Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Digital transformation in engineering education: Exploring the

potential of AI-assisted learning
Thanh Pham, Binh Nguyen, Son Ha, Thanh Nguyen Ngoc
RMIT University Vietnam

This research explored the potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted learning using
ChatGPT in an engineering course at a university in South-east Asia. The study investigated
the benefits and challenges that students may encounter when utilising ChatGPT-3.5 as a
learning tool. This research developed an AI-assisted learning flow that empowers learners
and lecturers to integrate ChatGPT into their teaching and learning processes. The flow was
subsequently used to validate and assess a variety of exercises, tutorial tasks and
assessment-like questions for the course under study. Introducing a self-rating system
allowed the study to facilitate users in assessing the generative responses. The findings
indicate that ChatGPT has significant potential to assist students; however, there is a
necessity for training and offering guidance to students on effective interactions with
ChatGPT. The study contributes to the evidence of the potential of AI-assisted learning and
identifies areas for future research in refining the use of AI tools to better support students'
educational journey.

Implications for practice or policy

• Educators and administrators could review the usage of ChatGPT in an engineering
technology course and study the implications of generative AI tools in higher education.
• Academics could adapt and modify the proposed AI-assisted learning flow in this paper
to suit their classroom.
• Students can review and adopt the proposed AI-assisted learning flow in this paper for
their studies.
• Researchers could follow up on the application of ChatGPT in teaching and learning:
teaching quality and student experience, academic integrity and assessment design.

Keywords: ChatGPT, generative AI, digital transformation, engineering education, AI-

assisted learning, personalized learning, adaptive learning

Introduction

Digital transformation is revolutionising various industries, and education is no exception (Dąbrowska et

al., 2022; Oliveira & de Souza, 2022). In the field of education, there is a growing interest in harnessing
the potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted learning to enhance the teaching and learning
experiences (Berry et al., 2020; Costan et al., 2021). AI technologies offer promising opportunities to
optimise engineering courses, enabling students to gain a deeper understanding of complex concepts and
develop practical skills through personalised and interactive learning experiences (Alnaqbi & Fouda, 2023;
Emenike & Emenike, 2023). This paper aims to explore the potential of AI-assisted learning in engineering
courses and its implications for digital transformation in engineering education. By examining the current
landscape, discussing the benefits and challenges and showcasing real-life examples, this study aims to
shed light on the transformative power of AI in engineering education and inspire educators to embrace
innovative approaches that can better prepare future engineers for the demands of a rapidly evolving
technological landscape.

Generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, utilise advanced natural language processing and machine learning
algorithms to understand and generate human-like responses in real time (Alnaqbi & Fouda, 2023;
Benuyenah, 2023). This capability opens exciting possibilities for interactive and adaptive learning
environments where students can engage in dynamic conversations, ask questions and receive instant
feedback from AI-powered virtual assistants (Gašević et al., 2023; Geerling et al., 2023). These AI tools

1
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

can offer personalised guidance, facilitate problem-solving, and provide additional resources to support
students' individual learning needs (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023; Fergus et al., 2023).

The birth of generative AI tools represents a significant shift in education, moving away from traditional
one-size-fits-all approaches towards a more student-centred and immersive learning experience
(Gregorcic & Pendrill, 2023). By leveraging the power of AI, educational institutions can tap into vast
amounts of data and educational resources to create intelligent systems that adapt to students'
preferences, learning styles and progress (Karaali, 2023; D. Liu & Bridgeman, 2023; Ong & , 2023). This
personalised approach to education has the potential to unlock students' full potential and improve
learning outcomes (Halaweh, 2023).

Although AI-assisted learning has been extensively studied in fields such as medicine, business and social
sciences, there is a lack of research on its application in programming and engineering courses (Emenike
& Emenike, 2023; Gilson et al., 2023; Ivanov & Soliman, 2023). It is important to test generative AI tools,
like ChatGPT, in these domains as they may encounter unique challenges. The technical nature of
programming and engineering requires precise understanding and tailored feedback (Khan & Abid, 2017).
Investigating the performance of ChatGPT in these courses helps identify its limitations and guides the
development of specialised AI models. This research is essential for ensuring effective AI support in
programming and engineering education (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Shoufan, 2023).

In this study, we evaluated the potential of using ChatGPT as an AI-assisted learning tool for students in
an introductory course on embedded systems. We completed 15 selected questions of various types,
assessed the responses from ChatGPT and distilled them as lessons learned for further investigation.
Although AI-assisted learning has shown promise in various educational domains, its effectiveness in the
context of technical subjects like embedded systems remains largely unexplored (Alnaqbi & Fouda, 2023;
Johinke et al., 2023). By investigating the use of ChatGPT in this specific course, we sought to assess its
ability to provide valuable insights, personalised support and interactive learning experiences to students.
This experiment sheds light on the potential benefits and limitations of ChatGPT as an AI tool in the field
of embedded systems education, paving the way for innovative and enhanced learning approaches in
technical disciplines (Emenike & Emenike, 2023).

This study makes two key contributions. Firstly, it addresses a research gap by evaluating the potential of
ChatGPT as an AI-assisted learning tool in a specific course – Introduction to Embedded Systems (Lodge
et al., 2023). This expands the knowledge of AI-assisted learning in technical subjects. Secondly, more
broadly, the study advances innovative and personalised learning approaches in engineering education,
providing insights for educators and researchers in similar fields. The findings inform the development of
tailored AI systems and instructional strategies, enhancing student learning outcomes in technical
disciplines.

