International Journal of Social Science & Economic Research
Submit Paper

Title:
Comparing the Effectiveness of Chat GPT and Teacher-generated Content for Teaching Students

Authors:
Ananth Namilae and John Leddo

|| ||

Ananth Namilae and John Leddo
MyEdMaster, LLC

MLA 8
Namilae, Ananth, and John Leddo. "Comparing the Effectiveness of Chat GPT and Teacher-generated Content for Teaching Students." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, vol. 9, no. 7, July 2024, pp. 2554-2564, doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2024.v09i07.031. Accessed July 2024.
APA 6
Namilae, A., & Leddo, J. (2024, July). Comparing the Effectiveness of Chat GPT and Teacher-generated Content for Teaching Students. Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, 9(7), 2554-2564. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2024.v09i07.031
Chicago
Namilae, Ananth, and John Leddo. "Comparing the Effectiveness of Chat GPT and Teacher-generated Content for Teaching Students." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research 9, no. 7 (July 2024), 2554-2564. Accessed July, 2024. https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2024.v09i07.031.

References

[1]. Ahmad, M. & Leddo, J. (2023). The effectiveness of Cognitive Structure Analysis in assessing students’ knowledge of the scientific method. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 8(8), 2397-2410.
[2]. Bahl, K., Bahl, K & Leddo, J. (2018). Optimizing homework for high aptitude students. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 3(5), 27-30.
[3]. Bhandarkar, S., Leddo, J. & Banerjee, M. (2016). Comparing the relative effects of homework on high aptitude vs. average aptitude students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 2(9), 59-62.
[4]. Britannica. www.britannica.com/. Accessed 1 July 2024.
[5]. gale one file news. www.gale.com/c/onefile-news. Accessed 1 July 2024.
[6]. Gale Science. www.gale.com/c/in-context-science. Accessed 1 July 2024.
[7]. Go Gale. go.gale.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&userGroupName=anon%7E25537f9f. Accessed 1 July 2024.
[8]. Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep421.
[9]. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
[10]. Leddo, J. & Ahmad, M. (2024). Do you want to raise student achievement? Then, assess and remediate student knowledge, not student performance. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 9(1), 249-261.
[11]. Leddo, J., Hong, Q., Shyamala, N. & Xue, A. (2019). Improving SAT reading scores by using metacognitive reading strategies. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 4(4), 91-93.
[12]. Leddo, J., Li, S.and Zhang, Y. (2022) Cognitive Structure Analysis: A Technique For Assessing What Students Know, Not Just How They Perform. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 7(11), 3716-3726.
[13]. Leddo, J., Sangela, S. & Bekkary, A. (2021). Improving SAT math scores by using metacognitive problem-solving strategies. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 6(3), 1044-1053.
[14]. Leddo, J., Sengar, A., Liang, I. & Chilumula, R. (2020). Improving SAT writing and language scores by using metacognitive strategies. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 5(1), 24-26.
[15]. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson.
[16]. Mahajan, L., Chadeva, A. & Leddo, J. (2021). Evaluating procedural and conceptual teaching formats for beginning and advanced programming students. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 6(4), 1356-1365.
[17]. Moore, S., Nguyen, H. A., Bier, N., Domadia, T., Stamper, J. (2022). Assessing the quality of student-generated short answer questions using GPT-3. In Educating for a New Future: Making Sense of Technology-Enhanced Learning Adoption: 17th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2022.
[18]. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from www.nationsreportcard.gov.
[19]. Ni, L., et al. (2022). Deepqr: Neural-based quality ratings for learner sourced multiple-choice questions. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(11), 12826–12834.
[20]. PebbleGO. pgoplayer.pebblego.com/. Accessed 1 July 2024.
[21]. World Book Encyclopedia. www.worldbook.com/encyclopedias.aspx. Accessed 1 July 2024.
[22]. Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J. (2022). Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1.
[23]. Singh, A., Brooks, C., Doroudi, S. (2021). Learnersourcing in theory and practice: Synthesizing the literature and charting the future. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale.
[24]. Wang, E., Ailneni, A. & Leddo, J. (2021).Improving mathematics learning by adding conceptual to procedural instruction. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, 6(9), 3491-3498.
[25]. Wang, Z., Valdez, J., Basu Mallick, D., Baraniuk, R. G. (2022). Towards human-like educational question generation with large language models. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 23rd International Conference, AIED 2022.

ABSTRACT:
This research explores the relative teaching effectiveness of educational content created by large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT, and traditional educational content created by teachers. 20 middle and high school students were taught about dying stars, a topic for which they had no significant prior knowledge. Half were given content created by Chat GPT and the other half were given content created by human teachers. Following the instructional period, all students were given a post-test to measure how much they learned. Results showed that students who learned using Chat GPT-generated material scored 33% higher on the posttest than those who learned using teacher generated materials. Results suggest that LLMs offer not only the opportunity to increase speed and save money in content generation, but may improve the learning process as well. Future research can explore whether LLMs can enhance learning even further by producing content that is customized to each student’s learning needs.

IJSSER is Member of