The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education
Abstract
The launch of OpenAI ChatGPT's language-generation model has raised alarms within many sectors, especially the academic sector. Several academicians have urged universities to develop new forms of assessment after the launch of ChatGPT, which solves academic questions in less than a few minutes. Academic cheating is not a new phenomenon, and the use of AI-generated text to cheat on assignments is a new type of cheating that poses unique challenges. This study used the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) method for topic modeling and the Valence Aware Dictionary for Sentiment Reasoning (VADER) method for sentiment analysis. After data preprocessing, 3870 tweets were still available out of the originally 10,000 tweets that were extracted for the study. The VADER sentiment analysis results revealed that 2013 tweets were categorized as “positive,” with the remaining 804 and 1053 tweets categorized as “negative” and “neutral.” The analysis's findings indicate that the majority of people have favorable things to say about ChatGPT. As a result, educational institutions can mitigate the disruptive effects of this technology and promote academic integrity by developing clear policies and guidelines and designing assessments that include limited AI-generated text.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Faculty, students, and institutions all face uncertainty and anxiety surrounding the role of GenAI in teaching and learning, as it is uncertain to what extent they should embrace or restrict the use of GenAI in educational contexts [2].”
From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Fifty-four percent of the reviewed articles highlighted that the emergence of GenAI presented a significant challenge to student academic integrity (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023; Alexander et al., 2023; Chaudhry et al., 2023; Chan, 2023; Dai et al., 2023; Elsayed, 2023; Geerling et al., 2023; Kang, 2023; Nikolic et al., 2023; Ouh et al., 2023; Overono & Ditta, 2023; Perkins, 2023; Smolansky et al., 2”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023
Citations
Cites
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875 · cited 1×
“When social media was fi rst introduced, it was described as “ a series of internet-based applications that build on the theoretical and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that enable the creation and exchange of user-generated content ” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).”
InfluentialKaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004 · Cited by 3,140
Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778082 · Cited by 1,668
Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008) · Deviant Behavior · doi:10.1080/01639620701457816 · Cited by 1,497
Pavlik, J. V. (2023) · Journalism & Mass Communication Educator · doi:10.1177/10776958221149577 · Cited by 972 · cited 1×
“5 to write essays and other assignments (Pavlik, 2023; Susnjak, 2022).”
ChatGPT User Experience: Implications for Education
Zhai, X. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4312418 · Cited by 935 · cited 2×
“Using arti fi cial intelligence (AI) in education presents a number of di ffi culties in terms of student participation (Zhai, 2022).”
Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration
Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., et al. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.103174 · Cited by 835
Digital competence in higher education research: a systematic literature review
Zhao, Y., Pinto Llorente, A. M., & Sánchez Gómez, M. C. (2021) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104212 · Cited by 653
Digital competencies: A review of the literature and applications in the workplace
Oberländer, M., Beinicke, A., & Bipp, T. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103752 · Cited by 524
OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Bennett T. (2023). This program can tell if ChatGPT did your homework. Australian Financial Review. Retrieved January 14 2023 from https://www.afr.com/technology/cheaters-beware-this-program-can-tell-if-chatgpt-did-your-homework-20230110-p5cbl1
- Susnjak T. (2022). ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity? arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09292. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–519 of 519
Liu, C., Wei, L., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-14107-9
“With its language understanding and generation capabilities (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2024), GenAI can provide real-time support in various forms, including code explanations, examples, and debugging assistance (Bucaioni et al., 2024; Husain, 2024).”
Ming, W., & Li, Q. (2026) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-05-2026-0199 · Cited by 1
Integrating Generative AI in STEM Projects
Gupta, D., Abdurakhmanova, G. K., Makhmudova, A., Abraeva, S. T., Davlatova, R. H., Jumaeva, F., Antropova, T., & Falina, N. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-0383-1.ch003
Türkçe Öğretiminde Üretken Yapay Zekâ: Öğretim Elemanlarının Algı, Fırsat ve Risk Değerlendirmeleri
Türker, M. S., GÜLEÇ, E., Yavaşlar, E., & Altıntaş, N. (2026) · Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.31464/jlere.1893084
Moreno, J. E. L., & Rojas, L. C. Q. (2026) · TRASCENDERE · doi:10.56219/trascendere.v2i8.6329
Fang, L., Li, Z., Xiong, B., & Lu, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1832451
“Regarding competence, GenAI may be able to diagnose learning status and adjust task difficulty dynamically (Adeshola and Adepoju, 2024), potentially aligning tasks more closely with learners’ zones of proximal development and reducing frustration associated with overly challenging content.”
Karampelas, K. (2026) · Journal of ExoTechnology and Education · doi:10.36615/q7ez7g71
“…may also be related to the fact that participants evaluated lesson plans that they had generated through direct interaction with a GenAI tool, allowing them to experience both the strengths and limitations of AI-supported instructional planning (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2024; Baek et al., 2024).”
InfluentialLearning with RAG-Enhanced Language Models: A Mixed-Methods Study
Miladi, F., Psyché, V., Diattara, A., Mawas, N. E., & Lemire, D. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-39106-3_12
Ari, Ö., Sahin, B., Erdal, O., & GÜVEN, S. (2026) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2026.2737149
Navigating academic integrity in the Era of generative AI: a systematic literature review
Hendal, B. A., & Chowdhury, G. G. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01431-6 · Cited by 1
“Biased training datasets [73] may produce skewed outputs [93], offensive information [99 ], including racist content, racial biases in facial recognition [31 ], underrepresentation of minority groups [64], and the flagging of religious terms used by LGBTI communities [99].”
InfluentialCan Students Provide Higher-Quality Feedback than Generative Artificial Intelligence?
Song, M. H., Park, J., Kwon, S., Lee, T., Lim, J., & Park, J. (2026) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-026-10038-z
The impact of artificial intelligence on students’ metacognition: a systematic review
Ji, C., & Tan, Q. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1947198
Gupta, J., Misra, P., & Sharma, V. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-02-2026-0266
ASLAN, S. A., Ayaz, A., Özyurt, Ö., & Aslan, A. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261492792
How Generative AI Tools have been Adopted in University Teaching: A Two-Wave Survey
Salmento, H., Laato, S., & Björne, J. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt68022.2026.00034
“…to tackle certain tasks, the changes that these tools have brought to higher education are already significant due to the degree they automate processes that previously took a lot of time [7], and the capabilities they now offer people without existing domain expertise on certain tasks [8], [9].”
Wang, K., Zhou, C., Leng, Y., Li, J., Xu, H., Wang, X., & Guo, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1929777
Chen, H., Wang, G., Peng, Z., Song, W., & Xu, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1921828
“…(GenAI) technology, artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and intelligent tutoring system have been deeply integrated into the whole process of higher education and teaching, which has pushed blended learning into a new intelligent stage (Adeshola and Adepoju, 2024; Chen A. et al., 2026).”
Who embraces, who uses, who questions? the global reception of ChatGPT across six continents
Awais, M. (2026) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103541
Shaping Tomorrow’s Classrooms: Future Teachers’ Readiness for e-Education in the Age of AI Chatbots
Apeanti, W. O. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-34132-7_6
Metadata
- Authors
- Adeshola, I., & Adepoju, A. P.
- Affiliations
- Final International University (CY)
- Cyprus International University (CY)
- Corresponding author
- Adeshola, Ibrahim
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-09-04
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 6159-6172
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W4386421370
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 119 · 2025: 203 · 2024: 188 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 121.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in education, academic dishonesty, AI-generated text, academic integrity, assessment design
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