Related works

Peer-assisted learning

Peer-assisted learning (PAL) includes different teaching methods like near-peer teaching, where higher-
year students teach lower-year students, and peer-to-peer teaching, where students at the same level
take turns as tutors and tutees (Brierley et al., 2022). From a pedagogical perspective, peers serve as
supplementary educators to support faculty lecturers in significantly enhancing students' comprehension
of course materials (Edwards & Bone, 2012). Beyond their role as instructors, peer tutors can also act as
motivators for tutees, helping them achieve a deeper understanding of course content and fostering the
development of interpersonal and social skills (Wadoodi & Crosby, 2002).

In the dynamics of peer interaction, peer feedback and peer assessment emerge as pivotal pedagogical
strategies. They nurture a culture of reflective practice and continuous improvement. The reciprocal
nature of feedback and assessment in PAL fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility towards

2
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

collective learning goals. Additionally, cooperative learning strategies further enrich the learning
environment by promoting active engagement, problem-solving and critical thinking among peers (Li &
Stone, 2018).

PAL is a highly effective study technique that taps into the collaborative potential of students, resulting in
enhanced learning outcomes (Fogarty et al., 2022). One of the key advantages of PAL is its ability to foster
a deeper understanding and retention of knowledge (Nortcliffe et al., 2022). Through engaging in
discussions and exchanging ideas with their peers, students are exposed to different perspectives and
interpretations of the subject matter (B. Liu et al., 2021). Furthermore, when students take on the role of
teaching or explaining concepts to their fellow peers, it solidifies their own understanding, reinforcing
their grasp of the subject and improving long-term retention (Blake & Liou-Mark, 2014).

In engineering education, the collaborative and problem-solving-oriented nature of PAL resonates well
with the inherent demands of engineering courses. The shared exploration of engineering concepts,
principles and practices under the PAL framework cultivates a conducive learning environment. It not only
enhances the understanding of engineering principles but also fosters the development of essential skills
such as teamwork, communication and problem-solving, which are indispensable in the professional
realm of engineering (Power & Dunphy, 2010)

In addition to academic benefits, PAL also nurtures valuable communication and interpersonal skills
(Gonglewski & Baker, 2021). Collaborative learning activities, such as group discussions, presentations
and joint projects, stimulate critical thinking, encourage active problem-solving and facilitate a broader
comprehension of the material being studied (Ryder et al., 2017). These skills are not only crucial for
academic success but also transferable to real-world scenarios, where effective collaboration and
communication are highly valued in both professional and personal contexts (Alpay et al., 2010).

However, there are some problems with PAL (Johns-Boast & Flint, 2013). PAL comes with its share of
challenges that educators need to address for its successful implementation (Glassey & Russo Abegao,
2018). Discrepancies in knowledge and learning abilities among students can hinder effective
explanations and pace within the group (Johns-Boast & Flint, 2013). Group dynamics and conflicts may
arise, impacting the learning environment, and educators should foster a positive atmosphere with
conflict resolution strategies (Blake & Liou-Mark, 2014). Overdependence on peers can hinder
independent thinking, and time management can pose challenges in coordinating collaborative activities.
By recognising and proactively managing these issues, PAL can be optimised to create an inclusive and
supportive learning environment (Brake & Curry, 2016).

AI-assisted learning

AI-assisted learning integrates AI technologies into education to enhance the learning experience (Lai,
2021). Through personalised learning pathways, AI analyses student data and tailors instruction to meet
individual needs. Intelligent tutoring systems provide personalised guidance and feedback, while adaptive
learning platforms adapt to students' progress and offer real-time recommendations (Wu et al., 2022). AI
automates grading and assessment processes, freeing up time for educators to provide targeted
feedback. Virtual assistants and chatbots powered by natural language processing support student
enquiries and foster independent learning (Chen et al., 2022). Additionally, AI generates educational
content and provides data-driven insights for instructional improvement (Zou et al., 2023). Although
ethical and privacy considerations must be addressed, AI-assisted learning has the potential to
revolutionise education by personalising instruction, enhancing engagement and optimising learning
outcomes (Cheng et al., 2020).

AI-assisted learning has been implemented in various ways to enhance education. Adaptive learning
platforms like Khan Academy and Duolingo use AI algorithms to personalise content and exercises based
on individual student needs (Lai, 2021). Carnegie Learning's Cognitive Tutor is an intelligent tutoring
system that provides personalised instruction and feedback (Aleven et al., 2023). Automated essay scoring
systems such as Turnitin utilise AI to assess and grade essays efficiently(Moodley & Nhavoto, 2023).

3
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Chatbots and virtual assistants like IBM Watson Assistant and Microsoft's Xiaoice offer personalised
support and guidance to students (X. Liu et al., 2022). These real-world examples demonstrate the diverse
applications of AI in education, empowering learners with personalised learning experiences, efficient
assessments and interactive tools for improved outcomes (Glassey & Russo Abegao, 2018; Strzelecki,
2023).

