Exploring Decision-Making Competence in Sugar-Substitute Choices: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation among Chemistry and Sports and Health Students
Résumé fourni par la source
Interdisciplinary teaching approaches have gained significant importance in today’s educational landscape. Among these approaches, decision-making competence plays a pivotal role by nurturing critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Focusing on the decision-making process regarding the sensibility of using sugar-substitutes, this study addresses three key questions. (1) Do chemistry and sports and health students differ in evaluation-competence? (2) What criteria do they use in evaluating the decision-making problem? (3) How do they use ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), an AI tool, in decision-making? Through surveys, the study revealed two evaluation-competence factors, identified decision-making criteria, and analyzed querying behavior using ChatGPT. The results revealed nuanced differences between the two student groups in the factors of evaluation-competence. While both groups showed improvements in recognizing moral dimensions and considering alternatives, chemistry students displayed enhanced abilities in establishing evaluation criteria and empathetic thinking. Furthermore, differences emerged in the criteria selected for decision-making and querying behavior, indicating varying engagement with ChatGPT. This study offers insights into enhancing interdisciplinary education and underscores the need for tailored interventions to address diverse student needs.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Exploring Decision-Making Competence in Sugar-Substitute Choices: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation among Chemistry and Sports and Health Students
- Date Crossref
- 14/05/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.