The Influence of the Level of Exposure to Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools on Grade 8 Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Science 8

This study examined the relationship between the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools and the conceptual understanding of Grade 8 learners in Science 8 at Pantay Integrated High School. It focused on students’ exposure to AI-based tools in terms of type of tool used, duration of usage, and level of interactivity, as well as their conceptual understanding in terms of knowledge of scientific concepts, ability to explain scientific principles, application of concepts in problem-solving, and reduction of misconceptions. The study used a quantitative correlational research design and involved 111 Grade 8 students selected through the Raosoft formula and stratified random sampling technique. Data were gathered using survey questionnaires administered to the respondents. The results showed that students had a low level of exposure to AI-based tools, while their conceptual understanding in Science was high. Findings further revealed that only the level of interactivity of AI-based tools had a significant relationship with students’ conceptual understanding. Based on the findings, the study recommends that Science teachers may integrate more interactive AI-based tools and that the school provide support and training to ensure the effective and responsible use of AI tools in Science 8 instruction.

artificial intelligence-based tools, conceptual understanding, science 8, interactivity, critical thinking, problem-solving skills

1. AIRAJ, M. (2024). ETHICAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR TEACHING-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION. EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, 29(13), 17145–17167 HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1007/S10639-024-12545-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Almasri, F. (2024). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning of science: A systematic review of empirical research. Research in Science Education, 54(5), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10176-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Althauser, B. E. (2026). The effects of artificial intelligence use on school psychologists’ job satisfaction and perceived workload (Master’s thesis, University of Dayton). OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=dayton1771921924667274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1875–1906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09825-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cheng, M., Fu, C., Okabe, R., Chotrattanapituk, A., Boonkird, A., Hung, N. T., & Li, M. (2026). Artificial intelligence-driven approaches for materials design and discovery. Nature Materials, 25(2), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-025-02403-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cox, A. M. (2021). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence and robots on higher education through literature-based design fictions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00248-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Da Paixão, J. L. (2026). Artificial intelligence and school assessment: Formative potential, teacher mediation, and ethical challenges in contemporary evaluative practices. Journal International Review of Research Studies, 1(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.66104/374y8m47 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Department of Education. (2020). Basic education learning continuity plan for School Year 2020–2021 in light of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Department of Education. (2022). Basic education report 2022. Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2014). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 512.Forman, N., Udvaros, J., & Avornicului, M. S. (2023). ChatGPT: A new study tool shaping the future for high school students. International Journal of Advanced Natural Sciences and Engineering Researches, 7(4), 95–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hao, Q., Xu, F., Li, Y., & Evans, J. (2026). Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus. Nature, 649(8099), 1237–1243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09922-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hwang, G.-J., & Chien, S.-C. (2022). Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2021). Will AI replace teachers? Artificial intelligence in education and the future of learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00255-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lim, J., Leinonen, T., Lipponen, L., Lee, H., DeVita, J., & Murray, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence as relational artifacts in creative learning. Digital Creativity, 34(3), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2023.2236595 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.Marrone, R., Taddeo, V., & Hill, G. (2022). Creativity and artificial intelligence—A student perspective. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. OECD. (2019). OECD skills outlook 2019: Thriving in a digital world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Paloma, N. F. M., Osabel, F. R., & Mojado, C. M. (2026). Artificial intelligence integration and student learning outcomes at Palompon Institute of Technology. Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology, 17(1), 001–006. https://doi.org/10.53022/oarjst.2026.17.1.0050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Republic Act No. 10173. (2012). Data Privacy Act of 2012. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Republic Act No. 10533. (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2020). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 152, 103766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103766 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Schunk, D. H. (2016). Learning theories: An educational perspective (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Taber, K. S. (2018). The nature of the chemical concept: Reconsidering the role of conceptual profiles in chemical education. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tang, K. Y., Chang, C. Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2021). Trends in artificial intelligence-supported e-learning: A systematic review and research agenda. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1875000 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. UNESCO. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. UNESCO. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., Anandkumar, A., Bergen, K., Gomes, C. P., Ho, S., Kohli, P., Lasenby, J., Leskovec, J., Liu, T., Manrai, A., … Zitnik, M. (2023). Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620(7972), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Winkler, R., & Söllner, M. (2018). Unleashing the potential of chatbots in education: A state-of-the-art analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 15903. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.15903abstract [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Woolfolk, A. (2019). Educational psychology (14th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study