The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative AI and higher education: a review of claims from the first months of ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · cited 1×
“The latter, optimistic, view is reflected in a 2019 systematic review of research on AI in higher education, where all the included studies describe AI as a tool to enhance teaching and learning, and almost none mention ethical concerns (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).”
A Neural Probabilistic Language Model
Bengio, Y., Ducharme, R., Vincent, P., Jauvin, C., Jaz, K., Hofmann, T., Poggio, T., & Shawe-Taylor, J. S. (2000) · Cited by 3,451
Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education
Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 · Cited by 2,019
Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review
Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2 · Cited by 545
Self-citationMastering the Hype Cycle: How to Choose the Right Innovation at the Right Time
Fenn, J., & Raskino, M. (2008) · Cited by 461
Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J., Aznar-Díaz, I., Cáceres-Reche, M.-P., & Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. (2019) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci9010051 · Cited by 400
Farazouli, A., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Bolander-Laksov, K., & McGrath, C. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2241676 · Cited by 219
Digital Technology and the Contemporary University
Selwyn, N. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315768656 · Cited by 178
Reframing assessment research: through a practice perspective
Boud, D. J., Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Bennett, S., Gordon, J., & Molloy, E. (2016) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1202913 · Cited by 116
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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
- 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
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531
‘Where’s the line? It’s an absurd line’: Towards a framework for acceptable uses of AI in assessment
Corbin, T., Dawson, P., Nicola-Richmond, K., & Partridge, H. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2456207 · Cited by 96
The wicked problem of AI and assessment
Corbin, T., Bearman, M., Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2553340 · Cited by 93
Self-citationJacobsen, L. J., & Weber, K. E. (2025) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai6020035 · Cited by 58
Prilop, C. N., Mah, D.-K., Jacobsen, L. J., Hansen, R. R., Weber, K. E., & Hoya, F. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100471 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Higher Education
- Published
- 2024-07-15
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1145-1161
- ISSN
- 0018-1560 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-174X
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › 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