Although there has been extensive application of general AI technologies in higher education across
various disciplines, including science, mathematics, arts, language, engineering (including computer
courses), health and medical fields, business and management (Chu et al., 2022), few studies have focused
on generative AI chatbots specifically in higher education (Qadir, 2023). For instance, Wang et al. (2023)
engaged in an insightful investigation into the interaction dynamics between students and AI in English as
a Foreign Language learning. Their study delineated distinct patterns of interaction and posited that a
deeper engagement with AI-supported learning can considerably enhance the personalised guidance
afforded by AI. Although set in a language learning context, the implications of their findings resonate
with the broader theme of fostering a productive interaction between students and AI tools in engineering
education, where language and code often intertwine.

Given that many engineering courses incorporate programming components, it is crucial to review studies
that have applied generative AI tools in teaching programming courses. In fact, the early version of
ChatGPT, GPT 3.0, was used in teaching programming and offered improvement for programming
productivity (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023). Recently, after being allowed to use ChatGPT 3.5 in the
classroom, students from Object-Oriented Programming agreed that it can support problem-solving,
improve critical thinking skills, aid in debugging and boost their self-confidence (Yilmaz & Karaoglan
Yilmaz, 2023). Therefore, it is not surprising that many universities plan to adopt not only AI chatbots but
also advanced programming tools like GitHub Copilot in teaching programming courses (Lau & Guo, 2023).
Sun et al. (2022) delved into a critical aspect of AI application in education – the explainability of
generative AI models in the context of coding. By employing scenario-based design, they uncovered users'
explainability needs for generative AI in software engineering tasks such as natural language to code
translation, code translation between different languages and code auto-completion. Their exploration
accentuates the importance of understanding the operations of generative AI models, which is crucial for
harnessing AI capabilities in an educational setting, especially in code-related tasks, which are inherent in
engineering courses.

This study aimed to expand beyond programming courses and investigate the usage of ChatGPT in a
course involving hardware components – Introduction to Embedded Systems.

Methodology

To conduct this study, we selected an engineering course in the Bachelor of Engineering programme at a
university in a South-east Asian country. It is worth mentioning that ChatGPT is not officially available in
the country; however, there is clear evidence of significant usage by students from universities (Linh,
2023; SGGP, 2023; Spencer, 2023). Introduction to Embedded Systems aims to introduce first- and
second-year students to the concept of embedded systems and teach them how to design using both
hardware and software. We chose this course primarily due to its popularity as one of the most common
courses in electronic, electrical, computer and robotics-based engineering programmes. By optimising the
course development and delivery, it can further assist early-year students in building a strong foundation
for later relevant technical courses in their studies. Additionally, the course requires students to work
with electronic boards and measurement hardware, providing an opportunity to explore the applicability
of ChatGPT in a context that goes beyond the traditional programming content of engineering course.
Some questions and exercises in the course require definite solutions that can be operated on the
hardware, which is a useful indication to inform learners of the end goals and instruct them to keep trying
generative AI tools until they succeed.

4
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

This study utilised ChatGPT 3.5, hereafter referred to as ChatGPT for conciseness. Although the free
version of ChatGPT is not available in the country, the paid version, ChatGPT Plus, is open for registration.
Since we cannot require students to use the paid version, the study involved only the lecturer in charge,
who subscribed to ChatGPT Plus. The decision to select ChatGPT-3.5 over ChatGPT-4.0 was intentional, as
it anticipates that when the tool becomes accessible to the public, students are more likely to opt for the
free version. The qualitative insights gathered from the lecturer's use of ChatGPT, through observational
methods and reflective discussions, provided a foundational understanding of how AI-assisted learning
could be employed in embedded systems education. Although the findings are primarily from the
lecturer's perspective, they form a basis for the ongoing study involving student participants, aimed at
further exploring the practical implications and benefits of AI-assisted learning in this context.

To systematically examine and document the capability of ChatGPT, we developed an AI-assisted learning
flow for learners, as described in Figure 1. Firstly, questions and exercises that were not ChatGPT
applicable, such as tasks involving graphical illustration or personal information were not used. An initial
prompt with contexts and description was important, and hence the proposed flow recommended that
users spend more effort on this step. There were three levels of validation: checking for answers in the
context of the question, validating the actual code manually,and finally verifying the accuracy of the code
by deploying it on an electronic board used in this course (i.e., Arduino Uno). For each level, if the answers
were not satisfactory, we rephrased the questions, added more details and descriptions, provided
contexts and even needed to challenge ChatGPT until an acceptable answer was received. For theory-
based questions, the validation was completed by comparing the answers from ChatGPT with existing
solutions or sources provided by the lecturer. It is critical to mention that between attempts, for many
cases, users might go through the process of manually analysing and troubleshooting the issues or errors.
This is an important step for learners to achieve the learning outcomes through practice. As part of the
submission process, besides a technical report, the flow recommends that students include a reflective
journal to provide a detailed account of their utilisation of ChatGPT to accomplish the task. This document
will aid lecturers in evaluating how AI tools are used specifically.

