Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Examining Science Education in Chatgpt: An Exploratory Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Examining Science Education in Chatgpt: An Exploratory Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y
Abstract
The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers transformative potential in the field of education. The study explores
three main areas: (1) How did ChatGPT answer questions related to science education? (2) What are some ways educators
could utilise ChatGPT in their science pedagogy? and (3) How has ChatGPT been utilised in this study, and what are my
reflections about its use as a research tool? This exploratory research applies a self-study methodology to investigate the
technology. Impressively, ChatGPT’s output often aligned with key themes in the research. However, as it currently stands,
ChatGPT runs the risk of positioning itself as the ultimate epistemic authority, where a single truth is assumed without a
proper grounding in evidence or presented with sufficient qualifications. Key ethical concerns associated with AI include its
potential environmental impact, issues related to content moderation, and the risk of copyright infringement. It is important
for educators to model responsible use of ChatGPT, prioritise critical thinking, and be clear about expectations. ChatGPT is
likely to be a useful tool for educators designing science units, rubrics, and quizzes. Educators should critically evaluate any
AI-generated resource and adapt it to their specific teaching contexts. ChatGPT was used as a research tool for assistance
with editing and to experiment with making the research narrative clearer. The intention of the paper is to act as a catalyst
for a broader conversation about the use of generative AI in science education.
Keywords Generative artificial intelligence and science education · Large language models · ChatGPT · Digital technologies
Artificial Intelligence and the Field of Education are much more—they can calculate larger numbers and faster
than humans. We have cause to be in awe at the super-human
Artificial intelligence (AI) is playing a crucial role in the brilliance of their feats of calculation” (Cope et al., 2021, p.
ever-increasing digitisation of society. AI’s capability to 1230). Discourse about the potential societal impact of AI has
automate tasks, process large quantities of data, and provide recently been attracting significant attention. For instance,
predictive insights will increasingly revolutionise various there have been increasing concerns about significant job
aspects of our daily lives (Yang, 2022). Previously, AI losses and debates about classifying AI output as art (e.g.
has been described as technology that has the capacity to WALL-E 2, Midjourney) (Pavlik, 2023). Discussions
mimic human-like responses, such as reasoning, exercising around the use of AI, like in other fields, are mostly in the
judgement, and exhibiting intentionality (Shubhendu & early stages. Celik (2023) claims that educators have not
Vijay, 2013). Technological advancements such as machine maximised the potential of AI in teaching and learning
learning and neural networks have sparked further discussion contexts. It has even been described as the “Cinderella of the
about how to define AI (Wang, 2019). The challenge … “is AI story”, alluding to its underdeveloped and often ignored
to specify the parameters of artificiality, or the ways in which status in education (Lameras & Arnab, 2021). Despite calls
computers are unlike human intelligence. They are much less for further uptake, some educators are resistant to using
than human intelligence—they can only calculate. And they software that collects large amounts of student data and,
moreover, sceptical of companies that present technology as
a panacea for all educational issues (Stockman & Nottingham
* Grant Cooper et al., 2022). This research focuses on an AI platform called
[email protected] ChatGPT. It has garnered worldwide attention and captured
1
the public zeitgeist.
Curtin University, WA 6102 Bentley, Australia
13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452 445
ChatGPT Methodology
Large language models are a form of generative AI that pro- Inspired by Pavlik’s (2023) exploration of ChatGPT in the
duces human-like language (OpenAI, 2023a). OpenAI trains field of journalism and media studies, research question 1 of
its text-generating models using machine learning algorithms this study asks: How did ChatGPT answer questions related
on large amounts of text, including books, news articles, to science education? For example, what are key charac-
websites, and Wikipedia (Scharth, 2022). By processing teristics of effective science teaching? Should I use chalk
terabytes of data, models acquire the patterns and structure and talk to teach science or embrace more student-centred
of language, enabling them to provide users with relevant pedagogies? What happens if a student is failing in science,
and meaningful content in response to their requests. When should I care?
