Review Article

AI ChatGPT and student engagement: Unraveling dimensions through PRISMA analysis for enhanced learning experiences

Othman Abu Khurma 1 * , Fayrouz Albahti 2 , Nagla Ali 1 , Aiman Bustanji 3
More Detail
1 Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, UAE2 Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA3 Emirates Schools Establishment, Dubai, UAE* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), April 2024, ep503, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14334
Published Online: 08 March 2024, Published: 01 April 2024
OPEN ACCESS   3238 Views   4152 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This PRISMA-based literature review aims to assess and analyze the measurement of student engagement dimensions within AI ChatGPT interactions. The central question is how to effectively evaluate these dimensions using established methods and leverage insights to enhance AI ChatGPT’s capacity to foster student engagement. The systematic review of PRISMA methodology identifies 16 relevant peer-reviewed research. All relevant and eligible research according to PRISMA methodology are analyzed to comprehend the intricacies of student engagement in AI ChatGPT interactions. The synthesis of these findings unveils the current state of knowledge on AI ChatGPT’s influence on student engagement and uncovers opportunities for future research. This review underscores AI ChatGPT’s potential as an educational tool, offering personalized experiences that bolster student engagement and learning outcomes. The systematic review established that, even though using ChatGPT has many advantages such as enhancing student engagement and academic involvement and supporting inquiry-based learning. However, there are some negative aspects such as lacking empathy and human emotions, limited contextual understanding, increased technology dependence and possibility of Inaccurate or Biased Information. In summary, this PRISMA-based review contributes to understanding the measurement of student engagement within AI ChatGPT. It identifies best practices, laying the foundation for further research and development. By optimizing AI ChatGPT’s effectiveness, educators and developers can craft more engaging and tailored learning experiences, ultimately enhancing educational outcomes.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, teaching, learning, student engagement

CITATION (APA)

Abu Khurma, O., Albahti, F., Ali, N., & Bustanji, A. (2024). AI ChatGPT and student engagement: Unraveling dimensions through PRISMA analysis for enhanced learning experiences. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), ep503. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14334

REFERENCES

  1. Abdelrahman, L. A. M., DeWitt, D., Alias, N., & Rahman, M. N. A. (2017). Flipped learning for ESL writing in a Sudanese school. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 60-70.
  2. Abdul Latif, S. W., Matzin, R., Jawawi, R., Mahadi, M. A., Jaidin, J. H., Mundia, L., & Shahrill, M. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom model in the teaching of history. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(4), 374-381. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v11i4.6390
  3. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
  4. Al-Harbi, S. S., & Alshumaimeri, Y. A. (2016). The flipped classroom impact in grammar class on EFL Saudi secondary school students’ performances and attitudes. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p60
  5. Al-Jubari, I. (2019). College students’ entrepreneurial intention: Testing an integrated model of SDT and TPB. Sage Open, 9(2), 2158244019853467. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019853467
  6. Anders, B. A. (2023). Why ChatGPT is such a big deal for education. C2C Digital Magazine, 1(18), 4.
  7. Antonenko, P. D. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
  8. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
  9. Ausat, A. M. A., Massang, B., Efendi, M., Nofirman, N., & Riady, Y. (2023). Can ChatGPT replace the role of the teacher in the classroom: A fundamental analysis. Journal on Education, 5(4), 16100-16106.
  10. Avery, K. F., Huggan, C. T., & Preston, J. P. (2018). The flipped classroom: High school student engagement through 21st century learning. Education, 24(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2018.v24i1.348
  11. Aycicek, B., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2018). The effect of flipped classroom model on students’ classroom engagement in teaching English. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 385-398. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11226a
  12. Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 126-150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477
  13. Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528
  14. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
  15. Božić, V., & Poola, I. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in increasing the digital literacy of healthcare workers and standardization of healthcare. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370265085_THE_ROLE_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_IN_INCREASING_THE_DIGITAL_LITERACY_OF_HEALTHCARE_WORKERS_AND_STANDARDIZATION_OF_HEALTHCARE#:~:text=AI%20can%20significantly%20enhance%20the,and%20facilitating%20personalized%20learning%20opportunities.
  16. Brooks, N., & Weaver, H. (2017). Two sides of the flip in middle grades ELA: Student and teacher perspectives. C. A. Young, & C. M. Moran (Eds.), Applying the flipped classroom model to English language arts education (pp. 79-90). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2242-3.ch004
  17. Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? making sense of the ongoing digitization of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y
  18. Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002
  19. Caverly, G. (2017). A technology leader’s role in initiating a flipped classroom in a high school math class [Doctoral dissertation, New Jersey City University].
  20. Chaipidech, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2016). Mobile technology-enhanced flipped learning for scientific inquiry laboratory: A comparison of students’ perceptions and engagement. Proceedings of the 24th ICCE (pp. 268-277).
  21. Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 793-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7
  22. Chiu, T. K. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S14-S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998
  23. Christenson, S., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
  24. Clark, K. R. (2015). The effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and performance in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), 91-115. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2015.1.5
  25. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878
  26. Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
  27. de Castro, C. A. (2023). A discussion about the impact of ChatGPT in education: Benefits and concerns. Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 11(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.22158/jbtp.v11n2p28
  28. Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022). The impact of a virtual teaching assistant (chatbot) on students’ learning in Ghanaian higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6
  29. Firat, M. (2023). How ChatGPT can transform autodidactic experiences and open education. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9ge8m
  30. Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep421. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036
  31. Hamzah, H., Hamzah, M. I., & Zulkifli, H. (2022). Systematic literature review on the elements of metacognition-based higher order thinking sills (HOTS) teaching and learning modules. Sustainability, 14(2), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020813
  32. Jauhiainen, J. S., & Guerra, A. G. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT in school children’s education: Evidence from a school Lesson. Sustainability, 15(18), 14025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814025
  33. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., …, & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  34. King, M. (2023). Can GPT-4 formulate and test a novel hypothesis? Yes and no. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22517278.v1
  35. Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009
  36. Ma’rifah, S., & Sinaga, O. (2023). Technology integration in higher secondary schools and its impact on engagement and satisfaction A case on Indonesia. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 16(3), 653-671.
  37. Mhlanga, D. (2023). The value of OpenAI and ChatGPT for the current learning environments and the potential future uses. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4439267
  38. Muñoz, S. A. S., Gayoso, G. G., Huambo, A. C., Tapia, R. D. C., Incaluque, J. L., Aguila, O. E. P., Cajamarca, J. C. R., Acevedo, J. E. R., Rivera, H. V. H., & Arias-Gonzáles, J. L. (2023). Examining the impacts of ChatGPT on student motivation and engagement. Social Space, 23(1), 1-27.
  39. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
  40. Peterson, L., Scharber, C., Thuesen, A., & Baskin, K. (2020). A rapid response to COVID-19: One district’s pivot from technology integration to distance learning. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 461-469. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0131
  41. Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education [Paper presentation]. The 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.21789434.v1
  42. Schweder, S., & Raufelder, D. (2022). Students’ interest and self-efficacy and the impact of changing learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 70, 102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102082
  43. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
  44. Vasconcelos, M. A. R., & Santos, R. P. dos. (2023). Enhancing stem learning with ChatGPT and Bing Chat as objects to think with: A case study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(7), em2296. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13313
  45. Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K., Lee, M., Sanusi, I. T., Dai, Y., & Chai, C. S. (2022). A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education. Computers & Education, 189, 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104582
  46. Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418