CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Artificial Intelligence in EducationSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningAI in Service Interactions

Higher Education Faculty Perceptions of ChatGPT and the Influencing Factors: A Sentiment Analysis of X

Open access
Mamo, Yoseph, Crompton, Helen, Burke, Diane, Nickel, Christine·2024·TechTrends
DOI 10.1007/s11528-024-00954-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

ChatGPT, an AI chatbot developed by OpenAI, was released in November 2022, sparking a significant surge in global awareness and utilization of generative AI across various domains. Although recent studies have acknowledged the significance of ChatGPT in the education sector, they have yet to focus on exploring faculty attitudes toward ChatGPT. We gathered a comprehensive corpus of tweets containing “#ChatGPT” and “#highered” between November 30th, 2022, and April 30th, 2023. We analyzed data by triangulating VADER, NRC lexicon, and ground coding. Findings suggest that 40% of the expressed sentiments were positive, 51% were neutral, and 9% were negative. The study also revealed the diverse range of emotions held by higher education faculty regarding ChatGPT, with trust and joy being the most prevalent positive sentiments and fear and anger being the most prevalent negative sentiments. This study shed light on faculty members’ perceptions of ChatGPT, contributing to a better understanding of the impact, emotions, and incorporation of ChatGPT in the higher education sector.

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/s11528-024-00954-1

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • The experience of mixed emotional responses and ethical navigation among Christian faculty was supported by literature.

    “The experience of mixed emotional responses and ethnical navigation was supported by literature (Hagendorff, 2020;Mamo et al., 2024;Mittelstadt, 2019).”

    From Into the Unknown: AI Adoption and Job Satisfaction of Christian Faculty (2026) · cites this paper as Mamo et al., 2024