Figure 1. Proposed flow of using ChatGPT in assisting learning

We identified and produced prompts for 15 questions and exercises from the class materials. We
categorised them into various levels, as indicated in Table 1. They ranged from simple and straightforward

5
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

tasks to more complex ones with hardware verification required. As ChatGPT accepted only text-based
inputs as of the version we tested on 24 May 2023, we rephrased the questions to improve their context.
We completely rewrote any original questions with either description or requirements involving graphical
illustrations. Finally, we incorporated a selection of assessment questions and exercises (Category 4) that
followed a similar flow as in tutorial questions. We modified the assessment questions presented in this
paper to conceal the original questions while maintaining sufficient detail to test the capability of ChatGPT
in providing solutions. The inclusion of questions in Category 4 was essential in evaluating whether
existing assessments needed to be redesigned to ensure they were ChatGPT-proof, if necessary.

Table 1
Categories of questions and exercises
No. Category Description
1 Theory questions: These questions are designed to assess students' understanding of
definition, categorisation, specific definitions. Students are evaluated based on their ability to
critical analysis and demonstrate, explain and critically analyse the provided
calculation information.
2 Programming questions: These questions require students to write either a small code
code snippets for a snippet or a complete code (100–200 lines of code) in the C
simple requirement, a full programming language to fulfil a given requirement. These
code for complex tasks or questions allow for the assessment of programming skills, including
specifications the appropriate use of programming syntax, relevant central
processsing unit registers and values.
3 Exercises: Complex full These exercises involve developing full code that can be executed on
code to accomplish a task an electronic board. The verification might involve some
executable on an actual measurements using laboratory instruments. Specifically, this course
electronic board, which utilises the Arduino (2021) board, a well-known embedded platform
may involve widely used for studying, and industries over the past 20 years.
measurements
4 Assessment The exercises in this category are more sophisticated requiring
programming exercise slightly longer solutions and combine knowledge and skills from
various weeks instead of one, as in Category 3. These exercises ask
students to validate their solutions using hardware verification and
measurement.

In this study, the course's primary lecturer (with 10 years of developing and teaching such a course) acted
as the main user in the flow described in Figure 1. Unedited answers were collected, assessed and
questions would be revised where necessary. The whole process was repeated for all 15 questions and
exercises. In addition to completion of the flow, for each question, we analysed the answer in terms of
their alignment with the context, accuracy, potential for assisting learners and their potential impact on
the course's development and delivery from the perspective of the lecturer. Finally, we report and discuss
the results in the Findings and discussion section.

Findings and discussion

Questions and ChatGPT responses

In this section, we present three sample questions and analyse the structure of the answers from ChatGPT
(see Table 2). The question indexes are taken from the full list of question (Table A1 in Appendix A). We
also conducted some demonstrations to showcase the usage of ChatGPT (detailed in Appendix B).

6
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Table 2
Sample questions and answers from ChatGPT
No. Screenshot of questions and responses from ChatGPT
3

10

7
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

15

Question 3 (Category 1) is a theory text-based question. ChatGPT was able to list significant characteristics
of a particular technical term. Users can extract the texts from the answers and check their accuracy by
comparing with the solution from the class notes.

Question 10 (Categories 3 & 4) demonstrate an example when users consult ChatGPT for how to set up
their measurement equipment and perform the task to confirm the accuracy of the provided code. Such
a setup can be seen in Figure 2. This approach is essential for students to confirm if they have finally
achieved the functional specification, as indicated in Figure 1.

Question 15 (Category 4) demonstrates an example when users consult ChatGPT on a coding question.
The answer includes a code window with a “Copy” button allowing users to transfer to their target
integrated development environment (see Figure 3). Additionally, an accompanying short code
explanation can be used to explain the construction of the code. The code explanation is the significant
tool for instructing users about the code.

Question 15 is an assessment-level exercise; it requires students to code and complete the requirements
using knowledge gained from multiple course topics and showcase workable hardware. We rewrote the

8
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

description of the system from a shorter version in the original class note, where graphical illustrations
are translated into descriptive texts.

Figure 2. Instructions on how to set up measurement provided by ChatGPT (top left), the actual setup
(right), and the resulting waveform confirming the system is working

Figure 3. A sample code generated by ChatGPT being transferred to the Arduino integrated
development environment and compiled successfully (i.e., syntax error-free)

Evaluating the answers provided by ChatGPT

In this section, we will discuss the lecturer’s evaluation of the usability of the answers provided by
ChatGPT for the course. The evaluation is provided for the first two iterations of each answer. We

9
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

developed and used the rating in Table 3 to systematically assess the answers from Table A1 (Appendix
A). The final rating is summarised in Table 4.

Table 3
Definition of evaluation rating
Rating Description
I (invalid) The answer is not relevant or out of context, which needs rephrasing,
recontextualising and redoing.
A (applicable) The answer is clear and correct.
C (close) The answer is clear and close, but changes in prompts are still required (via
rephrase, more context or challenging ChatGPT).
M (misleading) The answer is clear, but the code contains misleading information (e.g., value of
variables is unrealistic). Users must provide context, challenge ChatGPT to
correct the misleading information in the next iteration.
F (functional) The answer is clear, the final code is functional on the designated hardware and
meets the requirements.
U (unsuccessful) The answer cannot be reached after so many attempts.