I asked ChatGPT to describe itself (prompt-Describe Chat- Research question 2 of this study asks: What are some
GPT), it generated the following italicised text: ways educators could utilise ChatGPT in their science peda-
ChatGPT is a language model developed by OpenAI. It is gogy? For example, how might it design a science unit using
a variant of the GPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer) the 5Es model, or how could it design a rubric to use in my
model, which is trained on a massive amount of text data science classroom? How might it generate a multiple-choice
to generate human-like text. It can be used for a variety of quiz with an answer key?
natural language processing tasks, such as language trans- Research question 3 of this study asks: How has ChatGPT
lation, text summarization, question answering, and also been utilised in this study, and what are my reflections about
for chatbot applications. It can understand and respond to its use as a research tool? “All tools do more than human
human inputs in a conversational way, making it well suited minds and bodies can achieve unaided, which is why we
for interactive applications. ChatGPT can be fine-tuned on create and use them” (Cope et al., 2021, p. 1230). Position-
specific data sets and task, which means it can be customized ing the AI as a research tool, I will reflect on its use in the
to perform specific task and generate outputs that are more present study.
accurate and useful. This is exploratory research; the intention is to document
ChatGPT can… “write stories, give life advice, even my experiences with ChatGPT and to reflect on its possible
compose poems and code computer programs” (Scharth, implications. This exploratory study applies a self-study
2022, para. 2). There have been reports however that it… methodology to investigate the technology (Hamilton et al.,
“produces fake citations and reproduces biases that exist 2009). Through this study, I acknowledge that aspects of
in the literature” (Gleason, 2022, para. 7). According to my educator and researcher identities have influenced the
cited ChatGPT output, “AI systems can perpetuate biases kinds of AI prompts I am interested in posing. As part of my
that are present in the data they are trained on. This can exploration, I critically analyse ChatGPT output about sci-
lead to unequal and unfair outcomes for students, particu- ence education, comparing it to key themes in the research.
larly if the bias is related to factors such as race, gender, or Moreover, I am eager to investigate the practical applica-
socio-economic status” (Zhai, 2022, p. 7). OpenAI (2023b) tions of using it for the classroom. Anecdotally, educators
acknowledge in their advice to educators that… “ChatGPT are already utilising ChatGPT to teach science. As discussed
may produce content that perpetuates harmful biases and ste- earlier, I am also interested in the application of ChatGPT as
reotypes, sometimes in subtle ways… the model is generally a tool for researchers.
skewed towards content that reflects Western perspectives The text italicised below has been directly copied from
and people” (para. 18). ChatGPT. It is important to remember that the following
ChatGPT has gone viral on social media, and anecdo- results are a moment-in-time response, meaning the same
tal evidence suggests that students are already familiar questions could be entered into ChatGPT and you may get
with it. It is safe to assume that undergraduate students are a different response. The responses below were collected in
using ChatGPT or a similar software. Given ChatGPT’s January 2023.
apparent usage and stakeholder concerns, it is crucial to
evaluate its output about science education. As far as I am
aware, there has been no prior research that has examined Results
the text generated by ChatGPT in relation to science edu-
cation topics or its potential applications to create science [ChatGPT Prompt 1]: What Are Key Characteristics
teaching resources. Also, there is little written about its of Effective Science Teaching?
utilisation as a research tool, especially in STEM educa-
tion contexts. This presents as a significant and timely 1. Active and inquiry-based learning: Effective science
research gap to address. teaching encourages students to actively engage in the
13
446 Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452
learning process through hands-on activities, experi- importance of effective assessments, and student-led, col-
ments, and inquiry-based projects. This approach allows laborative science learning. The first list by ChatGPT men-
students to make connections between what they are tions the importance of professional development while the
learning and the world around them. second list by Hackling et al. makes no explicit mention
2. Real-world connections: Effective science teaching makes of this. It does however stress the importance of connecting
connections between what students are learning in the science learning with the broader community, which is less
classroom and real-world applications. This helps to obvious in the ChatGPT response (e.g. real world connection).
make the subject more relevant and engaging for students. Overall, there seems strong alignment between the two lists.
