Learning with ChatGPT 3.5 as a more knowledgeable other: an autoethnographic study

• Published in: International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education Vol. 20; no. 1; pp. 35 - 17
• Main Author: Stojanov, Ana
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.12.2023; BioMed Central, Ltd; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Artificial Intelligence; Autobiographies; Autoethnography; Chatbots; ChatGPT (ChatGPT 3.5); Computer Appl. in Social and Behavioral Sciences; Computer Assisted Instruction; Computer Mediated Communication; Computer Science; Computers and Education; Educational Technology; Ethnography; Feedback (Response); Higher Education; Humanities; Human–computer interaction; Information Systems Applications (incl.Internet); Instructional aids; Interaction; Knowledge Level; Law; Learning Processes; Literature reviews; Man Machine Systems; MKO (more knowledgeable other); Research Article; Sociocultural theory; Statistics for Social Sciences; Technology Uses in Education; MKO (more knowledgeable other); Autoethnography; Sociocultural theory; Higher education; ChatGPT (ChatGPT 3.5); Human–computer interaction
• ISSN: 2365-9440; 2365-9440
• DOI: 10.1186/s41239-023-00404-7

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence language model introduced in November 2022, is potentially applicable in many contexts, including higher education. Although academics are already using it to draft papers or develop search queries for systematic reviews, its use as a tool aiding the learning process has not been examined. To address this research gap, I conducted an autoethnographic study examining my experience using ChatGPT as a more knowledgeable other that scaffolded my learning about a particular topic—the technical aspects of how ChatGPT works. Overall, ChatGPT provided me with enough content to form a general idea of its technical aspects, and I experienced its feedback as motivating and relevant. However, the answers were somewhat superficial, the text it generated was not always consistent or logical and sometimes contradictory. The instantaneous replies to my questions contributed to an experience of a 'flow'. Being 'in the zone' also meant I overestimated my knowledge and understanding, as I could not detect the contradictory responses it provided 'on the spot'. I conclude that caution is advised when ChatGPT is used as a learning aid, as we learn more about its capabilities and limitations and how humans tend to perceive and interact with these technologies.