Table 4
Evaluation of ChatGPT answers
Question or prompt no. Category Evaluation rating
1 1 A
2 1 A
3 1 A
4 1 A
5 1 A
6 1 A
7 2 A
8 2 C
9 2 C
10 3 M
11 3 A
12 3 C
13 3 C
14 4 C
15 4 C

Followjng are brief discussions on the above results:

• First, there are no I (invalid) rating for any prompts. This could be explained by the prompts from
the lecturer being specific enough and full of context. This, however, should be expected from
students in their first trials.
• ChatGPT can produce good results for standard theory questions in the form of a definition (2, 5
& 11), identification (3 & 4) and multiple-choice question (6).
• Because of their hardware-specific nature, the answers for most of the coding and calculation
questions are close but need refinement. For complex questions (14 & 15), there are multiple
follow-ups and challenges to ChatGPT.
• Measurement question 10 initially produced a misleading answer. After some rephrasing,
ChatGPT was able to produce better instructions for users. This can be seen from minutes 2:11
to 3:50 in the demonstration video mentioned in Appendix B.
• Although the code generated by ChatGPT was acceptable, our study suggests that learners still
need to make minor edits in the code to guarantee successful hardware verification.
• All the questions above were eventually answered either A for theory questions or F for coding-
related questions after multiple attempts and refinements.

10
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Discussion

The first recommendation of this research is that lecturers should examine their courses against the usage
of ChatGPT, as we have done in this study. As ChatGPT was able to produce a skeleton of the solution in
the selected embedded system course, this demonstrates our assessments must be redesigned to
maintain academic integrity. This should be applicable for all lecturers, even those who might not include
ChatGPT in course delivery. Techniques for designing ChatGPT-proof assessments can be explored
(Jacobs, 2023; Sayers, 2023).

On the positive side, this study highlights the significant potential of ChatGPT as an effective tool for
assisting students in an introductory course on embedded systems. The AI-powered capabilities of
ChatGPT, such as providing valuable insights and personalised support, offer promising opportunities for
enhancing the learning experience. However, it is important to note that the results obtained from
ChatGPT can vary depending on the prompts or wording used as input. This variability can lead to
inconsistent or unexpected answers, which may potentially upset students who rely heavily on ChatGPT
for assistance.

Moreover, this study emphasises the need to renovate the course structure to incorporate not only core
engineering topics but also additional activities focused on training students to effectively use ChatGPT.
For instance, lecturers can offer hints or suggestions on the keywords, questions or prompts that yield
more accurate and helpful answers. This renovation in course design will allow students to develop the
skills necessary to utilise ChatGPT as a valuable tool for their learning and hence harness its full potential.
The goal is to improve the learning experience, promote a deeper understanding of the subject matter
and enhance their overall learning outcomes.

This research also highlights the demand for further investigation and future studies in this area to address
the variations in results based on different prompts or wording used with ChatGPT and the potential
impact on student satisfaction and effectiveness. This research opens opportunities for future exploration
and improvement in the design and implementation of AI-assisted learning systems, ensuring their
optimal utilisation and addressing the concerns and struggles that student may face.

Drawing from our research and conclusions, subsequent studies could adopt our methodology to explore
the potential of generative AI in enhancing AI-supported learning for advanced embedded system
courses. Moreover, ChatGPT is a generative AI that has been trained on a huge data set that includes
many subject areas. Therefore, future studies could utilise our approach and investigate AI-assisted
learning in other disciplines, such as economics, business or communications.

Addressing the challenges in evaluating students' responses generated with AI assistance, particularly in
grading the accuracy, relevance, coherence and overall quality, necessitates a comprehensive approach.
One pivotal aspect is the development of robust assessment rubrics tailored to the context of
incorporating AI tools like ChatGPT. These rubrics should ensure a consistent and equitable evaluation for
all students, regardless of their choice to use AI assistance. The integrity and fairness of assessments are
paramount, requiring a thorough investigation and possibly an iterative development process to ensure
they adequately address the nuances brought about by AI-assisted learning.

Additionally, alongside technical submissions, we propose the inclusion of a reflective journal as part of
students' submissions. This journal would serve as a platform for students to articulate their process of
using the AI tool, the challenges faced and the steps taken to verify the accuracy and relevance of the AI-
generated responses. By evaluating students’ reflective journals, lecturers can gain insights into the
students’ engagement with the AI tool, their critical thinking process and the learning outcomes achieved.
This, in turn, can aid in assessing the overall quality and relevance of the AI-assisted responses. Moreover,
alternative assessment methods such as oral presentations or technical demonstrations can also provide
a more holistic understanding of students' comprehension and application of the course material in an
AI-assisted learning environment.

11
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

In addition to the above valuable lessons, there are some implementation techniques from the lecture’s
perspective, including the following:
• An AI-assisted learning flow (as illustrated in Figure 1) can be customised for various subjects and
disciplines.
• In addition to designing good prompts, learners must be able to critically evaluate the answer
generated. In an actual course, students should conduct extra studies outside of ChatGPT to
verify the answers, as ChatGPT can hallucinate. This should be the subject of intensive research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the incorporation of ChatGPT or generative AI in education appears to be unavoidable. This

study aimrd to explore the potential of using ChatGPT as an AI-assisted learning tool in an introductory
course on embedded systems. Findings suggest that students can use ChatGPT as a companion for their
learning, enhancing both their learning and teaching experiences. However, it is important to gradually
integrate this tool with additional modules to provide students with quick fact-checking skills, ensuring
they can maximise the tools’ impact. This research addresses a gap in the literature by evaluating the use
of AI-assisted learning in a technical subject, contributing to the field of embedded systems education.
Additionally, it advances innovative and personalised learning approaches in engineering education,
providing insights for educators and researchers in similar fields.