3. Differentiation: Effective science teaching takes into
account the diverse needs and learning styles of stu-
dents. Teachers use a variety of strategies to differentiate [ChatGPT Prompt 2]: Should I Use Chalk and Talk to Teach
instruction, such as providing multiple ways to access Science or Embrace More Student‑Centred Pedagogies?
information and using a variety of assessment methods.
4. Collaboration: Effective science teaching fosters a col- Both “chalk and talk” teaching, where the teacher primar-
laborative learning environment where students work ily lectures and writes on the board, and student-centred
together to solve problems and share ideas. This helps pedagogies, which put the focus on the student’s own
students to develop important skills such as communica- learning and discovery, have their own advantages and
tion, problem-solving and teamwork. disadvantages.
5. Use of technology: Effective science teaching incorporates “Chalk and talk” teaching can be effective for introducing
technology to enhance student learning. This can include new concepts and providing a clear structure for the material.
using simulations and virtual labs, online resources, and However, it can also be less engaging for students and may
other digital tools to support the learning process. not allow for enough student interaction and active learning.
6. Assessment: Effective science teaching uses a variety of On the other hand, student- centred pedagogies such as
assessment methods to measure student understanding and inquiry-based learning, project-based learning and problem-
provide feedback to guide instruction. This includes forma- based learning, allow students to take an active role in
tive and summative assessments, as well as performance- their own learning, encouraging them to ask questions,
based assessments. explore, and discover new concepts on their own. This type
7. Professional development: Effective science teaching of teaching has been shown to be more engaging for students
requires ongoing professional development for teach- and can lead to better retention of the material.
ers to stay current with the latest research, best practices It is important to note that a good science teaching should
and new technologies in the field of science education. aim to be a balance between the teacher-centred and student-
centred pedagogies.
Let us compare ChatGPT’s response above to seminal It can be beneficial to use a variety of teaching methods
research discussing characteristics of effective science teach- in the classroom, such as incorporating hands-on activities,
ing. Hackling and Prain (2005) report six elements including: group work, and discussions to supplement traditional lec-
tures. This can help to keep students engaged and promote
1. Students experience a curriculum that is relevant to their active learning. Additionally, allowing for student choice
lives and interests. and incorporating real-world connections can help to make
2. Classroom science is linked with the broader community. the material more relevant and interesting to students.
3. Students are actively engaged with inquiry, ideas, The response balances the different pedagogical
and evidence. approaches to teaching science. Its output defines “chalk
4. Students are challenged to develop and extend meaning- and talk” as a process whereby the teacher primarily lec-
ful conceptual understandings. tures and writes on the board… ‘chalk and talk’ teaching
5. Assessment facilitates learning and focuses on outcomes can be effective for introducing new concepts. The former
that contribute to scientific literacy. is more closely aligned with a teaching model that empha-
6. Information and communication technologies are sises direct instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006). The output
exploited to enhance the learning of science with oppor- also details the benefits of inquiry-based, student-centred
tunities to interpret and construct multimodal represen- models of science education (Rannikmäe et al., 2020), stat-
tations (p. 19). ing that this type of teaching has been shown to be more
engaging for students and can lead to better retention of
Both lists stress the importance of inquiry-based learn- the material. Later, ChatGPT discusses the importance of
ing, real-world connections, differentiation of instruction, aiming for a balance between teacher-centred and student-
the use of technology to enhance science learning, the centred pedagogies. Where is the evidence base to support
13
Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452 447
a balance? I also wonder about the importance of context? • Show a video or pictures of a community facing energy
(e.g. individual student needs, school profile/priorities). We challenges, such as a power outage during a heatwave,
will elaborate on these points later. or an oil spill
• Encourage students to brainstorm and share their prior
knowledge about energy sources
[ChatGPT Prompt 3]: What Happens if a Student Is
Failing in Science, Should I Care?
