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
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
A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z · Cited by 493
“In order to prepare teachers for increasingly automated future classrooms, it is essential that they have a strong understanding of AI and digital competency, which goes beyond simple technical knowledge to include the use of AI and digital tools (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023).”
Lee, H.-Y., Chen, P.-H., Wang, W.-S., Huang, Y.-M., & Wu, T.-T. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00447-4 · Cited by 273
“However, the unparalleled potential of ChatGPT in education is not without challenges (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT in the higher education: A systematic literature review and research challenges
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102411 · Cited by 208
Akpan, I. J., Kobara, Y. M., Owolabi, J., Akpan, A. A., & Offodile, O. F. (2024) · International Transactions in Operational Research · doi:10.1111/itor.13522 · Cited by 187
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
