CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 219Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Student Perceptions of ChatGPT Use in a College Essay Assignment: Implications for Learning, Grading, and Trust in Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Tossell, Chad C., Tenhundfeld, Nathan L., Momen, Ali, Cooley, Katrina, de Visser, Ewart J.·2024·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
DOI 10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examined student experiences before and after an essay writing assignment that required the use of ChatGPT within an undergraduate engineering course. Utilizing a pre-post study design, we gathered data from 24 participants to evaluate ChatGPT's support for both completing and grading an essay assignment, exploring its educational value and impact on the learning process. Our quantitative and thematic analyses uncovered that ChatGPT did not simplify the writing process. Instead, the tool transformed the student learning experience yielding mixed responses. Participants reported finding ChatGPT valuable for learning, and their comfort with its ethical and benevolent aspects increased post-use. Concerns with ChatGPT included poor accuracy and limited feedback on the confidence of its output. Students preferred instructors to use ChatGPT to help grade their assignments, with appropriate oversight. They did not trust ChatGPT to grade by itself. Student views of ChatGPT evolved from a perceived “cheating tool” to a collaborative resource that requires human oversight and calibrated trust. Implications for writing, education, and trust in AI are discussed.

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 · 10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Students' perceptions of ChatGPT in assignment, context of learning, and trustworthiness prior to completing the assignment (blue) and (red) relative to a midline (dotted line). Error bars represent +/- 1 SEM.
Fig. 1 Students' perceptions of ChatGPT in assignment, context of learning, and trustworthiness prior to completing the assignment (blue) and (red) relative to a midline (dotted line). Error bars represent +/- 1 SEM.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 Average scores on each dimension of the multidimensional trust scale. Error bars represent +/- 1 SEM.
Fig. 2 Average scores on each dimension of the multidimensional trust scale. Error bars represent +/- 1 SEM.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 Grading preferences (frequency) and mean trust ratings by agent. Error bars represent ± 1 SEM.
Fig. 3 Grading preferences (frequency) and mean trust ratings by agent. Error bars represent ± 1 SEM.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 4 Adapted from Hayes' (2012) model of writing [75]. ChatGPT as a 'Collaborator' helps 'propose' by generating ideas, 'translate' by converting concepts to text, 'evaluate' by providing feedback, and 'transcribe' by drafting content. This new process likely impacts traditional human writing schemas.
Fig. 4 Adapted from Hayes' (2012) model of writing [75]. ChatGPT as a 'Collaborator' helps 'propose' by generating ideas, 'translate' by converting concepts to text, 'evaluate' by providing feedback, and 'transcribe' by drafting content. This new process likely impacts traditional human writing schemas.CC-BY · From the PDF

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 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Heaven, 2023, ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it
  2. Teddlie, 2003, Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioural sciences, 3
  3. 10.21428/cb6ab371.755e9cb7 · DOI
  4. McGovern, 2002, Processpedagogy, 81

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 219

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J.
Affiliations
  • United States Air Force Academy (US)
  • University of Alabama in Huntsville (US)
  • Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2024
Volume
17
Pages
1069-1081
ISSN
  • 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-0050
DOI
10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015
OpenAlex
W4390921168
Cited by
218
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 48
FWCI
81.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (21USCOR004)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8650-23-C-7318)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
ChatGPT, student perceptions, AI-assisted grading, trust in AI, academic integrity, human oversight of AI, engineering education, student learning experience

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