Explore:
Yes, as a teacher it’s important to care if a student is fail-
ing in science because it can have a significant impact on • Divide the class into small groups and assign each
their academic and future career opportunities. Failing in group a different renewable or non-renewable energy
science can indicate that a student may be struggling with source to research.
the material and may need additional support or different • Provide students with a set of guiding questions to help
teaching methods. them focus their research. (e.g. What are the advan-
It’s important to identify the reasons why the student is fail- tages and disadvantages of this energy source? How is
ing and address the underlying issues. This could include pro- it produced? What are the environmental impacts?)
viding additional support such as tutoring, adjusting teaching • Give students time to conduct their research and gather
methods to better suit the student’s learning style, or providing information.
opportunities for hands-on, inquiry-based learning. • Students can use a variety of resources such as books,
It’s also important to communicate with the student’s par- articles, videos, and websites to research their topic.
ents or guardians and work together to develop a plan to • Provide additional support and resources for students
support the student’s success in science. Additionally, creat- who are struggling with the material, such as providing
ing a positive and encouraging classroom environment can a more simplified version of the guiding questions or
help to motivate the student to improve their performance offering extra time for research.
in science.
In addition, it’s important to recognize that students
may fail for a variety of reasons, such as lack of interest, Explain:
lack of prior knowledge or skills, or other personal issues.
Therefore, it’s important to be understanding and sup- • Have each group present their findings to the class,
portive and not to blame the student for their failure but using visual aids and hands-on activities to help
instead, help them to overcome the obstacles and achieve explain the concepts
their goals. • Encourage class discussion and questions
There are several helpful suggestions in the ChatGPT • Provide additional support and resources for students
response that align with the research literature. For instance, who are struggling with the material, such as providing
ensuring more opportunities for student-centred learn- a graphic organiser or a template for the presentation
ing (Kang & Keinonen, 2017), working with guardians or
caregivers to support student learning (Archer et al., 2013;
Gorard & See, 2009), and fostering a supportive learning Elaborate:
environment (Du & Wong, 2019).
• Students will work in groups again to create a proposal
[ChatGPT Prompt 4]: Create a Teaching Unit Using for a sustainable energy plan for their community.
the 5Es Model that Is Challenging for Students • Provide a list of criteria that their plan must meet such as
Who Have a Strong Understanding of Renewable cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, and reliability.
and Non‑renewable Energy Sources at a Year • Provide additional support and resources for students
7 Level. Also Provide Support and Scaffolding who are struggling with the material, such as providing
for Students Who Are Struggling with the Material a sample proposal or a step-by-step guide to creating
the plan.
Engage:
Evaluate:
• Begin the unit by posing a real-world problem related
to energy sources such as “How can we ensure a sus- • Have students self-assess their understanding and par-
tainable future for our community?” ticipation in the unit using a rubric
13
448 Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452
• Have students peer-assess the presentations and plans I see some potential for the use of ChatGPT to help with
of other groups rubric design (Table 1). As you can see from the question I
• Have the teacher provide feedback and grades on the asked ChatGPT, it self-identified rubric criteria (e.g. under-
final plan. standing, research, participation). The rubric categories
• Finalise the unit with a class debate about which make a distinction between levels (e.g. exemplary, profi-
energy source is the best for the community cient) but are too vague to identify specific indicators in each
category. This might suit some educators. Others might add
This teaching unit allows students to actively engage further detail and use the ChatGPT response as a starting
in the learning process, explore and research the subject, point, in a similar way to the unit design discussed earlier.
explain their findings, elaborate a plan, evaluate their
understanding and participation and debate about the best [ChatGPT Prompt 6]: Generate a Quiz on the Concept
energy source for the community. The unit provides sup- on Renewable and Non‑renewable Energy Sources
port and scaffolding for students who are struggling with at a Year 7 Level and Include Answer Key
the material, while also challenging students who have a
strong understanding of the topic to think critically and Renewable and Non‑Renewable Energy Sources Quiz
apply their knowledge to real-world scenarios.
