Conceptual Rigor of AI-Generated Mathematical Explanations: The Case of Vector Functions
Clicks: 81
ID: 311837
2025
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
24.0
/100
81 views
7 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #5 of 39 articles by views in Journal of Research in Science and Mathematics Education
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Purpose: The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence has reshaped discussions in mathematics education, particularly regarding the capacity of advanced systems such as ChatGPT and Gemini to support conceptual rigor. This study aims to investigate how these generative AI tools define and explain vector functions, including the procedures for differentiating and integrating them, in order to evaluate their conceptual rigor of ai-generated mathematical explanations and pedagogical potential. Methodology: Employing a qualitative case study design, the research analyzed responses generated by ChatGPT and Gemini to a structured mathematical prompt on vector functions. The explanations were compared with authoritative calculus textbooks using qualitative content analysis and a standardized scoring rubric. Findings: Findings reveal that both systems provide broadly accurate introductory descriptions of vector functions, highlighting their component-wise structure. However, notable gaps emerge in mathematical precision, particularly in specifying domains, ranges, and the formal conditions underlying differentiability and integrability. ChatGPT tends to include intuitive geometric interpretations, whereas Gemini provides concise procedural explanations, yet both models lack the rigorous logical framing found in standard mathematical texts. Despite these limitations, the systems demonstrate consistent procedural accuracy in describing differentiation and integration of vector-valued functions. Significance: The results underscore the educational potential of generative AI while highlighting the need for teachers to critically evaluate AI-generated mathematical content, particularly when these tools are used to support students’ conceptual learning in mathematics. These findings also highlight important implications for AI literacy, instructional design, and future research in mathematics education.
| Reference Key |
imported_1772723835_69a99e7b487a1
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Cigdem Arslan |
| Journal | Journal of Research in Science and Mathematics Education |
| Year | 2025 |
| DOI |
10.56855/jrsme.v4i3.1862
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.