| > Also “access to GPT“ in this case is having GPT open while solving the problems, not studying with GPT and then taking the test If this is your takeaway you misread the paper. Students have access to GPT (if they have access, the control didn't) while working through practice problems. Not for the exam itself. From the paper in the experimental design section: > Each session has three parts: > 1. In the first part, teachers review a topic (e.g., combinatorics) previously covered in the
course, and solve one or more examples on the board. This part is identical to a standard
high school one-to-many (i.e., teacher-to-students) lecture. > 2. The second part is an assisted practice period, where students solve a sequence of exercises designed by teachers to reinforce the covered concept. Our randomized intervention
(described in more detail below) only affects this second, self-study part. > 3. The third part is an unassisted evaluation, where students take a closed-book, closed laptop exam. Importantly, each problem in the exam corresponds to a conceptually very
similar practice problem from the previous part—this design was chosen to help students
practice the key concepts needed to perform well on the exam. Students with GPT (either form) did better during the practice problem portion and then worse during the actual exam (without GPT access) than students in the control. |