The 5Es model (Bybee, 2002) is a popular teaching
model used by schools and influential in pre-service teacher What is a renewable energy source?
courses globally. One might imagine how it could be used
by an educator as a catalyst for ideas, to move beyond a (a) An energy source that can never be depleted
blank page, when designing a science unit. Example learn- (b) An energy source that is not replenished by natural
ing experiences in the output above seem mostly under- processes
pinned by a social-constructivist pedagogy (e.g. students (c) An energy source that can be replenished by natural
sharing prior knowledge, working in groups to create a processes
proposal, classroom debates, and opportunities for students (d) An energy source that is not produced by natural processes
to assess their own and peer presentations). As discussed,
context is crucial. I can see it as a helpful tool for teachers as
a starting point who then should consider their own teach- What are the three main types of renewable energy sources?
ing contexts (e.g. student needs, school profile, curriculum,
access to resources). It is important that educators are criti- (a) Solar, wind, and hydro
cal about the ChatGPT output, deleting parts that are not (b) Coal, oil, and natural gas
helpful and building on elements that are. While the unit (c) Nuclear, geothermal, and biomass
certainly needs refining, I suspect many educators will find (d) Gasoline, propane, and diesel
this feature in ChatGPT helpful. Early career teachers and
pre-service teachers may find the use of ChatGPT especially
helpful for teaching resources because they are less likely to What are the advantages of using renewable energy sources?
have an extensive bank of trusted resources.
(a) They are non-polluting, they do not contribute to cli-
[ChatGPT Prompt 5]: Create a Rubric that Year 7 mate change, and they are sustainable.
Students Can Use to Self‑assess Their Learning (b) They are cheaper, they are easy to find, and they are
About Renewable and Non‑renewable Energy easy to extract.
Sources (Note I Asked ChatGPT a Follow‑Up (c) They are polluting, they contribute to climate change,
Formatting Request: Make This Rubric Easier and they are not sustainable.
to Copy to Word in a Tidy Format)
This rubric can be used by students to self-assess their learn- What is a non-renewable energy source?
ing about renewable and non-renewable energy sources, it
can be used to evaluate their understanding of the concepts, (a) An energy source that can be replenished by natural
research, critical thinking, and participation. Each criteria processes
will have a scale of four levels: exemplary, proficient, devel- (b) An energy source that is not replenished by natural
oping and emerging. The students can check the level that processes
they think they have reached on each criteria and then have a (c) An energy source that is not produced by natural
teacher or peer review and feedback on their self-assessment. processes
13
Table 1 Rubric output generated by ChatGPT
Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Emerging
Understanding of The student demonstrates a thorough The student demonstrates a general The student demonstrates a limited The student demonstrates little to no
the concepts understanding of the concepts of understanding of the concepts of understanding of the concepts of understanding of the concepts of renewable
renewable and non-renewable energy renewable and non-renewable energy renewable and non-renewable energy and non-renewable energy sources
sources, including the advantages and sources, but some details are missing sources
disadvantages of each
Research The student conducts thorough research The student conducts research on renewable The student conducts some research on The student does not conduct any research or
on renewable and non-renewable energy and non-renewable energy sources renewable and non-renewable energy their research is not relevant to the topic
sources and presents their findings in a and presents their findings, but some sources but the presentation of their
clear and organised manner information is missing or unclear findings is limited
Critical thinking The student demonstrates the ability to The student demonstrates some ability to The student does not demonstrate the ability The student does not demonstrate any critical
analyse and evaluate the advantages and analyse and evaluate the advantages and to analyse and evaluate the advantages thinking skills
disadvantages of different energy sources disadvantages of different energy sources and disadvantages of different energy
and to make informed decisions about the but is missing some key points sources
best energy sources for the future
Participation The student actively participates in The student participates in class discussions The student does not participate actively in The student’s participation is disruptive to
class discussions and group work and and group work but does not always class discussions or group work the class
Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452
contributes valuable ideas and insights contribute valuable ideas and insights
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
(c)
(a)
(d)
(b)
b
b
a
a
sources?
Answer key:
Discussion
to Science Education?
