ChatGPT shortens science teachers' lesson preparation

In a 2024 trial with 259 science teachers in 68 schools, teachers told to use ChatGPT spent 56.2 minutes a week on lesson preparation against 81.5, with no evidence of lower quality.

11
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Independently studied
Observed
Sources
1 publication
Download data CiteSuggest a correction

Benefits

Benefit

Saving of 25.3 minutes a week, or 31 percent

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Reduced Task Time

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

People. Organizations.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

ChatGPT, used by science teachers with an online guide to prepare Key Stage 3 lessons and resources

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

Teachers received an online guide to using ChatGPT. Teachers used ChatGPT for parts of a lesson, most often questions, quizzes and activity ideas.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

Schools were randomly assigned to a group that used ChatGPT and a group that used no generative AI, so the time difference reflects ChatGPT use together with the online guide.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

Schools were randomly assigned to a group that used ChatGPT and a group that used no generative AI, so the time difference reflects ChatGPT use together with the online guide.

Awaiting review

Measurement

Studies

Randomized. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Study design

Randomized. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measurement

Teacher-reported weekly lesson and resource preparation time; blind expert panel review of sampled resources. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Setting and sample

259 Year 7 and Year 8 science teachers in 68 schools, ten weeks in the 2024 summer term. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measures

Minutes per week of lesson and resource preparation. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Comparison

Teachers asked not to use generative AI. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Results

56.2 against 81.5 minutes a week (69 percent of the comparison group's time). [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Additional value from AI

The time saving is attributed to ChatGPT use with the guide. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Limitations

Time was self-reported; teachers used the approach for part of their timetable; student outcomes were not measured. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Denominators

Ten weeks of lesson preparation for Year 7 and Year 8 science. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Materials for replication

The evaluation does not state this detail. [1]

Partly reviewedUnresolved

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: OpenAI. Operator: Science teachers in 68 schools in a trial funded by the Education Endowment Foundation and the Hg Foundation and run by NFER.

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: United Kingdom (68 schools that the summary does not name). Developer: United States. Operator: United Kingdom.

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

Teachers need access to ChatGPT and time to learn it. Teachers must check the resources that ChatGPT produces.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Later findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0616-source-0001

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Independent

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Independently studied. Sources: one independent report. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

People. Organizations.

Awaiting review

Depth

People: 1. Organizations: 1.

Awaiting review

Reasons

People: Teachers in the ChatGPT group saved 25.3 minutes a week on lesson preparation for Year 7 and Year 8 science. Organizations: Schools saw lesson preparation time fall by 31 percent with no evidence of lower resource quality in a blind expert review.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Independently studied

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. The case is a school-randomized trial run by an independent evaluator. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Education.

Awaiting review

Purpose

ChatGPT is a general-purpose chatbot. In this trial it was used to help teachers prepare lessons, and the time saving was the purpose of the trial.

Awaiting review

Dates

Observed: 2024. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was used in a pilot. Teachers used ChatGPT for ten weeks within a funded trial. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: 25294116bcd5…

Awaiting review

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Report Independent author

    Roy P, Poet H, Staunton R, Aston K, Thomas D. ChatGPT in lesson preparation: A Teacher Choices Trial. NFER for the Education Endowment Foundation, 12 December 2024.

Collections: Cross-border cases.

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version 25294116bcd5, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed