The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of ChatGPT on the learning process and
academic achievement in the field of probability. A selected group of students from the
mathematics and computer science department was involved in the process. They were given two
tests, pre-test, and post-test, which were designed to assess their proficiency in solving probability
problems. Utilizing ChatGPT was permitted during the post-test.
To capture the students' perceptions regarding their learning experience with ChatGPT, two
separate surveys were administered. These surveys aimed to gauge the students' self-confidence
levels, their comprehension of probability concepts, and the perceived level of challenge
encountered during problem-solving activities. The results of this study revealed significant
improvements in both self-confidence and comprehension of probability concepts among students
after the introduction of ChatGPT assistance. The qualitative data obtained from the surveys
further supported these findings, indicating a positive shift in the students' perceptions of their
abilities and understanding of the subject matter. Interestingly, despite these improvements, the
level of challenge perceived by the students during problem-solving activities did not exhibit a
significant change. This could be attributed to the intrinsic complexity of probability problems,
which often require a deep understanding of underlying mathematical principles and may not be
fully mitigated by external assistance alone.
943
In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of integrating AIdriven tools like ChatGPT into educational settings, particularly in facilitating learning and
enhancing students' academic performance in complex subject areas such as probability theory.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.