Author contributions

Thanh Pham: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing; Binh
Nguyen: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing; Son Ha: Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing - review and editing; Thanh Nguyen Ngoc: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing –
review and editing.

References
Aleven, V., Baraniuk, R., Brunskill, E., Crossley, S., Demszky, D., Fancsali, S., Gupta, S., Koedinger, K.,
Piech, C., Ritter, S., Thomas, D. R., Woodhead., S., & Xing, W. (2023). Towards the future of ai-
augmented human tutoring in math learning. In N. Wang, G. Rebolledo-Mendez, V. Dimitrova, N.
Matsuda, & O. C. Santos (Eds.), Communications in computer and information science: Vol. 1831.
Artificial intelligence in education: Posters and late breaking results, workshops and tutorials,
industry and innovation tracks, practitioners, doctoral consortium and blue sky (pp. 26-31). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36336-8_3
Alnaqbi, N. M., & Fouda, W. (2023). Exploring the role of ChatGPT and social media in enhancing student
evaluation of teaching styles in higher education using neutrosophic sets. International Journal of
Neutrosophic Science, 20(4), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.200414
Alpay, E., Cutler, P. S., Eisenbach, S., & Field, A. J. (2010). Changing the marks-based culture of learning
through peer-assisted tutorials. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), 17–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790903202983
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI):
Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI,
7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484
Benuyenah, V. (2023). Commentary: ChatGPT use in higher education assessment: Prospects and
epistemic threats. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 134–135.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-03-2023-097
Berry, C., Gennert, M., & Reck, R. (2020). Practical skills for students in mechatronics and robotics
education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Virtual Annual Conference
and Exposition (pp. 15803–15819). American Society for Engineering Education.
Blake, R. A., & Liou-Mark, J. (2015). Enhancing diversity in STEM interdisciplinary learning. In I.
Management Association (Ed.), STEM education: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications
(pp. 997–1019). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-7363-2.ch054

12
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Brake, N. A., & Curry, J. C. (2016, June), The impact of one-credit introductory engineering courses on
engineering self-efficacy: Seminar v. project-based paper. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, 6, 4384–4402. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26176
Brierley, C., Ellis, L., & Reid, E. R. (2022). Peer-assisted learning in medical education: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 56(4), 365–373.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14672
Chen, S. Y., Lin, P. H., & Chien, W. C. (2022). Children’s digital art ability training system based on AI-
assisted learning: A case study of drawing color perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article
823078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.823078
Cheng, C. T., Chen, C. C., Fu, C. Y., Chaou, C. H., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, C. P., Chang, C. C., Chung, I. F., Hsieh, C.
H., Hsieh, M. J., & Liao, C. H. (2020). Artificial intelligence-based education assists medical students’
interpretation of hip fracture. Insights into Imaging, 11(1), Article 119.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00932-0
Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-H., Tu, Y.-F., & Yang, K.-H. (2022). Roles and research trends of artificial
intelligence in higher education: A systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7526
Costan, E., Gonzales, G., Gonzales, R., Enriquez, L., Costan, F., Suladay, D., Atibing, N. M., Aro, J. L.,
Evangelista, S. S., Maturan, F., Selerio, E., & Ocampo, L. (2021). Education 4.0 in developing
economies: A systematic literature review of implementation barriers and future research agenda.
Sustainability, 13(22), Article 12763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212763
Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A., Giones, F., Hakala,
H., Marullo, C., Mention, A. L., Mortara, L., Nørskov, S., Nylund, P. A., Oddo, C. M., Radziwon, A., &
Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: A critical multi‐level research agenda.
R&D Management, 52(5), 930–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12531
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A.,
Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette,
Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D.,... Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?”
Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative
conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information
Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Edwards, S., & Bone, J. (2012). Integrating peer assisted learning and eLearning: Using innovative
pedagogies to support learning and teaching in higher education settings. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n5.4
Emenike, M. E., & Emenike, B. U. (2023). Was this title generated by ChatGPT? Considerations for
artificial intelligence text-generation software programs for chemists and chemistry educators.
Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1413–1418. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00063
Fergus, S., Botha, M., & Ostovar, M. (2023). Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT.
Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1672–1675. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00087
Fogarty, J., & Altman, R., & Lundmark, J. (2022). Impact of peer-assisted learning and leadership
development on undergraduate students. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 19047–19058). American Society for Engineering
Education. https://peer.asee.org/41968
Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Sadiq, S. (2023). Empowering learners for the age of artificial intelligence
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100130
Geerling, W., Mateer, G. D., Wooten, J., & Damodaran, N. (2023). ChatGPT has aced the test of
understanding in college economics: Now what? The American Economist, 68(2), 233–245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/05694345231169654

