CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Artificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Time to Revisit Existing Student’s Performance Evaluation Approach in Higher Education Sector in a New Era of ChatGPT — A Case Study

Open access
Chaudhry, Iffat Sabir, Sarwary, Sayed Ahmad M., El Refae, Ghaleb A., Chabchoub, Habib·2023·Cogent Education
DOI 10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

response based on provided input-it has become crucial for HEIs to be exposed to the implications of AI-based tools on students' learning outcomes, commonly measured using an assessment-based approach to improve program quality, teaching effectiveness, and other learning support.An empirical study has been conducted to test the ChatGPT capability of solving a variety of assignments (from different level courses of undergraduate degree programs) to compare its performance with the highest scored student(s).Further, the ChatGPT-generated assignments were tested using the best-known tools for plagiarism detection to determine whether they could pass the academic integrity tests, including Turnitin, GPTZero, and Copyleaks.The study reported the limitations of the Bot and highlighted the implications of the newly launched AI-based ChatGPT in academia, which calls for HEIs' managers and regulators to revisit their existing practices used to monitor students' learning progress and improve their educational programs.

Overview

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 · 10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Aasen, P. (2012). Accountability under ambiguity. Dilemmas and contradictions in education. In A.-L. Østern, K. Smith, T. Krüger, M.-B. Postholm, & T. Ryghaug (Eds.), Teacher education research between national identity and global trends (pp. 77–30). Academics.
  2. Altbach, P. G. (2004). The question of corruption in academe. International Higher Education, 34(March), 8–10.
  3. 10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · DOI · Paper page
  4. CAIE-Cambridge Assessment International Education. (2021). Education brief: School evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/637044-education-brief-school-evaluation.pdf
  5. 10.2139/ssrn.4405254 · DOI
  6. CERI. (2008). Assessment for Learning Formative Assessment. Paper presented in OECD/CERI International Conference titled Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf
  7. Chen Y. Chen Y. & Heffernan N. (2020). Personalized math tutoring with a conversational agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12121. · arXiv
  8. Deepa, S., & Seth, M. (2013). Do soft skills matter? – Implications for educators based on recruiters’ perspectives. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(1), 7–20.
  9. Gilson, A., Safranek, C., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2022). How well does ChatGPT do when taking the medical licensing exams? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. medRxiv, 9(Feb), e45312.
  10. Kim, S., Park, J., & Lee, H. (2019). Automated essay scoring using a deep learning model. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 1–17.
  11. Ludeman, R. (2005). Student leadership and moral accountability. Journal of College and Character, 2, Retrieved from. http://www.collegevalues.org/ethics.cfmin=460&d=1
  12. Owings, L. (2002). Cheaters never win but they keep professors on their toes. Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, 8(August), 19.
  13. 10.1108/S2044-9968 · DOI
  14. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2610655/v1 · DOI
  15. Telecom Review. (2023). UAE: Sheikh Mohammed Requests Study on ChatGPT. 10 February 2023. Retrieved from https://www.telecomreview.com/articles/reports-and-coverage/6773-uae-sheikh-mohammed-requests-study-on-chatgpt
  16. Van Dis E. Bollen J. Zuidema W. Rooij R. & Bockting C. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research Nature 3 February 2023. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00288-7
  17. Willmot, P., & Colman, B. (2016). Interpersonal skills in engineering education, AAEE2016 CONFERENCE, Coffs Harbour, Australia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H.
Affiliations
  • Al Ain University (AE)
  • Portland State University (US)
  • Al Ain University
Corresponding author
Chaudhry, Iffat Sabir
ORCID
Venue
Cogent Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-05-14
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-186X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461
OpenAlex
W4376564338
Cited by
262
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 25
FWCI
61.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cogent Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
funding
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, student assessment, higher education, plagiarism detection, academic integrity, Turnitin, GPTZero, undergraduate students, artificial intelligence in academia, learning outcomes

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