The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic Analysis and Follow-Up Survey
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT has sparked both excitement and skepticism in education. To analyze its impact on teaching and learning it is crucial to understand how students perceive ChatGPT and assess its potential and challenges. Toward this, we conducted a two-stage study with senior students in a computer engineering program ( $n=56$ ). In the first stage, we asked the students to evaluate ChatGPT using their own words after they used it to complete one learning activity. The returned responses (3136 words) were analyzed by coding and theme building (36 codes and 15 themes). In the second stage, we used the derived codes and themes to create a 27-item questionnaire. The students responded to this questionnaire three weeks later after completing other activities with the help of ChatGPT. The results show that the students admire the capabilities of ChatGPT and find it interesting, motivating, and helpful for study and work. They find it easy to use and appreciate its human-like interface that provides well-structured responses and good explanations. However, many students feel that ChatGPT’s answers are not always accurate and most of them believe that it requires good background knowledge to work with since it does not replace human intelligence. So, most students think that ChatGPT needs to be improved but are optimistic that this will happen soon. When it comes to the negative impact of ChatGPT on learning, academic integrity, jobs, and life, the students are divided. We conclude that ChatGPT can and should be used for learning. However, students should be aware of its limitations. Educators should try using ChatGPT and guide students on effective prompting techniques and how to assess generated responses. The developers should improve their models to enhance the accuracy of given answers. The study provides insights into the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT in education and informs future research and development.
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
“Similarly, Shoufan [27,28] underscores both the benefits and risks of using ChatGPT in educational contexts, particularly its ability to provide accurate answers that could be exploited in exams.”
From Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“While Shoufan (2023) found that only 6% of their participants viewed AI systems as a major threat to learning or academic integrity, our findings differed significantly.”
From A Survey on Student Use of Generative AI Chatbots for Academic Research (2024) · cites this paper as Shoufan (2023)
In the citing paper
“This supports Shoufan's (2023) finding that students recognize the possibility of inaccuracies in generative AI outputs and believe a review of the output is needed.”
From A Survey on Student Use of Generative AI Chatbots for Academic Research (2024) · cites this paper as Shoufan (2023)
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · cited 1×
“The perceived usefulness and ease of use are determinants for the behavioral intention to use technology according to the technology acceptance model (TAM) [34].”
MethodUser Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035 · cited 1×
“More research is needed to understand these and other factors using modern models such as the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [37].”
MethodChatGPT 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) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
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 · cited 4×
“…fairness, excessive reliance on ChatGPT by students and teachers, lack of expertise in integrating this technology in teaching, the difficulty of distinguishing model-generated from student-generated answers, cost of training and maintenance, data privacy and security, and sustainable usage [23].”
BackgroundInfluentialLiu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560815 · Cited by 4,361 · cited 1×
“Prompt engineering is an emerging topic in large language models that provides an understanding of how prompting affects the performance of these models [32], [33].”
BackgroundLiu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.13586 · Cited by 4,352 · cited 1×
“Prompt engineering is an emerging topic in large language models that provides an understanding of how prompting affects the performance of these models [32], [33].”
BackgroundKung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115 · cited 2×
“The authors suggested that ChatGPT could be used in medical education and potentially support clinical decision-making [27].”
BackgroundMethodGilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/45312 · Cited by 2,078
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 · cited 3×
“Therefore, its inconsistent factual precision has been acknowledged as a notable drawback according to [24].”
BackgroundInfluentialChatbots: History, technology, and applications
Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2020.100006 · Cited by 1,090
Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review
Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033 · Cited by 879 · cited 1×
“Chatbots have long found their way to formal and informal education [4], [5].”
BackgroundInteracting 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 · cited 1×
“Moreover, some researchers high-light the lack of sufficient datasets as a common challenge in educational chatbots leading to learning difficulties and frustration [16].”
BackgroundA Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT
White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., & Schmidt, D. C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.11382 · Cited by 838 · cited 1×
“Prompt engineering is an emerging topic in large language models that provides an understanding of how prompting affects the performance of these models [32], [33].”
BackgroundChatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger
Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103862 · Cited by 770 · cited 1×
“Educational chatbots, however, face various limitations and challenges [14], [15].”
BackgroundChen, Y., Jensen, S., Albert, L. J., Gupta, S., & Lee, T. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10291-4 · Cited by 685 · cited 2×
“These include difficulties in dealing with misspellings, understanding colloquial language, processing student inputs, and mimicking natural conversation flow, resulting in a transactional experience devoid of human emotion [9].”
BackgroundSituational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research
Schraw, G. J., & Lehman, S. (2001) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1009004801455 · Cited by 673
Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review
Pérez, J. Q., Daradoumis, T., & Puig, J. M. M. (2020) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.22326 · Cited by 483 · cited 2×
“The authors also highlighted the challenge of comparing results across studies due to the lack of a standard construction protocol for chatbots [17].”
BackgroundEssel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · Cited by 428 · cited 1×
“They have been used to support learning [6], [7], increase students’ engagement [8], [9], assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative functions [12], [13].”
BackgroundA taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation
Oppenlaender, J. (2023) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2286532 · Cited by 385 · cited 1×
“Prompt engineering is an emerging field that addresses such questions not only for training large language models but also for using these models [38].”
BackgroundInterest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K., & Krapp, A. (2004) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410610515-11 · Cited by 380 · cited 1×
“laboration, problem-solving, and joy of learning [35].”
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370 · cited 3×
“In a preprint, [25] assessed ChatGPT’s ability to generate human-like responses to non-trivial university-level questions in various disciplines.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA Survey on Conversational Agents/Chatbots Classification and Design Techniques
Hussain, S., Ameri Sianaki, O., & Ababneh, N. (2019) · Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15035-8_93 · Cited by 279 · cited 1×
“Early chat-bots relied on simpler pattern matching and string processing, but more advanced ones now use complex knowledge-based models [3].”
MethodAl-Sharafi, M. A., Al‐Emran, M., Iranmanesh, M., Al-Qaysi, N., Iahad, N. A., & Arpacı, İ. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2075014 · Cited by 276 · cited 2×
“To ensure sustainable use, service providers should prioritize the design of chatbots with features that provide reliable information and the ability to learn and browse in ‘‘anytime and anywhere’’ settings [18].”
BackgroundMuenks, K., Canning, E. A., LaCosse, J., Green, D. J., Zirkel, S., Garcia, J. A., & Murphy, M. (2020) · Journal of experimental psychology. General · doi:10.1037/xge0000763 · Cited by 212 · cited 1×
“Students’ perceptions are highly relevant for education as they can have a significant impact on their motivation, engagement, and academic achievement [28].”
BackgroundAutomated Essay Writing: An AIED Opinion
Sharples, M. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-022-00300-7 · Cited by 198 · cited 1×
“Therefore, some recommend involving students and instructors with such tools to facilitate teaching and learning, rather than prohibition [22].”
BackgroundA Tool for Introducing Computer Science with Automatic Formative Assessment
Benotti, L., Martinez, M. C., & Schapachnik, F. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2017.2682084 · Cited by 141 · cited 1×
“They have been used to support learning [6], [7], increase students’ engagement [8], [9], assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative functions [12], [13].”
BackgroundOpportunities and Challenges in Using AI Chatbots in Higher Education
Yang, S.-S., & Evans, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and E-Learning · doi:10.1145/3371647.3371659 · Cited by 131 · cited 1×
“Educational chatbots, however, face various limitations and challenges [14], [15].”
BackgroundSáiz-Manzanares, M. C., Marticorena-Sánchez, R., Martín-Antón, L. J., González Díez, I., & Almeida, L. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12843 · Cited by 96 · cited 1×
“They have been used to support learning [6], [7], increase students’ engagement [8], [9], assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative functions [12], [13].”
