Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38787823›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2024

ChatGPT-generated help produces learning gains equivalent to human tutor-authored help on mathematics skills.

Zachary A Pardos, Shreya Bhandari

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Zachary A PardosBerkeley School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6016-7051
Shreya BhandariElectrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0007-1705-3052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Authoring of help content within educational technologies is labor intensive, requiring many iterations of content creation, refining, and proofreading. In this paper, we conduct an efficacy evaluation of ChatGPT-generated help using a 3 x 4 study design (N = 274) to compare the learning gains of ChatGPT to human tutor-authored help across four mathematics problem subject areas. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three hint conditions (control, human tutor, or ChatGPT) paired with one of four randomly assigned subject areas (Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra, College Algebra, or Statistics). We find that only the ChatGPT condition produces statistically significant learning gains compared to a no-help control, with no statistically significant differences in gains or time-on-task observed between learners receiving ChatGPT vs human tutor help. Notably, ChatGPT-generated help failed quality checks on 32% of problems. This was, however, reducible to nearly 0% for algebra problems and 13% for statistics problems after applying self-consistency, a "hallucination" mitigation technique for Large Language Models.

Indexed as

LearningMathematicsChildComputer-Assisted InstructionFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID38787823
PMCPMC11125466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.