Unleashing ChatGPT's impact in higher education: Student and faculty perspectives
Open accessAbstract
As Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) gains traction, its impact on post-secondary education is increasingly being debated. This qualitative study explores the perception of students and faculty members at a research university in Canada regarding ChatGPT's use in a post-secondary setting, focusing on how it could be incorporated and what ways instructors can respond to this technology. We present the summary of a discussion that took place in a 2-hour focus group session with 40 participants from the computer science and engineering departments, and highlight issues surrounding plagiarism , assessment methods, and the appropriate use of ChatGPT. Findings suggest that students are likely to use ChatGPT, but there is a need for specific guidelines, more classroom assessments, and mandatory reporting of ChatGPT use. The study contributes to the emergent research on ChatGPT in higher education and emphasizes the importance of proactively addressing challenges and opportunities associated with ChatGPT adoption and use. The novelty of the study involves capturing the perspectives of students and faculty members. This paper aims to provide a more refined understanding of the complex interplay between AI chatbots and higher education that will help educators navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI-driven education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
AI-generated responses can include factually incorrect but compelling content, compromising assessment reliability.
“Furthermore, AI-generated responses can include factually incorrect but compelling content, com -promising assessment reliability [ 91].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [91]
Improving AI detection tools to accurately identify AI-generated content while reducing false positives and negatives is an approach to maintain academic integrity.
“One approach involves improving AI detec -tion tools to accurately identify AI-generated content while reducing false positives and negatives that may affect aca -demic integrity enforcement [ 31, 54, 57, 66, 91, 106].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [91]
Technology awareness and use of GenAI tools are negatively correlated with fear and skepticism, especially concerning academic integrity violations.
“and both were negatively correlated with fear and skepticism (Kamoun et al., 2024), especially concerning academic integrity violations (Rajabi et al., 2024; van Wyk, 2024).”
From Planets, cars, and personas: Toward an understanding of faculty perceptions of artificial intelligence through visual metaphors and projective techniques (2025) · cites this paper as Rajabi et al., 2024
There are similarities across institutions regarding limited awareness of AI and access to GenAI tools.
“Research suggests there are similarities across institutions regarding limited awareness of AI and access to GenAI tools”
From Planets, cars, and personas: Toward an understanding of faculty perceptions of artificial intelligence through visual metaphors and projective techniques (2025) · cites this paper as Rajabi et al., 2024
ChatGPT is the most known GenAI tool.
“of which ChatGPT is the most known (Mah & Groß, 2024; McGrath et al., 2023; Rajabi et al., 2024).”
From Planets, cars, and personas: Toward an understanding of faculty perceptions of artificial intelligence through visual metaphors and projective techniques (2025) · cites this paper as Rajabi et al., 2024
Cites
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 · Cited by 6,543 · see citing works
ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine
Weizenbaum, J. (1966) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/365153.365168 · Cited by 4,452 · see citing works
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463 · see citing works
What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lo, C. K. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040410 · Cited by 2,024 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
ChatGPT in higher education: considerations for academic integrity and student learning
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · Cited by 853 · see citing works
Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review
Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3 · Cited by 841 · see citing works
Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education
Qadir, J. (2023) · 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon54358.2023.10125121 · Cited by 707 · see citing works
The benefits and challenges of chatgpt: An overview
Deng, J., & Lin, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems · doi:10.54097/fcis.v2i2.4465 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ncube, P. D. N., Dzvapatsva, G. P., Matobobo, C., & Ranga, M. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00871-w · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Karakitsou, C., Karayianni, I., Leftheriotis, K., Logotheti, A., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2025) · Journal of Visual Literacy · doi:10.1080/1051144x.2025.2538256 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rajabi, P., Taghipour, P., Cukierman, D., & Doleck, T.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Rajabi, Parsa
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100090
- ISSN
- 2949-8821 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4401858982
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 7.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in education, higher education, student perceptions, teacher perceptions, plagiarism, assessment methods, AI use guidelines, AI chatbots
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
