Journal of Basic Education Research
Journal of Basic Education Research

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

14

H-Index

Journal of Basic Education Research

an Open Access Journal

ChatGPT in STEM Classrooms: Students’ Perceptions of Interest, Academic Proficiency, and Learning Independence

Dave Diaz
Sorsogon State University ROR
Philippines
Aaron Funa
Sorsogon State University ROR
Philippines
funa.aaron@sorsu.edu.ph
Renz Alvin Gabay
Sorsogon State University ROR
Philippines
Share

  • Purpose of the study: To provide K-12 evidence from a low- and middle-income context, this study examines how basic education STEM students use ChatGPT and how it relates to their interest, academic proficiency, and learning independence.

    Methodology: Design: descriptive cross-sectional survey in one large public school. Participants: 186 Grade 11–12 STEM students. Instrument: 17-item researcher-developed questionnaire, administered online during class. Tool: ChatGPT (OpenAI). Analysis: item-level frequencies and percentages; reliability and validity checks treated as supportive for a heterogeneous instrument.

    Main Findings: ChatGPT use was episodic and concentrated in Research and English. Students reported greater engagement, clearer understanding, and shorter assignment time. Independence gains were modest; textbook reliance declined while tutoring reliance was largely stable. Governance practices were common, including verification and paraphrase-synthesis or inspirational use. Older students emphasized efficiency and integration; younger students reported larger conceptual gains.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributes classroom-proximate, item-level evidence from Philippine basic education, an underrepresented K-12 setting. It characterizes selective, front-end deployment and widespread verification, offering rubric-ready handles for responsible use. It identifies grade-linked orchestration differences and connectivity-aware implications that can guide targeted scaffolds to translate efficiency into competence and independent learning.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “ChatGPT in STEM Classrooms: Students’ Perceptions of Interest, Academic Proficiency, and Learning Independence”, J. Bs. Edu. R, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 470–480, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jber.v6i3.2096.

