Unsilencing the Student Voice: Detecting and Addressing ChatGPT-Generated Texts Presented as Student-Authored Texts at a University Writing Centre
Open accessAbstract
The convergence of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence writing tools at tertiary learning institutions has raised concerns for lecturers and academic practitioners, particularly regarding the significant impact that overreliance on these tools can have on students’ development of critical thinking and academic integrity (Lo, 2023, p. 420). The greatest concern—according to the authors of this article—seems to be the possible loss of the student voice and academic opinion. This is because of the evident increase in students who submit AI-generated texts as their own (McDade, 2023). In the African context, where the critical voice of student scholars is extolled as one of the main spearheads for decolonialisation (Charles, 2019, p. 8), this erasure of the student voice through the overreliance on AI is particularly disconcerting. Therefore, the researchers propose and discuss strategies to be used in university classrooms and writing centres to determine if a text is AI-generated and to reinvite students to formulate their own academic opinions and, therefore, reclaim their own critical academic voice. In addition, techniques to promote fundamental learning skills that can be implemented by lecturers and writing centre consultants will be explored. Approaching the topic from the perspective of university writing centre practitioners, one of the research goals is to raise awareness of the characteristics and limitations of AI-generated texts to distinguish these writings f…
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 decrease in non-journal sources is consistent with Coetzer and van Aardt (2024), who warn that students' uncritical use of ChatGPT can blur the line between scholarly and informal sources.
“This finding is consistent with Coetzer and van Aardt (2024), who warn that students' uncritical use of ChatGPT can blur the line between scholarly and informal sources.”
From Training Students to Identify and Correct Fabricated References in ChatGPT-Generated Literature Reviews (2025) · cites this paper as Coetzer and van Aardt (2024)
Cites
BAİDOO-ANU, D., & OWUSU ANSAH, L. (2023) · Journal of AI · doi:10.61969/jai.1337500 · Cited by 1,826 · see citing works
The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 · Cited by 561 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While Rasul et al. (2023, p. 10) contend that while ChatGPT can provide assistance in idea generation, which can possibly enrich students’ experience of learning, they are particularly concerned about ChatGPT’s conceivable inability to enhance skills needed by graduates, especially if students use…”
The Political Biases of ChatGPT
Rozado, D. (2023) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci12030148 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
A comprehensive survey of ChatGPT: Advancements, applications, prospects, and challenges
Nazir, A., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Meta-Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100022 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?
Chen, Y., Kirshner, S. N., Ovchinnikov, A., Andiappan, M., & Jenkin, T. (2025) · Manufacturing & Service Operations Management · doi:10.1287/msom.2023.0279 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Irwin, P., Jones, D., & Fealy, S. (2023) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105835 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pratama, H. (2025) · Conference on English Language Teaching · doi:10.24090/celti.2025.1335 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Coetzer, Z., & Aardt, P. V.
- Affiliations
- University of the Free State (ZA)
- Venue
- International Journal of Critical Diversity Studies
- Publisher
- Pluto Journals
- Published
- 2024-06-18
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2516-550X (ISSN-L)
- 2516-5518
- OpenAlex
- W4405081541
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Critical Diversity Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, AI-generated text detection, student voice, academic integrity, academic writing, critical thinking, Socratic questioning, social constructivism, critical theory, overreliance on AI, African higher education, student agency
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
