Cited by 72Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Students' reflections on their experience with ChatGPT

Open access
Šedlbauer, Josef, Činčera, Jan, Slavík, Martin, Hartlová, Adéla·2024·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Background: The emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence has brought a number of ethical and practical issues to higher education. Solid experimental evidence is yet inadequate to set the functional rules for the new technology. Objectives: The objective of this study is to analyse the experience of undergraduate students’ interaction with ChatGPT and contribute to identifying the problems arising from the widespread use of artificial intelligence. Methods: Junior university students ( N = 25) were assigned the task of working on their seminar essays with the aid of ChatGPT. Most students were novices with this tool (the study was conducted in the spring of 2023). Their essays were analysed qualitatively, according to the principles of the general inductive approach. Results and Conclusions: The initial attitudes towards artificial intelligence were almost equally distributed from enthusiastic to indifferent and cautious, with one student refusing to interact with the chatbot on ideological grounds. After the first experience, most of the students declared themselves adopters of the new technology. We have found some evidence for enhancing critical thinking competence when using ChatGPT, as well as examples of unquestioned reliance on its outputs. The tendency to personification of the chatbot was apparent in the students' essays. Implications: The findings show how easily the students embrace artificial intelligence and suggest a failure of any attempts for its strict regulation. This, on the other hand, underlines the need for emphasis on personal and research‐oriented approaches in teaching and learning.

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 · 10.1111/jcal.12967

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Novice users face significant hurdles in prompt engineering.

    “Novice users also face significant hurdles in prompt engineering [24, 26].”

    From Scaffolding Creativity: Integrating Generative AI Tools and Real-World Experiences in Business Education (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    Section 3.1 reports that most students had not used generative AI before and that some struggled to formulate useful prompts. But the Discussion (§4) describes adoption as swift and relatively easy, with only some students encountering this problem. The claim overstates both how widespread and how significant the hurdle was. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ChatGPT's efficiency and speed, productivity-boosting capabilities, and 24/7 availability were seen as significant advantages.

    “Chat-GPT's efficiency and speed, productivity-boosting capabilities, and 24/7 availability were also seen as significant advantages (Rogers et al. 2024;Šedlbauer et al. 2024;Zhao et al. 2024).”

    From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Šedlbauer et al. 2024

    The Conclusions report that students found ChatGPT fast and more efficient than a web search. The paper also reports perceived productivity benefits from another study, but our copy does not show that its own students identified productivity gains or 24/7 availability as advantages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bianchi, G., Pisiotis, U., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2022). GreenComp the European sustainability competence framework. In Y. Punie & M. Baci- galupo (Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi. org/10.2760/821058 · DOI
  2. ac413b · DOI
  3. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for quantitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Šedlbauer, J., Činčera, J., Slavík, M., & Hartlová, A.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Liberec (CZ)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
Corresponding author
Šedlbauer, Josef
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-03-11
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
1526-1534
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W4392714381
Cited by
71
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 9
FWCI
26.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Veřejné služby Informačního systému (Masarykiana Brunensis Universitas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, undergraduate students, student attitudes toward AI, critical thinking, technology adoption

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