Early Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Using Generative AI in Higher Education
Abstract
This project explored perceptions of ChatGPT in higher education among students and faculty to assess teaching and learning implications of this Generative Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI)–based novel tool. Two theoretical frameworks inspired the project, including Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 1962) and Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). An online survey was completed by 380 participants ( N = 380). Participants indicated that they would not use ChatGPT to plagiarize but believed others would. When asked to rate the accuracy of ChatGPT's output, more than half took the incorrect output as correct/somewhat correct or could not tell whether it was correct or incorrect. Results varied based on participant demographics, including age, gender, and occupation. These findings support the need for data literacy. If Generative AI is to be used in higher education to aid in the learning process, it is imperative to continue teaching critical thinking.
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?
Ethical concerns, particularly regarding plagiarism and academic integrity, were prevalent across several studies.
“Ethical concerns, particularly regarding plagiarism and academic integrity, were prevalent across several studies (Damiano et al. 2024;Das and Madhusudan 2024;Nam 2023;Rogers et al. 2024;Yan 2023).”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Damiano et al. 2024
Students recognized the potential for overreliance on ChatGPT, which could hinder the development of critical thinking, creativity, and independent learning skills.
“Students also recognized the potential for overreliance on ChatGPT, which could hinder the development of critical thinking, creativity, and independent learning skills (Chan and Hu 2023;Damiano et al. 2024;Farhi et al. 2023;Mahapatra 2024;Zhao et al. 2024).”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Damiano et al. 2024
The workshop's emphasis on ethical considerations aligned with the growing recognition of the importance of fostering a critical understanding of AI's capabilities and limitations.
“The workshop's emphasis on ethical considerations aligned with the growing recognition of the importance of fostering a critical understanding of AI's capabilities and limitations (Damiano et al. 2024;Das and Madhusudan 2024;Nam 2023;Rogers et al. 2024;Yan 2023).”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Damiano et al. 2024
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 · see citing works
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · Cited by 3,004 · see citing works
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 · Cited by 1,261 · see citing works
Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT
Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13152 · Cited by 975 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This supports previous research by Adiguzel et al. (2023) who found that there is great potential for personalized learning, language instruction, and feedback applications in education by using Generative AI technology such as ChatGPT.”
MethodChallenges and Opportunities of Generative AI for Higher Education as Explained by ChatGPT
Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13090856 · Cited by 877 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There have been a number of articles, both scholarly and nonacademic, that have addressed the potential for plagiarism using ChatGPT (Keegin, 2023; Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023).”
BackgroundAlexa, what do we know about conversational commerce? Insights from a systematic literature review.
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Verma, S., & Chaturvedi, R. (2022) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21654 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Educator and Student Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI on Assessments in Higher Education
Smolansky, A., Cram, A., Raduescu, C., Zeivots, S., Huber, E., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2023) · Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale · doi:10.1145/3573051.3596191 · Cited by 275 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This supports previous literature, which addresses the concerns students have about Generative AI (Smolansky et al., 2023).”
Result
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ChatGPT in Academia: University Students’ Attitudes Towards the use of ChatGPT and Plagiarism
Fajt, B., & Schiller, E. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09603-5 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study
Archambault, S. G., Murph, N. L., & Ramachandran, S. (2025) · Library Trends · doi:10.1353/lib.2025.a968491 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Damiano, A. D., Lauría, E. J. M., Sarmiento, C., & Zhao, N.
- Affiliations
- Marist University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Damiano, Amanda D.
- Lauría, Eitel J.M.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Technology Systems
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-02-20
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 346-375
- ISSN
- 0047-2395 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-3810
- OpenAlex
- W4391986699
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 15.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Technology Systems (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, higher education, student perceptions, teacher perceptions, diffusion of innovations, technology acceptance model, academic integrity, plagiarism, data literacy, critical thinking
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
