ChatGPT and university teaching, learning and assessment: some initial reflections on teaching academic integrity in the age of Large Language Models
Abstract
Since its arrival in late 2022, ChatGPT has occupied the minds of academics, administrators and students. Reactions to the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) have varied but significant anxieties about their impact on assessment have arisen. To address these concerns, this article serves three purposes; firstly, it seeks to gauge the discourse surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) focusing on ChatGPT. In doing so, it explores general and academic responses to the technology and the challenges/opportunities that have been identified. Secondly, and building on this, it provides an overview of ChatGPT in action and seeks to moderate fears raised by some of the extreme claims that have been made about the potential of this technology. Finally, the article uses a case study to discuss the introduction of this technology to a group of first-year undergraduate students, offering guidance on how the topic of LLMs might be broached. It concludes by suggesting that while the technology has the ability to offer assistance in the completion of academic assessment, it does not replace the higher thinking skills that are central to teaching, learning and assessment in higher education. In turn, arguing that these must be central to assessment practices.
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?
Banning generative AI technologies is not considered a viable solution because of the near-impossibility of avoiding their use in education, owing to their ease of use and usefulness.
“Given the near-impossibility of avoiding the use of generative AI tools in education, owing to their ease of use and usefulness (Davis, 1989), banning these technologies is not considered as a viable solution (Eke, 2023;Kirwan, 2023).”
From GenAI et al.: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Kirwan, 2023
Cites
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Bender et al. (2021) have warned of the dangers of larger and larger LLMs which include ‘ stereotyping, denigration, increases in extremist ideology ’ and other such issues as ‘ humans encounter seemingly coherent LM [sic.] output ’ (Bender et al. 2021, 619).”
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
Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. (2006) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002 · Cited by 2,751 · see citing works
Ayers, J. W., Poliak, A., Dredze, M., Leas, E. C., Zhu, Z., Kelley, J. B., Faix, D. J., Goodman, A. M., Longhurst, C. A., Hogarth, M., et al. (2023) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838 · Cited by 2,613 · see citing works
ChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842 · 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
Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing
Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.35179 · Cited by 1,540 · see citing works
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · Cited by 1,099 · see citing works
ChatGPT User Experience: Implications for Education
Zhai, X. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4312418 · Cited by 935 · see citing works
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
Acrl Framework Task Force (2014) · Cited by 830 · see citing works
Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Glover, J., Reed, D., McCarty, C., Brendemuhl, J., & Thomas, A. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100127 · Cited by 647 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Drawing on Southworth et al. (2023), they identify a number of AI literacy types students will need: enabling AI; knowing and understanding AI; using and applying AI; evaluating and creating AI; AI ethics.”
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Johnson, D., Goodman, R., Patrinely, J., Stone, C., Zimmerman, E., Donald, R., Chang, S., Berkowitz, S., Finn, A., Jahangir, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2566942/v1 · Cited by 598 · see citing works
GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models
Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.10130 · Cited by 545 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Even these authors ’ predictions of the future are quali fi ed with an understanding that ‘ social, economic, regulatory, and other determinants imply that technical feasibility does not guarantee labor [ sic ] productivity or automation outcomes ’ (Eloundou et al. 2023).”
InfluentialAI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — should professors worry?
Stokel-Walker, C. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
(2019) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/0000165-000 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
The Ethics of ChatGPT-Exploring the Ethical Issues of an Emerging Technology
Stahl, B. C., & Eke, D. (2024) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
New Modes of Learning Enabled by AI Chatbots: Three Methods and Assignments
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4300783 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
What Is ChatGPT Doing … and Why Does It Work?
Wolfram, S. (2023) · doi:10.31855/bc47ee6b-75c · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Cronan, T. P., Mullins, J. K., & Douglas, D. E. (2015) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2988-3 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Speak, Memory: An Archaeology of Books Known to ChatGPT/GPT-4
Chang, K. K., Cramer, M. H., Soni, S., & Bamman, D. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.453 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
The Oxford Companion to British History
Crowcroft, R., & Cannon, J. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acref/9780199677832.001.0001 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Algorithmic Rights and Protections for Children
(2021) · doi:10.1162/ba67f642.646d0673 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Generative AI vs. AGI: The Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses of Modern LLMsPreprint
Goertzel, B. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.10371 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Coded conduct: making MACSYMA users and the automation of mathematics
Dick, S. (2020) · BJHS Themes · doi:10.1017/bjt.2020.10 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Developing skills in higher education for post-pandemic work
Bayerlein, L., Hora, M. T., Dean, B. A., & Perkiss, S. (2021) · Labour & Industry a journal of the social and economic relations of work · doi:10.1080/10301763.2021.1966292 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
A New history of Ireland: v.5: Ireland under the union, I, 1801-70
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-6517 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Editorial: There's an AI for that: Rhetoric, reality, and reflections on EdTech in the dawn of GenAI
Concannon, F., Costello, E., Farrell, O., Farrelly, T., & Graves Wolf, L. (2023) · Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.22554/ijtel.v7i1.116 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Krsmanovic, M. (2019) · doi:10.32623/2.00004 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Community college students deriving value from a first-year seminar curriculum
Maxon, C. (2021) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bozkurt, A. (2024) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Generative <scp>AI</scp> in education and research: A systematic mapping review
Yusuf, A., Pervin, N., Román‐González, M., & Noor, N. M. (2024) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3489 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Implementing generative AI (GenAI) in higher education: A systematic review of case studies
Belkina, M., Daniel, S., Nikolic, S., Haque, R., Lyden, S., Neal, P., Grundy, S., & Hassan, G. M. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100407 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Deroncele-Acosta, Á., Sayán-Rivera, R. M. E., Mendoza-López, A. D., & Norabuena-Figueroa, E. (2025) · Applied System Innovation · doi:10.3390/asi8030083 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Xiao-hua, L. (2024) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-024-00890-x · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Yang, J., Qiu, H., & Yu, W. (2024) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2024.2429046 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Clashing AIs: Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Academic Integrity in an EFL Context
Uygun, E. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09676-2 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Commentary: ChatGPT-supported student assessment – can we rely on it?