BackgroundNEU-chatbot: Chatbot for admission of National Economics University
Nguyen, T. T., Le, A. D., Hoang, H. T., & Nguyen, T. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100036 · Cited by 80 · cited 1×
“They have been used to support learning [6], [7], increase students’ engagement [8], [9], assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative functions [12], [13].”
BackgroundA Machine Learning Grading System Using Chatbots
Ndukwe, I. G., Daniel, B. K., & Amadi, C. E. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_67 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative”
BackgroundRelationships between students’ course perceptions, engagement, and learning
Jones, B. D., & Carter, D. (2019) · Social Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s11218-019-09500-x · Cited by 63 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, when students have negative perceptions of their learning experience, they may become disengaged, less motivated, and less likely to achieve academic success [29].”
BackgroundRole design considerations of conversational agents to facilitate discussion and systems thinking
Nguyen, H. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104661 · Cited by 62 · cited 1×
“They have been used to support learning [6], [7], increase students’ engagement [8], [9], assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative functions [12], [13].”
BackgroundLee, K., Jo, J., Kim, J., & Kang, Y. (2019) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23522-2_45 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“They have been used to support learning [6], [7], increase students’ engagement [8], [9], assess students [10], [11], and perform various administrative functions [12], [13].”
BackgroundChatbots as Cognitive, Educational, Advisory & Coaching Systems
Karyotaki, M., Drigas, A. S., & Skianis, C. A. (2022) · Technium Social Sciences Journal · doi:10.47577/tssj.v30i1.6277 · Cited by 36 · cited 1×
“Chatbots have long found their way to formal and informal education [4], [5].”
BackgroundActive Distance Learning of Embedded Systems
Shoufan, A. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3065248 · Cited by 33 · cited 1×
“A lecture-free method is used for teaching the course, where the students receive an Ardunio-based kit and complete learning activities using Moodle in the classroom or at home [30].”
MethodSelf-citationAn approach to the classification of educational chatbots
Urquiza-Yllescas, J. F., Mendoza, S., Rodríguez, J., & Sánchez-Adame, L. M. (2022) · Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.3233/jifs-213275 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“A chatbot is a computer program that simulates a conversation with users through natural language or text, giving the illusion of communicating with a human [1], [2].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 2023, Taguette the Free and Open-Source Qualitative Data Analysis Tool
- owens, 2023, How Nature Readers are Using ChatGPT—Nature com
- van dis, 2023, ChatGPT Five Priorities for Research—Nature com
- mcmurtrie, 2023, Teaching Experts are Worried About ChatGPT But Not for the Reasons you Think—chronicle com
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review
Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1 · Cited by 1,043
“A few existing research studies addressing the student’s perspective of using ChatGPT in the learning process indicate that students have a positive view of ChatGPT, appreciate its capabilities, and find it helpful for their studies and work (Kasneci et al., 2023; Shoufan, 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialBahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784
ChatGPT and Open-AI Models: A Preliminary Review
Roumeliotis, K. I., & Tselikas, N. D. (2023) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi15060192 · Cited by 877
“Education/Teaching Educators should guide students on effective questioning techniques and the validation of responses while developers improve the accuracy of ChatGPT [50].”
BackgroundMethodThe Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100 · Cited by 392
Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student's Perspective
Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research Open · doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296 · Cited by 418
Metadata
- Authors
- Shoufan, A.
- Affiliations
- Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE)
- Corresponding author
- Shoufan, Abdulhadi
- ORCID
- Shoufan, Abdulhadi
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 38805-38818
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4366377796
- Semantic Scholar
- 587b50d31e99f37489e1a2b338d8ddb07026da0b
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 91 · 2025: 138 · 2024: 211 · 2023: 59
- FWCI
- 117.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Mohammed Bin Rashid Smart Learning Program, Ministry of Education, United Arab Emirates
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, student perceptions, large language models in education, computer engineering students, academic integrity, prompting techniques, response accuracy
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
