planning efficiency, especially reducing planning time (average 4.2 on a 5-point scale) — related
• Preservice educators rate generative AI highest for logistical support (time saving, clarity, organizing thought) and lowest for epistemic trust, accuracy and consistency — related
• Assignment support was the highest-rated Class Companion function (83% Effective/Very Effective, M = 3.38), while assessing knowledge and skills was the lowest (71%)
• Practice with feedback is more efficient than lecture, saving about 24% of instructional time in Study 1 and yielding 2–3 times higher learning rates in Study 2 — related
• LLM-generated retrieval practice was practical to deploy and well received, but high correctness rates (about 70% of items at p=1.0) restricted score variance — related
• Students in a 13-week lecture-free course reported accepting the weekly closed-book gate and rated the format as deeper and faster than lectures — related