Solar, wind, and hydro
Coal, oil, and natural gas
13
rect references to papers that do exist and mix these in with
ences. To make matters worse, it will often provide cor-
that… “it continually provides false and misleading refer-
context? Where is the evidence base? Even when ChatGPT
in evidence or presented with sufficient qualifications. The
449
incorrect references and references to non-existent papers… (e.g. ChatGPT prompt-rewrite: [paste your text here]). It
The question is, when does it give good answers and when is important for stakeholders to carefully consider how AI
does it give garbage answers?” (Buchanan, 2023, para. 1–3). impacts the design of, and completion of, assessments and
Science educators, who prioritise evidence-based explana- pre-service teacher programmes more broadly. Prioritising
tions in their own teaching, may find the current design of student’s critical thinking, critiquing ethical issues related
ChatGPT problematic. to the use of AI systems, modelling its responsible use, and
Beyond its narrow framing of truth, its output is based being clear about expectations for its use in assessments
on… “argumentum ad populum-it considers to be true what seems like a good place to start a broader conversation.
is repeated the most” (Darics & Poppel, 2023, para. 4). As Beyond large language models, educators need to con-
discussed, the model is generally skewed towards content sider generative AI more broadly (e.g. image, audio, video
that reflects Western perspectives and people. Whose voices etc.). The ability to think critically as an educator is now
are silenced by the algorithm? Who is the author, and what more important than ever, an essential element of a science
is their bias? These are critical questions for educators, as teacher’s toolkit. In an age of social media echo chambers,
well as students, to think carefully about. climate change scepticism, and uncertainty about sources
Although this paper does not extensively probe the ethical of evidence and “truth(s)”, the emergence of generative AI
implications related to ChatGPT, it may be valuable to dis- introduces further complexity.
cuss the matters listed below with students who are explor-
ing its use or AI in general. One consideration is the poten-
tial environmental impact of AI platforms. Although the RQ2: What Are Some Ways Educators Could Utilise
information is not readily available on ChatGPT, machine ChatGPT in Their Science Pedagogy?
learning models require substantial processing power,
and data centres hosting cloud networks must be effec- In this part of the study, I was interested in exploring how
tively cooled (Boudreau, 2023; Wu et al, 2022). It was also educators might draw on its use of ChatGPT. Its output to
reported that Kenyan workers were paid about $2 per hour to prompts 4, 5, and 6 illustrates ways ChatGPT can be help-
work as content moderators for systems associated with the ful to generate ideas when designing science units, rubrics,
creation of ChatGPT, sifting through disturbing content like and quizzes. I was particularly impressed by its capacity
sexual abuse, hate speech, and violence (Perrigo, 2023). The to generate a science unit underpinned by the 5Es model,
use of large language models such as ChatGPT also raises even if some of the output seemed a little generic and in
questions about the potential for copyright infringement need of further refinement. The output embedded the science
when generated text resembles or copies existing content topic (renewable and non-renewable energy sources) within
(Karim, 2023). Apart from these broader concerns, there are a pedagogical framework (the 5Es). Again, however, educa-
other considerations for how students use AI. For instance, tors need to critically evaluate any resources and adapt it to
is it okay for students to reference ChatGPT verbatim in an their specific context. Teacher’s expertise, experience, and
assessment? Given my previous discussion about its lack understanding of their students remain key to making sound
of evidence, I have instructed students in my classes not pedagogical decisions. AI does not replace the expertise of
to. Students may first generate essay text in ChatGPT and the science teacher (yet).
subsequently insert key references mentioned in class. I do
not know how I feel about this, it does not quite sit well with RQ3: How Has ChatGPT Been Utilised in This
me. Instead of allowing research to drive the argument, it Study, and What Are My Reflections About its Use
seems more like an essay hack. Matching an AI-generated as a Research Tool?
narrative with research to legitimise it.
