作为一种新的教师教学工具,ChatGPT 能否为医学生生成练习题解析?

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2363486
Lilin Tong, Jennifer Wang, Srikar Rapaka, Priya S Garg
{"title":"作为一种新的教师教学工具,ChatGPT 能否为医学生生成练习题解析?","authors":"Lilin Tong, Jennifer Wang, Srikar Rapaka, Priya S Garg","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2363486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used for formative assessment in medical school but often lack sufficient answer explanations given time-restraints of faculty. Chat Generated Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has emerged as a potential student learning aid and faculty teaching tool. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in answering and providing explanations for MCQs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Ninety-four faculty-generated MCQs were collected from the pre-clerkship curriculum at a US medical school. ChatGPT's accuracy in answering MCQ's were tracked on first attempt without an answer prompt (Pass 1) and after being given a prompt for the correct answer (Pass 2). Explanations provided by ChatGPT were compared with faculty-generated explanations, and a 3-point evaluation scale was used to assess accuracy and thoroughness compared to faculty-generated answers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On first attempt, ChatGPT demonstrated a 75% accuracy in correctly answering faculty-generated MCQs. Among correctly answered questions, 66.4% of ChatGPT's explanations matched faculty explanations, and 89.1% captured some key aspects without providing inaccurate information. The amount of inaccurately generated explanations increases significantly if the questions was not answered correctly on the first pass (2.7% if correct on first pass vs. 34.6% if incorrect on first pass, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT shows promise in assisting faculty and students with explanations for practice MCQ's but should be used with caution. Faculty should review explanations and supplement to ensure coverage of learning objectives. Students can benefit from ChatGPT for immediate feedback through explanations if ChatGPT answers the question correctly on the first try. If the question is answered incorrectly students should remain cautious of the explanation and seek clarification from instructors.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can ChatGPT generate practice question explanations for medical students, a new faculty teaching tool?\",\"authors\":\"Lilin Tong, Jennifer Wang, Srikar Rapaka, Priya S Garg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2363486\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used for formative assessment in medical school but often lack sufficient answer explanations given time-restraints of faculty. Chat Generated Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has emerged as a potential student learning aid and faculty teaching tool. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in answering and providing explanations for MCQs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Ninety-four faculty-generated MCQs were collected from the pre-clerkship curriculum at a US medical school. ChatGPT's accuracy in answering MCQ's were tracked on first attempt without an answer prompt (Pass 1) and after being given a prompt for the correct answer (Pass 2). Explanations provided by ChatGPT were compared with faculty-generated explanations, and a 3-point evaluation scale was used to assess accuracy and thoroughness compared to faculty-generated answers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On first attempt, ChatGPT demonstrated a 75% accuracy in correctly answering faculty-generated MCQs. Among correctly answered questions, 66.4% of ChatGPT's explanations matched faculty explanations, and 89.1% captured some key aspects without providing inaccurate information. The amount of inaccurately generated explanations increases significantly if the questions was not answered correctly on the first pass (2.7% if correct on first pass vs. 34.6% if incorrect on first pass, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT shows promise in assisting faculty and students with explanations for practice MCQ's but should be used with caution. Faculty should review explanations and supplement to ensure coverage of learning objectives. Students can benefit from ChatGPT for immediate feedback through explanations if ChatGPT answers the question correctly on the first try. If the question is answered incorrectly students should remain cautious of the explanation and seek clarification from instructors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2363486\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2363486","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:多选题(MCQ)经常被用于医学院的形成性评估,但由于教师时间有限,往往缺乏足够的答案解释。聊天生成的预训练转换器(ChatGPT)已成为一种潜在的学生学习辅助工具和教师教学工具。本研究旨在评估 ChatGPT 在回答 MCQs 和提供解释方面的性能:方法:从美国一所医学院的实习前课程中收集了 94 道由教师生成的 MCQ。在没有答案提示的情况下(通过 1),以及在有正确答案提示的情况下(通过 2),跟踪 ChatGPT 回答 MCQ 的准确性。将 ChatGPT 提供的解释与教师提供的解释进行比较,并使用 3 点评价量表来评估与教师提供的答案相比的准确性和全面性:首次尝试时,ChatGPT 对教师生成的 MCQ 的正确回答率为 75%。在正确回答的问题中,66.4% 的 ChatGPT 解释与教师的解释相吻合,89.1% 抓住了一些关键方面,没有提供不准确的信息。如果第一次回答问题不正确,则生成的解释不准确的数量会显著增加(第一次回答正确的为 2.7%,第一次回答不正确的为 34.6%,p):ChatGPT 在帮助教师和学生解释练习 MCQ 方面显示了前景,但应谨慎使用。教师应审阅解释并进行补充,以确保覆盖学习目标。如果 ChatGPT 第一次就能正确回答问题,学生可以从 ChatGPT 的解释中获得即时反馈。如果问题回答错误,学生应谨慎对待解释,并向教师寻求澄清。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Can ChatGPT generate practice question explanations for medical students, a new faculty teaching tool?

Introduction: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used for formative assessment in medical school but often lack sufficient answer explanations given time-restraints of faculty. Chat Generated Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has emerged as a potential student learning aid and faculty teaching tool. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in answering and providing explanations for MCQs.

Method: Ninety-four faculty-generated MCQs were collected from the pre-clerkship curriculum at a US medical school. ChatGPT's accuracy in answering MCQ's were tracked on first attempt without an answer prompt (Pass 1) and after being given a prompt for the correct answer (Pass 2). Explanations provided by ChatGPT were compared with faculty-generated explanations, and a 3-point evaluation scale was used to assess accuracy and thoroughness compared to faculty-generated answers.

Results: On first attempt, ChatGPT demonstrated a 75% accuracy in correctly answering faculty-generated MCQs. Among correctly answered questions, 66.4% of ChatGPT's explanations matched faculty explanations, and 89.1% captured some key aspects without providing inaccurate information. The amount of inaccurately generated explanations increases significantly if the questions was not answered correctly on the first pass (2.7% if correct on first pass vs. 34.6% if incorrect on first pass, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: ChatGPT shows promise in assisting faculty and students with explanations for practice MCQ's but should be used with caution. Faculty should review explanations and supplement to ensure coverage of learning objectives. Students can benefit from ChatGPT for immediate feedback through explanations if ChatGPT answers the question correctly on the first try. If the question is answered incorrectly students should remain cautious of the explanation and seek clarification from instructors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
Integration of behavioral, social, and humanities sciences into healthcare and education and their alignment with medical education programs. Submitting artificial intelligence in health professions education papers to medical teacher. Transformative power of an early ICU internship: A reflection from our undergraduate medical students. Medical education challenges in Mainland China: An analysis of the application of problem-based learning. Transforming remediation for competency-based medical education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1