Damaševičius, R. (2024) · Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning · doi:10.1108/jrit-09-2024-195 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Khan, W., Topham, L., Jones, N., Atherton, P., Al-Shabandar, R., Kolivand, H., Khan, I., Alatrany, A., & Hussain, A. J. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.08892 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Tammeleht, A., & Löfstrôm, E. (2025) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-025-00192-9 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Tudy, R. A., Chin, C. K., Gabales, B., & Tudy, I. (2025) · The Palawan Scientist · doi:10.69721/tps.j.2025.17.2.02 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Kılıç, E., Almasri, F., & Çelik, H. E. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100486 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Yuan, R. E., Wang, Z., Liao, W., Wu, W., & Fang, S. (2024) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2024.2360546 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Security Concerns With ChatGPT and Other AI Tools
Anju, A., Freeda, R. A., & S, K. V. V. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2284-0.ch010 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Michuy, C. M. N., Jurado, D. M. B., Moya, T. J. G., & Chela, L. M. A. (2025) · Revista Científica UISRAEL · doi:10.35290/rcui.v12n2.2025.1435 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Graduate attributes in the age of AI: suggestions for purposeful uses of ChatGPT in higher education
Comerio, G. (2026) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-11-2024-0268 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Chen, Y., & Nunes, B. P. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt64023.2025.00118 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Wahyuni, S. F., Putro, N. H. P. S., Efendi, A., & Andriyani, N. (2026) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-026-09753-0 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Etesse, M., Vidal, P. B., Gómez-Alegría, F., & Oliveira, D. V. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies on Education & Research (ICALTER) · doi:10.1109/icalter69698.2025.11355077 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The Role of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Decade of Current Status and Future Prospects
Niu, H., & Gong, X. (2024) · International Conference on Computer Science and Management Technology (ICCSMT) · doi:10.1145/3708036.3708178
The AIMED model: Creating opportunities for AI in Higher EducationPreprint
Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Neubert, C., Hauck, J., & Böhme, R. (2025) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/pzk9t_v1
Generative AI Tools in Higher Education: Benefits, Limitations, and Ethical Risks
SAIENKO, Y., Kyrychenko, V. V., Brona, O., Malii, A., & Pasichnyk, V. (2025) · International Journal on Culture History and Religion · doi:10.63931/ijchr.v7isi1.2.517 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Halder, A. N., Sultana, S., Hasan, R., & Ahmed, S. (2025) · Indian Journal of Marketing · doi:10.17010/ijom/2025/v55/i10/175611
刘, 玲. (2025) · Modern Linguistics · doi:10.12677/ml.2025.13121253 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Cui, Y., Meng, Y., Tang, L., Fang, F., Zhang, X., & Hu, G. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70273
Duda, E., Młynarczyk-Karabin, E., & Więckiewicz-Modrzewska, J. (2026) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-01-2026-0011
Exploring the potential of generative AI and teacher collaboration in evaluating academic papers
Zhong, Q., Ji, H., Liu, T., Li, F., & Wang, X. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13864-3
Hess, S., Asenjo, M. P. F., & Meroño, M. C. P. (2026) · INNOVA Research Journal · doi:10.33890/innova.v11.n3.2026.3002
A Generative AI-Integrated Framework for Teaching Operations Management: Case-Based Projects
Ebrahimi, S., & Bridgelall, R. (2026) · INFORMS Transactions on Education · doi:10.1287/ited.2026.0224
- Authors
- Kirwan, A.
- Affiliations
- National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Kirwan, Adrian
- ORCID
- Kirwan, Adrian
- Venue
- Irish Educational Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-11-24
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1389-1406
- ISSN
- 0332-3315 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-4965
- OpenAlex
- W4388967406
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 6.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Irish Educational Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, academic integrity, higher education assessment, higher education teaching and learning, first-year students, higher-order thinking skills, generative AI in education
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
