Opportunities, Challenges, Strategies, and Reforms for ChatGPT in Higher Education
Abstract
ChatGPT is a powerful large language model developed by OpenAI. It has a profound impact on higher education fields. This technology offers exciting opportunities for students and educators, including personalized feedback, increased accessibility, interactive conversations, lecture preparation, performance evaluation, and new ways to teach complex concepts. At the same time, ChatGPT poses different threats and challenges to the traditional high education system, such as the possibility of cheating on online exams, human-like text generation, diminished critical thinking skills, and difficulties in evaluating information generated by ChatGPT. This paper explores the potential opportunities and challenges that ChatGPT poses in higher education from the perspective of students and educators. In higher education, by understanding these challenges and taking steps to mitigate them, we can then ensure the language models to be used in a responsible and ethical way.
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?
Students' dependency on GenAI for academic tasks could reduce critical thinking and engagement.
“In separate studies, Lan and Chen [16] and Xie and Ding [44] both critically analyze the implications of students' dependency on GenAI for academic tasks, which they argue could reduce critical thinking and engagement.”
From Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [44]
GenAI has the potential to support academic integrity through strategic pedagogical alignments.
“However, both sets of authors see the potential for GenAI to support academic integrity through strategic pedagogical alignments.”
From Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [44]
Cites
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · 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
A Brief Overview of ChatGPT: The History, Status Quo and Potential Future Development
Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q.-L., & Tang, Y. (2023) · IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · doi:10.1109/jas.2023.123618 · Cited by 1,452 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.521610 · 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
Role of Chat GPT in public health
Biswas, S. S. (2023) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10439-023-03172-7 · Cited by 673 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Education: AIEd for Personalised Learning Pathways
Tapalova, O., & Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2022) · The Electronic Journal of e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ejel.20.5.2597 · Cited by 642 · see citing works
“What Can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing Early Reactions to the Innovative AI Chatbot on Twitter
Taecharungroj, V. (2023) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc7010035 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education
Qadir, J. (2022) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.21789434.v1 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Haque, M. U., Dharmadasa, I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse, R. N., & Ahmad, H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.05856 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda
Bittle, K., & El-Gayar, O. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16040296 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
“In separate studies, Lan and Chen [16] and Xie and Ding [44] both critically analyze the implications of students’ dependency on GenAI for academic tasks, which they argue could reduce critical thinking and engagement.”
Mohammed, C., & Sarjusingh, W. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie61694.2024.10893028 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Responsible Use of Generative AI in the Context of a Capstone Electrical Engineering Project
Mohammed, C., & Rocke, S. (2026) · 2026 IEEE Engineering Education World Conference (EDUNINE) · doi:10.1109/edunine62390.2026.11546862
- Authors
- Xie, X., & Ding, S.
- Affiliations
- Wuhan University of Science and Technology,Journal Editorial Department of Wuhan University of Science and Technology,Wuhan,China
- Wuhan University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Venue
- 2023 International Conference on Educational Knowledge and Informatization (EKI)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-09-22
- Pages
- 14-18
- OpenAlex
- W4391858119
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 4.63
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Educational Knowledge and Informatization (EKI) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, higher education, academic integrity, critical thinking, personalized feedback, accessibility in education, artificial intelligence in education, ethical use of AI
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