13
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Gilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023). How does
ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination? The implications of large
language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Medical Education, 9,
Article e45312. https://doi.org/10.2196/45312
Glassey, J., & Abegao, F. (2017). E-assessment and tailored feedback: Are they contributing to the
effectiveness of chemical engineering education? In Proceedings of the 17th World Engineering
Education Forum (pp. 508–512). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF.2017.8467054
Gonglewski, M., & Baker, L. (2021). Curricular peer mentoring in first-semester German: Novice learners'
perceptions of a “Language Learning Assistant” program. Foreign Language Annals, 54(4), 952–973.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12564
Gregorcic, B., & Pendrill, A. M. (2023). ChatGPT and the frustrated Socrates. Physics Education, 58(3),
Article 035021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/acc299
Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 15(2), Article ep421. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036
Ivanov, S., & Soliman, M. (2023). Game of algorithms: ChatGPT implications for the future of tourism
education and research. Journal of Tourism Futures. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2023-0038
Jacobs, S. R. (2023, March 30). Making courses resistant to ChatGPT plagiarism. HigherEd Jobs.
https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=3405&Title=Making+Courses+Resista
nt+to+ChatGPT+Plagiarism
Johinke, R., Cummings, R., & Di Lauro, F. (2023). Reclaiming the technology of higher education for
teaching digital writing in a post-pandemic world. Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice, 20(2), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.01
Johns-Boast, L., & Flint, S. (2013). Simulating industry: An innovative software engineering capstone
design course. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1782–1788). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6685145
Karaali, G. (2023). Artificial intelligence, basic skills, and quantitative literacy. Numeracy, 16(1), Article 9.
https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.16.1.1438
Khan, Z. H., & Abid, M. I. (2017). Role of laboratory setup in project-based learning of freshmen
electrical engineering in Pakistan. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 54(2),
150–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720916689103
Lai, C.-L. (2021). Exploring university students’preferences for AI-Assisted learning environment: A
drawing analysis with activity theory framework. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 1–15.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48629241
Lau, S., & Guo, P. (2023). From "Ban it till we understand it" to "Resistance is futile": How university
programming instructors plan to adapt as more students use AI code generation and explanation
tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on
International Computing Education Research (Vol. 1, pp. 106–121). Association for Computing
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568813.3600138
Li, M., & Stone, H. N. (2018). A Social network analysis of the impact of a teacher and student
community on academic motivation in a science classroom. Societies, 8(3), Article 68.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8030068
Linh, D. (2023, February 8). VinUni to incorporate ChatGPT into educational process. VnEconomy.
https://vneconomy.vn/vinuni-to-incorporate-chatgpt-into-educational-process.htm
Liu, B., Wang, L., Chen, X., Huang, L., Han, D., & Xu, C. Z. (2021). Peer-assisted robotic learning: A data-
driven collaborative learning approach for cloud robotic systems. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 4062–4070). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9562018
Liu, D., & Bridgeman, D. (2023, January 23). How can I update assessments to deal with ChatGPT and
other generative AI? Teaching@Sydney. https://educational-
innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/how-can-i-update-assessments-to-deal-with-chatgpt-
and-other-generative-ai/

14
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Liu, X., Zhang, X., & Liu, C. (2022). A survey on intelligent writing technology. In Chinese Institute of
Command and Control (Ed.), Lecture notes in electrical engineering: Vol. 949. Proceedings of the
2022 10th China Conference on Command and Control (pp. 846–857). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6052-9_76
Lodge, J. M., Thompson, K., & Corrin, L. (2023). Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial
intelligence in tertiary education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8695
Moodley, D. K. ., & Nhavoto, R. (2023). An evaluation of the use of Turnitin as a tool for electronic
submission, marking, and feedback in higher education in South Africa: Students’ perspective.
Proceedings of The World Conference on Education and Teaching, 1(1), 31–43.
https://doi.org/10.33422/etconf.v1i1.32
Nortcliffe, A. L., Parveen, S., & Pink-Keech, C. (2022). Statistically, Does peer assisted learning make a
difference on a UK engineering degree programme? HETL Scotland 2017. Journal of Applied Research
in Higher Education, 14(1), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2017-0047
Ong, K.-L., & Fatima, S. (2023, February 8). Embracing ChatGPT for education. RMIT University.
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/acumen/ChatGPT_for_education
Oliveira, K., & de Souza, R. (2022). Digital transformation towards Education 4.0. Informatics in
Education, 21(2), 283–309. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2022.13
Power, C., & Dunphy, K. (2010). Peer facilitated learning in mathematics for engineering: A case study
from an Australian university. Engineering Education, 5(1), 75–84.
https://doi.org/10.11s120/ened.2010.05010075
Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for
education. In Proceedings of the Global Engineering Education Conference pp. 1–9). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121
Ryder, G., Russell, P., Burton, M., Quinn, P., & Daly, S. (2017). Embedding peer support as a core learning
skill in higher education. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(1), 184–203.
https://doi.org/10.11645/11.1.2207
Sayers, D. (2023, May 25). A simple hack to ChatGPT-proof assignments using Google Drive. Times
Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/simple-hack-chatgptproof-
assignments-using-google-drive
SGGP. (2023, February 14). ChatGPT should be effectively exploited in education.
https://en.sggp.org.vn/chatgpt-should-be-effectively-exploited-in-education-post100239.html
Shoufan, A. (2023). Exploring students' perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic analysis and follow-up survey.
IEEE Access, 11, 38805–38818. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3268224
Spencer, D. (2023). Vietnamese using VPNs to sign up for ChatGPT. VPN Compare.
https://www.vpncompare.co.uk/vietnam-vpn-chatgpt/
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance
and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
Sun, J., Liao, Q. V., Muller, M., Agarwal, M., Houde, S., Talamadupula, K., & Weisz, J. D. (2022).
Investigating explainability of generative AI for code through scenario-based design. In Proceedings
of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 212–228). Association for
Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490099.3511119
Wadoodi, A., & Crosby, J. R. (2002). Twelve tips for peer-assisted learning: A classic concept revisited.
Medical Teacher, 24(3), 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220134060
Wang, X., Liu, Q., Pang, H., Tan, S. C., Lei, J., Wallace, M. P., & Li, L. (2023). What matters in AI-supported
learning: A study of human-AI interactions in language learning using cluster analysis and epistemic
network analysis. Computers & Education, 194, Article 104703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104703
Wu, W., Zhang, B., Li, S., & Liu, H. (2022). Exploring factors of the willingness to accept AI-assisted
learning environments: An empirical investigation based on the UTAUT model and perceived risk
theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 870777. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870777

