Claims

Students trusted the plot plausibility of peer-written alternative endings more than ChatGPT-generated endings

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

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? On Q16, 68.18% of the control group affirmed the new ending was sound and convincing in plot terms, versus only 47.62% of the experimental group. → Andrea Roxana Bellot 2025

Evidence

Andrea Roxana Bellot 2025

Andrea Roxana Bellot, Mar Gutiérrez-Colón Plana, Katarzyna Agnieszka Baran. (2025). Redefining Literature Education: The Role of ChatGPT in Undergraduate Courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00497-3

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Questionnaire item Q16 (Table 5) compared perceptions of whether the new ending appears sound and convincing in plot creation. The experimental group showed greater uncertainty, with "Maybe" responses at 38.10% versus 18.18% in the control group; percentages are descriptive with no test reported.

"The control group demonstrated a higher degree of confidence in the alternative ending's plausibility, with 68.18% affirming its soundness and convincing nature."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.