Students see obtaining explanations for their doubts as ChatGPT's most useful role in learning computer science¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Around 47% of students said ChatGPT is most useful for obtaining explanations about their doubts, the top choice in Question 11. → Singh 2023

Evidence¶

Singh 2023¶

Singh, H.; Tayarani-Najaran, M.-H.; Yaqoob, M. (2023). Exploring Computer Science Students' Perception of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Descriptive and Correlation Study. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090924

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive result from Question 11 on how ChatGPT best aids learning computer science, from the 430-student survey; generating codes was chosen by around 18%, writing reports by 12%, and preparing for assessments was lowest at around 6%.

"Around 47% of the students have indicated that they think the tool is most useful if it is used to obtain explanations about their doubts."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students found ChatGPT responses useful but insufficient in depth and detail compared with TA responses — related
• A majority of surveyed MSc computer science students had never used ChatGPT for academic purposes — related
• Students perceive LLM chatbots as useful for learning but requiring critical use, reporting hallucinations, overconfidence, and dependency risks — related
• Structural relations exist between students' conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies, and doubting students risk inadequate regulation — related
• African and Asian students did not differ significantly in their answers about ChatGPT
• Students regard reduced critical thinking and originality as the biggest threat of ChatGPT use in academia — related
• Students evaluate GenAI explanations for assumed background and audience, reading unfamiliar cultural references and excessive scaffolding as signals about who the explanation was written for — related
• Self-regulation limits supported a targeted teacher role: many students rarely thought before asking AI or could not tell when an AI explanation was wrong — related