    More Citation Formats

  • 2280
    Abstract views
    403
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. F. Miao and W. Holmes, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2023.
    2. OECD, Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching into a Thriving Profession—from ABCs to AI. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2024.
    3. OECD, “What should teachers teach and students learn in a future of powerful AI?,” OECD Education Spotlights, no. 20, 2025, doi:10.1787/ca56c7d6-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/ca56c7d6-en
    4. Department of Education (DepEd), “K to 12 Senior High School—Applied Track Subject: English for Academic and Professional Purposes (Curriculum Guide),” 2013.
    5. Department of Education (DepEd), “K to 12 Senior High School—Applied Track Subject: Practical Research 1 (Curriculum Guide),” 2013.
    6. World Bank, Better Internet for All Filipinos: Reforms Promoting Competition and Increasing Investment for Broadband Infrastructure (Policy Note), 2024.
    7. World Bank, “Unlocking the Philippines’ digital transformation by increasing internet connectivity,” 2025.
    8. E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior,” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227–268, 2000, doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
    9. S. Hidi and K. A. Renninger, “The four-phase model of interest development,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 111–127, 2006, doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
    10. E. Panadero, “A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, Art. 422, 2017, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
    11. A. A. Funa and R. A. E. Gabay, “Policy guidelines and recommendations on AI use in teaching and learning: A meta-synthesis study,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 11, p. 101221, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101221
    12. A. A. Funa and R. A. E. Gabay, “Exploring perspectives toward artificial intelligence integration in science education: A cross-generational study,” SSRN preprint, 2025, doi:10.2139/ssrn.5243807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5240513
    13. Ofcom, “Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2024,” Apr. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/children/children-media-literacy-report-2024/childrens-media-literacy-report-2024.pdf
    14. R. Deng, “Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies,” Computers & Education, vol. 207, p. 105224, 2024, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224
    15. J. Wang, Y. Liu, and X. Zhang, “The effect of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: A meta-analysis,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 12, p. 399, 2025, doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y
    16. L. Casal-Otero, A. Catala, C. Fernández-Morante, M. Taboada, B. Cebreiro, and S. Barro, “AI literacy in K–12: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 10, p. 29, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7
    17. J. H. Kaufman, A. Woo, J. Eagan, S. Lee, and E. B. Kassan, Uneven Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Tools Among U.S. Teachers and Principals in the 2023–2024 School Year, RR-A134-25. Santa Monica, CA, USA: RAND Corporation, 2025, doi:10.7249/RRA134-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA134-25
    18. O. Sidoti, E. Park, and J. Gottfried, “About a quarter of U.S. teens have used ChatGPT for schoolwork—double the share in 2023,” Pew Research Center, Jan. 15, 2025.
    19. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2018.
    20. E. von Elm, D. G. Altman, M. Egger, S. J. Pocock, P. C. Gøtzsche, and J. P. Vandenbroucke, “The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 4, no. 10, e296, 2007, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
    21. D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, “The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported?,” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 489–497, 2006, doi:10.1002/nur.20147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
    22. R. F. DeVellis and C. T. Thorpe, Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2016.
    23. G. F. Kuder and M. W. Richardson, “The theory of the estimation of test reliability,” Psychometrika, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 151–160, 1937, doi:10.1007/BF02288391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391
    24. A. Agresti, Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2010, doi:10.1002/9780470594001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470594001
    25. M. S. Setia, “Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional studies,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 261–264, 2016, doi:10.4103/0019-5154.182410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
    26. A. A. Funa, “Digital badges as rewards in science education: Students’ perceptions and experiences,” Dalat University Journal of Science, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 107–127, 2024, doi:10.37569/dalatuniversity.14.2.1212(2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.37569/DalatUniversity.14.2.1212(2024)
    27. S. Noy and W. Zhang, “Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence,” Science, vol. 381, no. 6654, pp. 187–192, 2023, doi:10.1126/science.adh2586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
    28. A. A. Funa, L. S. Roleda, and M. S. Prudente, “Integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—problem-based learning—education for sustainable development (I-STEM-PBL-ESD) framework,” in A Diversity of Pathways Through Science Education, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 151–172, doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2607-3_9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2607-3_9
    29. H. S. Almarashdi and A. Jaber, “Unveiling the potential: A systematic review of ChatGPT in transforming mathematics teaching and learning,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 20, no. 12, em2555, 2024, doi:10.29333/ejmste/15739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15739
    30. D. Ravšelj, D. Keržič, N. Tomaževič, et al., “Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions,” PLOS ONE, vol. 20, no. 2, e0315011, 2025, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315011
    31. L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, et al., “A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,” ACM Computing Surveys, 2025, doi:10.1145/3703155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3703155
    32. M. T. H. Chi and R. Wylie, “The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 219–243, 2014, doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
    33. J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, 2007, doi:10.3102/003465430298487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
    34. R. A. E. Gabay, A. A. Funa, and J. D. Ricafort, “Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) for Academic Writing in Higher Education: A scoping review of applications, challenges, and implications,” Research Square, preprint, Aug. 26, 2025, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7440784/v1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7440784/v1
    35. A. A. Funa, E. C. B. Deblois, L. D. Lerios, F. G. J. Jetomo, and R. A. E. Gabay, “Exploring Filipino preservice teachers’ online self-regulated learning skills and strategies amid the COVID-19 pandemic,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 100470, 2023, doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100470
    36. M. A. Largo, T. M. Sederia, F. C. Villadores, and M. Andrada, “Smart chat, bright minds: Does ChatGPT propel students to academic heights?,” Journal of Education and Learning Advancements, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8–21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://jelamagste.org/journalofed/index.php/jela/article/view/14
    37. A. A. Funa and R. A. E. Gabay, “Bridging the gap among knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward sustainable development through I-STEM-PBL-ESD,” International Journal on Studies in Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 288–303, 2025, doi:10.46328/ijonse.317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.317
    38. A. A. Funa, R. A. E. Gabay, K. A. Esdicul, and M. S. Prudente, “Secondary teachers’ and students’ perceptions of distance education in science: Focus on learner-centered, action-oriented, and transformative learning,” Dalat University Journal of Science, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 156–181, 2023, doi:10.37569/DalatUniversity.13.3.1108(2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.37569/DalatUniversity.13.3.1108(2023)
    39. B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2002, doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
    40. N. L. Mediana Jr., A. A. Funa, and R. V. Dio, “Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning (IbL) on improving students’ conceptual understanding in science and mathematics: A meta-analysis,” International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 532–552, 2025, doi:10.46328/ijemst.4769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4769
    41. J. M. Ramallosa, A. A. Funa, A. T. Geron, R. T. Ibardaloza, and M. S. Prudente, “Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of argument-based learning on students’ conceptual understanding,” in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning (IC4E), 2022, pp. 315–323, doi:10.1145/3514262.3514305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3514262.3514305