CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Artificial Intelligence in EducationDigital Education and SocietyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Generative AI and higher education: a review of claims from the first months of ChatGPT

Open access
Jensen, Lasse X, Buhl, Alexandra, Sharma, Anjali, Bearman, Margaret·2025·Higher Education
DOI 10.1007/s10734-024-01265-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract The release of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT renewed discussions about how AI would upend higher education. This paper presents a critical analysis of “grey literature” claims made in the first months after ChatGPT was made public, exploring what these discussions might mobilise in practice. We identified articles for inclusion through a systematic search of five prominent higher education sector outlets. The included articles were thematically coded for claims about generative AI and higher education. We identified ten claims: Three about the nature of ChatGPT, four about changing practices of institutions and teachers, and three about new independent practices of students. Overall, the claims present a positive perspective on AI in higher education. While being perceived as a disruption of the status quo, the authors generally frame AI as a catalyst for existing agendas, e.g. assessment reform, personalisation, or inclusion. This suggests a focus on embracing the affordances offered by AI and primarily addressing risks by including AI in curricula. Furthermore, the claims mainly portray students as either plagiarists or victims of a failing educational system. The paper proposes that a more critical interrogation of generative AI, and the involvement of students in the conversation, may be beneficial.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10734-024-01265-3

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Early discourse around GenAI in higher education frequently positioned students either as potential cheaters or as victims of these technologies.

    “Early discourse around GenAI in higher education frequently positioned students either as potential cheaters or as victims of these technologies, reflecting fears of GenAI undermining learning or facilitating plagiarism (Jensen et al., 2025).”

    From Co-creating custom GPTs: an autoethnographic study of undergraduate students as partners in generative AI innovation (2026) · cites this paper as Jensen et al., 2025

    The Discussion says early articles often portrayed students as plagiarists or as victims of a failing educational system, and it describes concerns about cheating and students not learning to think. The citing sentence changes the object of victimhood: the source does not say students were portrayed as victims of GenAI itself. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Since the public release of advanced AI chatbots such as ChatGPT in late 2022, universities have grappled with both the opportunities and challenges these tools pose for teaching and learning.

    “Since the public release of advanced AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT in late 2022, universities have grappled with both the opportunities and challenges these tools pose for teaching and learning (Jensen et al., 2025).”

    From Co-creating custom GPTs: an autoethnographic study of undergraduate students as partners in generative AI innovation (2026) · cites this paper as Jensen et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F00346543053004445 · DOI
  2. Saunders, S. (2023). Rather than ban generative AI, universities must learn from the past. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230221075136410. Accessed 28 Feb 2023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jensen, L. X., Buhl, A., Sharma, A., & Bearman, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Public Health Foundation of India (IN)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Lasse X
ORCID
Venue
Higher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-07-15
Volume
89
Issue
4
Pages
1145-1161
ISSN
  • 0018-1560 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-174X
DOI
10.1007/s10734-024-01265-3
OpenAlex
W4400659622
Cited by
144
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 3
FWCI
54.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF22SH0078207)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, artificial intelligence in education, institutional practices, teaching practice, student agency, assessment reform, personalization, inclusion, student plagiarism, critical perspectives on AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review