I am interested in the potential of ChatGPT to be used As part of my research exploration, I was interested in
as (1) a learning scaffold for learning new concepts (before using ChatGPT as a research tool in the present study.
supporting students to engage with more traditional stimuli, It has been reported that some scientists are already….
such as an academic journal or textbook) and its potential to “using chatbots as research assistants- to help organize
(2) help students who are not strong writers. For instance, their thinking, generate feedback on their work, assist with
I have modelled prompts students can enter to get a broad writing code and summarize research literature” (Nature,
overview of a concept (e.g. ChatGPT prompt-Imagine I am 2023, p. 612). The large bulk of its use in this research was
an undergrad student, make some bullet points about [phe- assistance with editing. There were sentences that I asked
nomena]). I suspect that for students who find it difficult to ChatGPT to rewrite (ChatGPT prompt-rewrite: [paste
write, it will be helpful in overcoming writer’s block. To sentence]) at different stages of the paper to help with
demonstrate to students the advantages of using ChatGPT phrasing, flow, and word choice. Researchers who tend
to improve their writing, again, I have modelled prompts to write excessively long or complicated sentences could
13
Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452 451
use ChatGPT to clarify their message. Certain sentences, Availability of Data and Materials All raw data published in the paper.
however, had better phrasing prior to being entered into
ChatGPT, while others were improved after a rewrite by Declarations
the AI. When composing this paper, I kept a browser win- Ethical Approval Not applicable.
dow open, experimenting with the possibilities of making
my research narrative clearer. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all indi-
There is presently a debate among journal editors, vidual participants included in the study.
researchers, and publishers regarding the role of such AI Consent for Publication The participant has consented to the submis-
tools in published literature and whether it is acceptable sion of the case report to the journal.
to attribute authorship to the bot (Stokel-Walker, 2023).
Nature, along with all Springer Nature journals, has for- Competing Interests The author declares no competing interests.
mulated two key principles to their existing guidelines
for authors in response to the rise of ChatGPT. The first Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
principle is that no large language model will be recog- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
nised as an accredited author because attribution carries as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
accountability for the work, which AI tools cannot take provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
such responsibility (Nature, 2023). “If ChatGPT deserves were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
authorship, Microsoft Word deserves it, too, for providing otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
us with the platform to organise and write documents more the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
efficiently…. Excel, R, or Python deserve to be co-authors permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
for calculating statistics or analysing data for a quantitative need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
scientific publication” (Karim, 2023, para. 5). The sec-
ond principle added to Nature’s author guidelines is that
researchers need to disclose their use of large language
models in the methods or acknowledgements sections References
(Nature, 2023). Similar to how journals require statements
about data availability or ethical research, authors may Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong,
soon have the option to disclose their use of large language B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school
girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations1. Peda-
models or AI during the journal submission process. I sus- gogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.
pect formatting guidelines about the use of ChatGPT input 1080/14681366.2012.748676
and output will become clearer soon as well. The addition Boudreau, C. (2023). I asked ChatGPT about its carbon footprint and
of AI to the research process commonly means new rules it didn’t have a real answer. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.
com/chatgpt-openai-carbon-footprint-ai-climate-crisis-2023-2
and processes for investigators. Ultimately, transparency Buchanan, J. (2023). ChatGPT cites economics papers that do not exist.
and clearer guidelines about the use of AI platforms in Economist Writing Every Day. https://economistwritingeveryday.
research are essential for advancing scientific knowledge. com/2023/01/21/chatgpt-cites-economics-papers-that-do-not-exist/
Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning science and the science of learning:
Science educators’ essay collection. NSTA Press.
Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on
Conclusion teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial
intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human
The emergence of generative AI is already having far-reaching Behavior, 138, 107468. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/j.c hb.2 022.1 07468
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Searsmith, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence
implications for science educators. It seems like we are for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learn-
in the early stages of a seismic shift. This article is in no ing ecologies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(12), 1229–
way intended to be a comprehensive discussion of its use, 1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732
merely an exploratory study that hopefully acts as a catalyst Darics, E., & Poppel, L. (2023). Debate: ChatGPT offers unseen
opportunities to sharpen students’ critical skills. The Conversa-
for a broader conversation-how do generative AI tools, such tion. https://theconversation.com/debate-chatgpt-offers-unseen-
as ChatGPT, fit into our research and teaching pedagogy? opportunities-to-sharpen-students-critical-skills-199264
How do we feel about them? What feels right, what does Du, X., & Wong, B. (2019). Science career aspiration and science
not? How will generative AI platforms evolve? And what capital in China and UK: A comparative study using PISA data.
International Journal of Science Education, 1–20. https://doi.
are the potential future implications for science educators? org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1662135
At this stage, I have more questions than answers. Gleason, N. (2022). ChatGPT and the rise of AI writers: How should
higher education respond? Times Higher Education. https://
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/chatgpt-and-r ise-ai-
its Member Institutions. writers-how-should-higher-education-respond
13
452 Journal of Science Education and Technology (2023) 32:444–452
Gorard, S., & See, B. (2009). The impact of socio-economic status on Perrigo, B. (2023). Exclusive: The $2 per hour workers who made
participation and attainment in science. Studies in Science Educa- ChatGPT safer. Time. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-
tion, 45(1), 93–129. https://doi.o rg/10.1 080/0 3057260802 681821 kenya-workers/
Hamilton, M. L., Smith, L., & Worthington, K. (2009). Fitting the Rannikmäe, M., Holbrook, J., & Soobard, R. (2020). Social construc-
methodology with the research: An exploration of narrative, tivism—Jerome Bruner. In B. Akpan & T. J. Kennedy (Eds.),
self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education, Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide
4(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960801976321 to learning theory (pp. 259–275). Springer Nature.
Hackling, M.W., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary Connections– Stage 2 Scharth, M. (2022). The ChatGPT chatbot is blowing people away with
Trial: Research Report. A Research Report prepared for the Aus- its writing skills. The University of Sydney. https://www.sydney.
tralian Academy of Science. http://www.qualityteaching.dest.gov. edu.au/news-opinion/news/2022/12/08/the-chatgpt-chatbot-is-
au/Content/ blowing-people-away-with-its-writing-skil.html
Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2017). The effect of student-centered Shubhendu, S., & Vijay, J. F. (2013). Applicability of artificial intel-
approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science: ligence in different fields of life. https://www.semanticscholar.org/
Relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and paper/Applicability-of-Artifi cial-Intelligence-in-Fields-Shubhendu-
discussion-based approaches. Research in Science Education, Vijay/2480a71ef5e5a2b1f4a9217a0432c0c974c6c28c
48(4), 865–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2 Stockman, C., & Nottingham, E. (2022). Surveillance capitalism
Karim, R. (2023). ChatGPT: Old AI problems in a new guise, new in schools: What’s the problem? Digital Culture & Education,
problems in disguise. Monash Lens. https://lens.monash.edu/@ 14(1), 1–15.
politics-society/2023/02/13/1385448/chatgpt-old-ai-problems- Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research
in-a-new-guise-new-problems-in-disguise papers: Many scientists disapprove. Nature. https://www.nature.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal com/articles/d41586-023-00107-z
guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the Wang, P. (2019). On defining artificial intelligence. Journal of Arti-
failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, ficial General Intelligence, 11(2). https:// d oi. o rg/ 1 0. 2 478/
and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), jagi-2019-0002
75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Wu, C. J., Raghavendra, R., Gupta, U., Acun, B., Ardalani, N., Maeng,
Lameras, P., & Arnab, S. (2021). Power to the teachers: An exploratory K., & Hazelwood, K. (2022). Sustainable AI: Environmen-
review on artificial intelligence in education. Information, 13(1), 14. tal implications, challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of
MDPI AG. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/info13010014 Machine Learning and Systems, 4, 795–813.
Nature. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence education for young children:
here are our ground rules for their use. https://www.nature.com/ Why, what, and how in curriculum design and implementation.
articles/d41586-023-00191-1 Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100061.
OpenAI. (2023a). ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dia- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100061
logue. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/ Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT User Experience: Implications for Educa-
OpenAI. (2023b). Educator considerations for ChatGPT. https:// tion. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418
platfo rm.o penai.c om/d ocs/chatgp t-e ducat ion
Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator,
107769582211495. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
13