Student Perception of Using Generative AI Tools in Relation to Academic Integrity and Their Advantages and Disadvantages
Abstract
The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in learning contexts calls for a reassessment of the complex dynamics surrounding academic integrity. It is a “hot” topic in the academic community, given that these more generative AI tools have become available to students to complete student assignments, and universities have had to urgently adopt rules on their use for academic purposes. While some universities have completely banned the use of such programs for the purpose of writing assignments and essays because they believe that this violates academic integrity, some other universities believe that they have the potential to influence the way we learn and approach education and that generative AI tools they must use for the benefit of students and faculty staff. The aim of the study conducted at the universities of Vern and Algebra in Zagreb, in the winter semester academic year 2023/2024 was to investigate whether students use generative AI tools for writing assignments and academic papers, how they perceive academic integrity in relation to the use of generative AI tools, and the advantages and disadvantages of generative artificial intelligence tools.
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?
The integration of AI tools like ChatGPT and other generative models makes it difficult for educators to differentiate between authentic student work and AI-generated content.
“The integration of AI tools like ChatGPT and other genera -tive models has significantly impacted academic integrity, making it difficult for educators to differentiate between authentic student work and AI-generated content [ 53, 54, 57, 76-78 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [78]
Cites
ChatGPT in higher education: considerations for academic integrity and student learning
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · Cited by 853 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In addition, it was noticed that there is a lack of opinions of the students themselves on this topic [9].”
BackgroundPerkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
Wach, K., Duong, C. D., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaitė, R., Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Ziemba, E. (2023) · Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review · doi:10.15678/eber.2023.110201 · Cited by 584 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…this research, seven major shortcomings of generative AI tools were found: unregulated artificial intelligence market, misinformation and poor quality of produced content, job loss caused by automation, violation of privacy and personal data, social manipulation, erosion of ethics and stress [11].”
BackgroundRuiz-Rojas, L. I., Acosta-Vargas, P., De-Moreta-Llovet, J., & Gonzalez-Rodriguez, M. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151511524 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Plagiarism in second-language writing
Pecorari, D., & Petrić, B. (2014) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444814000056 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Cheating in the wake of COVID-19: How dangerous is ad-hoc online testing for academic integrity?
Janke, S., Rudert, S. C., Petersen, Ä., Fritz, T. M., & Daumiller, M. H. (2021) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100055 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Trust in Generative AI among Students: An exploratory study
Amoozadeh, M., Daniels, D., Nam, D., Kumar, A., Chen, S., Hilton, M., Srinivasa Ragavan, S., & Alipour, M. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3626252.3630842 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education, Part One: the Dynamic Frontier
Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2023) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-023-00863-9 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Emerging Research and Policy Themes on Academic Integrity in the Age of Chat GPT and Generative AI
Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A., & Quesada, A. (2023) · Asian Journal of University Education · doi:10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24697 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Euchner, J. (2023) · Research-Technology Management · doi:10.1080/08956308.2023.2188861 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
von Dran, G. M., Callahan, E. S., & Taylor, H. V. (2001) · Teaching Business Ethics · doi:10.1023/a:1026551002367 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ncube, P. D. N., Dzvapatsva, G. P., Matobobo, C., & Ranga, M. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00871-w · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“The integration of AI tools like ChatGPT and other genera - tive models has significantly impacted academic integrity, making it difficult for educators to differentiate between authentic student work and AI-generated content [ 53, 54, 57, 76–78 ].”
Guillen, C. A. V., Cruz, E. C. A., Espinoza, F. L. H., Pillpe, G. R., & Canales, N. H. (2026) · Revista Tribunal · doi:10.59659/revistatribunal.v6i14.313 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Frozen in Time: Croatian Policies on Academic Integrity and GenAI in Higher Education
Pavletić, P. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92534-4_10
Assessing Patrians’ Attitudes toward Using ChatGPT AI for Academic Integrity
Bersola, G., Marzan, J. R., Soto, L., Ruma, M., Reyes, H., Barcelona, J., Agustin, F. J., Mabini, R., Jetlee, M., & Navalta, A. J. (2026) · The International Review of Multidisciplinary Research · doi:10.67167/vertex.646
Moral Dilemmas of Using AI in Academia: What Do Students Think?
Drushlyak, M. G., Будянський, Д. В., Шамоня, В. Г., Бобокало, А., Skoropad, H., & Семеніхіна, О. В. (2026) · International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics · doi:10.1109/mipro70003.2026.11591977
Ahmed, A. A. M., & Benkora, S. M. A. (2026) · Comprehensive Journal of Science · doi:10.65405/by9hd182
Corral, L. A. V., Ruelas, C. S. T., Villadiego, N. C., & Valenzuela, N. L. A. (2026) · Revista Conectividad · doi:10.37431/conectividad.v7i3.504
- Authors
- Milinković, A., Vuleta, D., & Babić, I. T.
- Affiliations
- VERN' University (HR)
- Algebra Bernays University (HR)
- Venue
- 2024 47th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2024-05-20
- Pages
- 601-606
- OpenAlex
- W4400113790
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI tools, academic integrity, student perceptions, artificial intelligence in higher education, academic writing, assignment writing, advantages and disadvantages 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