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: 44

  1. Al-Natour, S., & Turetken, O. (2020). A comparative assessment of sentiment analysis and star ratings for consumer reviews. Inter- national Journal of Information Management,54, 102132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2020. 102132 · DOI
  2. Amani, S., White, L., Balart, T., Arora, L., Shryock, K. J., Brumbelow, K., & Watson, K. L. (2023). Generative AI perceptions: A sur- vey to measure the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students on generative AI tools in academia. arXiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ arXiv. 2304. 14415 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2023). Is ChatGPT leading generative AI? What is beyond expectations? Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Smart Systems, 11(3), 118-134.
  4. Barrie, C., & Ho, J. C. T. (2021). AcademictwitteR: An R package to access the Twitter Academic Research Product Track v2 API endpoint. Journal of Open Source Software,6(62), 3272.
  5. Biddix, J. P., Park, H., Collom, G. D., Bailey, M. R., & Park, H. W. (2023). Discourse about higher education on Twitter in early phases of COVID-19: A crisis management social net- work analysis. Education and Information Technologies,28(8), 9957-9983.
  6. Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Educa- tion,5(3), 235-245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12973/ ejmste/ 75275 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Borji, A. (2023). A categorical archive of ChatGPT failures. arXiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ arXiv. 2302. 03494 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Burch, Z. A., & Mohammed, S. (2019). Exploring faculty perceptions about classroom technology integration and acceptance: A litera- ture review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES),5(2), 722-729.
  9. Cao, D., Luo, W., & Nie, G. (2023). Global DSGE models, review of economic dynamics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. red. 2023. 01. 001 · DOI
  10. Dai, Y., Liu, A., & Lim, C. P. (2023). Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven innovation in higher education. 33rd CIRP Design Conference.
  11. 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., Bal- akrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidis- ciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implica- tions of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management,71, 102642. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2023. 102642 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Elbagir, S., & Yang, J. (2019, March). Twitter sentiment analysis using natural language toolkit and VADER sentiment. In Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (Vol. 122, No. 16). https:// www. iaeng. org/ publi cation/ IMECS 2019/ IMECS 2019_ pp12-16. pdf
  13. Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K., & D'Eugenio, A. (2018). Measuring organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens' judgments with sentiment analysis. Business & Society,57(1), 60-97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00076 50316 683926 · DOI
  14. Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2023). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching Interna- tional,1-15, 1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2023. 21958 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). Participant perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media and Society, 4(1), 1-14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20563 05118 763366 · DOI
  16. Garg, M., & Goel, A. (2023). Detection of internet cheating in online assessments using cluster analysis. In N. Sharma, A. Goje, A. Chakrabarti, & A. M. Bruckstein (Eds.), Data management, ana- lytics and innovation (pp. 85-95). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-981-99-1414-2_7 · DOI
  17. Gautreau, C. (2011). Motivational factors affecting the integration of a learning management system faculty. The Journal of Educators Online,8(1), 1-25.
  18. George, A. S., & George, A. S. H. (2023). A review of ChatGPT AI's impact on several business sectors. Partners Universal Interna- tional Innovation Journal,1(1), 9-23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 76443 59 · DOI
  19. Hao, K. (2023). What is ChatGPT? What to know about the Ai chatbot. The Wall Street Journal. https:// www. wsj. com/ artic les/ chatg pt-ai- chatb ot-app-expla ined-11675 865177
  20. Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J. H. (2018). Automated text analysis for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,44(6), 1274-1306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jcr/ ucx104 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Janse van Rensburg, C., Coetzee, S. A., & Schmulian, A. (2022). Developing digital creativity through authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(6), 857-877. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938. 2021. 19687 · DOI
  22. Jiao, W., Wang, W., Huang, J., Wang, X., & Tu, Z. (2023). Is Chat- GPT a good translator? A preliminary study. arXiv Preprint ArXiv:230108745, 1(10).
  23. Kauffmann, E., Peral, J., Gil, D., Ferrández, A., Sellers, R., & Mora, H. (2020). A framework for big data analytics in commercial social networks: A case study on sentiment analysis and fake review detection for marketing decision-making. Industrial Marketing Management,90, 523-537. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. indma rman. 2019. 08. 003 · DOI
  24. Keengwe, J., & Kang, J. J. (2012). Teaching with technology: Faculty adoption of educational technology. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceed- ings of SITE 2012-Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4835-4839). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https:// www. learn techl ib. org/ prima ry/p/ 40372/
  25. King, M. R., chatGPT. (2023). A conversation on artificial intel- ligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16, 1-2. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12195-022-00754-8 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kulviwat, S., Bruner, I. I., Kumar, G. C., Nasco, A., & Clark, T. (2007). Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psy- chology & Marketing,24(12), 1059-1084.
  27. Leiter, C., Zhang, R., Chen, Y., Belouadi, J., Larionov, D., Fresen, V., & Eger, S. (2023). ChatGPT: A meta-analysis after 2.5 months. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13795. https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ arXiv. 2302. 13795 · DOI
  28. Liu, X., Burns, A. C., & Hou, Y. (2017). An investigation of brand- related user-generated content on Twitter. Journal of Advertis- ing,46(2), 236-247. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00913 367. 2017. 12972 · DOI
  29. Lyu, J. C., Han, E. L., & Luli, G. K. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine-related discussion on Twitter: Topic modeling and sentiment analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research,23(6), e24435.
  30. Mamo, Y. Z. (2023). Big data and innovative research methods. Inter- national Journal of Sport Communication,16(3), 352-360.
  31. Mamo, Y. Z., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2023). Stakeholders'voice through social media: The case of corporate social responsibility in sport. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsor- ship,24(5), 1002-1020.
  32. McDonald, S. M. (2012). Perception: A concept analysis. Interna- tional Journal of Nursing Knowledge,23(1), 2-9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 2047-3095. 2011. 01198.x · DOI
  33. McGee, R. W. (2023). Is ChatGPT biased against conservatives? An empirical study. SSRN Electronic Journal Https. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 43594 05 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Mohammad, S. M., & Turney, P. D. (2013). Crowdsourcing a word- emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence,29(3), 436-465. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467-8640. 2012. 00460.x · DOI
  35. O'Hallarn, B., Shapiro, S. L., Hambrick, M. E., Wittkower, D. E., Ridinger, L., & Morehead, C. A. (2018). Sport, Twitter hashtags, and the public sphere: A qualitative test of the phenomenon through a Curt Schilling case study. Journal of Sport Manage- ment, 32(4), 389-400.
  36. Rae, J. (2022). Connecting for creativity in higher education. Inno- vative Higher Education,48, 127-143. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10755-022-09609-6 · DOI
  37. Rawlusyk, P. E. (2018). Assessment in higher education and student learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 21, 1-34.
  38. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  39. Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
  40. Shaw, J., Rudzicz, F., Jamieson, T., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the implementation challenge. Journal of Medical Internet Research,21(7), e13659. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ 13659 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Shivaprasad, T. K., & Shetty, J. (2017). Sentiment analysis of product reviews: A review. 2017 International conference on inventive communication and computational technologies (ICICCT) (pp. 298-301). IEEE. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ICICCT. 2017. 79752 07 · DOI
  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1995). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Sage.
  43. Taecharungroj, V. (2023). What can ChatGPT do? Analyzing early reactions to the innovative AI chatbot on Twitter. Big Data and Cognitive Computing,7(1), 35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ bdcc7 010035 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments,10, 15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40561-023-00237x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mamo, Y., Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Nickel, C.
Affiliations
Old Dominion University (US)
Corresponding author
Mamo, Yoseph
ORCID
Venue
TechTrends
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-04-13
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
520-534
ISSN
  • 1559-7075 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-3894
DOI
10.1007/s11528-024-00954-1
OpenAlex
W4394784173
Cited by
65
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 7
FWCI
24.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • TechTrends (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, university faculty, teacher perceptions, sentiment analysis, emotions, trust, fear, artificial intelligence in education, Twitter discourse

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