15
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2023). Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining
student views on the use of ChatGPT for programming learning. Computers in Human Behavior:
Artificial Humans, 1(2), Article 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005
Zou, B., Guan, X., Shao, Y., & Chen, P. (2023). Supporting speaking practice by social network-based
interaction in Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted language learning. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(4),
Article 2872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042872

Corresponding author: Thanh Pham, [email protected]

Copyright: Articles published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) are available
under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Authors retain copyright in their work and grant AJET right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND
4.0.
Please cite as: Pham, T., Nguyen, B., Ha, S., & Nguyen Ngoc, T. (2023). Digital transformation in
engineering education: Exploring the potential of AI-assisted learning. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 39(5), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8825

16
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Appendix A – Full list of questions

Table A1
List of 15 questions and exercises
No. Question Category
1 What is the hex equivalent of 0b1101 1101 1101? 1
2 Give an example of a system that is classified as an embedded system. 1

3 What are two features from the thermostat example above that made them to be 1
an embedded system?

4 Is a washing machine considered an embedded system or a general-purpose 1

computer?

5 Describe three major components of a microprocessor unit. 1

6 What is the solution for the following multiple-choice question? "How many 1
analog pins are used in Arduino Uno board? a) 12 b) 16 c) 8 d) 14?".

7 Write one line of code to configure PORTB pin 5 of Atmega328p, so that the data 2
output register, to be 1.

8 What is the value of Compare Match Register of Timer1 of ATMEGA328p so that 2

we can have 1 Hz clock out if the input clock frequency is 16Mhz?

9 Using the OCR1A from above, write a C program for ATMega328p MCU, that uses 2
Timer1 Clear on Compare Match Interrupt to generate a 1Hz clock on PortB pin 5.

10 For the above program, if I want to measure the output waveform using a Virtual 3
Bench, how can I connect? Which wires do I need to connect to which pin?

11 Describe two methods of debouncing buttons – one hardware-based and one 3

software –based for buttons in embedded system.

12 Write a short code to debounce a button connects to PORTD0 of Atmega328p, 3

only by adding a delay time after button is pressed using delay_ms function and
the delay time is around 200ms.

13 We are sending letter "A" from Arduino Uno using UART TX pin – PD1 with a baud 3
rate of 9600 bps. What is the sequence of bits we will receive from the other end
on an UART receiver? Also provide an approximation in microseconds (up to 2
fractional points) for how long it takes to transmit one bit of data in this
configuration.

14 Write a register-based program for Arduino Uno using the Atmega328p 4

Microcontroller. The program interfaces with two LEDs connected to PORTB0 and
PORTB1 with source configuration.

The microcontroller controls two LEDs as like in a simple traffic light controller with
only GREEN (when green light is active, it will indicate by turning on PORTB0) for 2
seconds and then turn to RED for 3 seconds (when red light is active, it will indicate
by turning on the PORTB1).

17
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

You must design this using finite state machine (FSM) design technique with two
states: green_state and red_state.
To accurately manage the time delays for the mentioned intervals, the program
utilises the Timer 1 interrupt with a suitable scaling range

15 Write a register-based program for Arduino Uno using the Atmega328p 4

Microcontroller. The program interfaces with a single button connected to
PORTD2, which is configured as an external interrupt pin (INT0) with a pull-up
resistor configuration. Additionally, there is an LED connected to PORTB0 with
source configuration.

The program's functionality is as follows: When the button is pressed, an external

interrupt request is triggered and sent to the microcontroller. The program
responds to this interrupt by controlling the LED to generate a specific pattern only
one time then stop. The pattern consists of three intervals where the LED remains
on for 1 second and then turns off for 1 second. This is followed by two intervals
where the LED is on for 0.5 seconds and then off for 0.5 seconds. Finally, the LED is
turned off completely.
To accurately manage the time delays for the mentioned intervals, the program
utilizes the Timer 1 interrupt with a suitable scaling range. Additionally, it employs
the external interrupt with falling edge detection to handle the button press
effectively.

18
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023, 39(5).

Appendix B - Demonstration of using ChatGPT

In this demonstration session, we prompted ChatGPT with questions and exercises of the topic of
Timers/Counters of the Introduction to Embedded System course. The session was conducted on 14 June
2023. A video recording of the demonstration session is available at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDLJDdODRkQ

The chat prompts and results can be accessed via the following link:
https://chat.openai.com/share/b7660cf3-f0eb-4b22-acab-c6e55ce7a065

19