CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Artificial Intelligence in EducationDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Using leadership to leverage ChatGPT and artificial intelligence for undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision

Open access
Cowling, Michael, Crawford, Joseph, Allen, Kelly-Ann, Wehmeyer, Michael·2023·Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
DOI 10.14742/ajet.8598
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) have hit higher education by storm. Much of the research focuses on how this – and similar – tools can be leveraged for effective education of undergraduate coursework students. In this study, we explore the emerging benefits and limitations of ChatGPT and LLMs in the context of undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision. What we found was that psychological need fulfilment, research student autonomy and relatedness were key outcomes that could be cultivated at the student level. At a unit or subject level, the opportunity for formative feedback was seen as a strength. We also discuss some key limitations to the tool, including how limited its ability to deconstruct social injustice and generate content appropriate to context. We used an example of leadership research to highlight that it may preference good outcomes and likewise present information related to current and normative practices rather than desired future practices. We conclude by considering the broad implications of this work on research supervision relationships. Implications for practice or policy: ChatGPT has the ability to enhance research higher degree research practices. AI and LLMs may support student psychological need fulfilment, autonomy, competence and relatedness. ChatGPT could provide preliminary formative feedback support for research and doctoral students prior to submitting drafts to supervisory teams. Policy safeguards are needed to ensure research responses to lack of context, data bias, equity concerns and lack of an ethical framework.

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 · 10.14742/ajet.8598

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • The development of critical thinking is gaining traction as a complementary skill to help students evaluate AI outputs and question their applicability.

    “the development of critical thinking is gaining traction as a complementary skill, helping students to evaluate AI outputs and question their applicability (Cao et al., 2025; Cowling et al., 2023; Fitzek & B â rg ă oanu, 2025; Malik et al., 2023).”

    From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Cowling et al., 2023

    The ‘ChatGPT has bias and equity issues’ section says students may struggle to assess data validity and reliability and warns against relying on AI without critical review. ‘Research student competence’ recommends training students to evaluate evidence and integrate ChatGPT feedback. These passages support the value of critical evaluation, but do not establish that developing critical thinking is gaining traction or specifically discuss questioning whether AI outputs are applicable. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The diarised case further supports Cowling et al.'s (2023) assertions on improved student autonomy.

    “For the diarised case, the extensive use of GenAI helped to develop generalised reflexive knowledge about the landscape of research and further supports Cowling et al.'s (2023) assertions on improved student autonomy.”

    From Generative AI: reconfiguring supervision and doctoral research (2025) · cites this paper as Cowling et al.'s (2023)

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: 47

  1. Abowd, G. D., Dey, A. K., Brown, P. J., Davies, N., Smith, M., & Steggles, P. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In H.-W. Gellersen (Ed.), Lecture notes in compuer science: Vol. 1707. Handheld and ubiquitous computing (pp. 304-307). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-48157-5_29 · DOI
  2. Adams, N., Little, T.D., & Ryan, R.M. (2017). Self-determination theory. In M. L. Wehmeyer, K. A. Shogren, T. D. Little, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Development of self-determination through the life-course (pp. 47-34). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-024-1042-6_4 · DOI
  3. Allen, K. A. (2019).What is the actual impact of measuring academic notions of impact? The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 36(2), 33-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2019. · DOI
  4. Allen, K. A., Butler-Henderson, K., Reupert, A., Longmuir, F., Finefter-Rosenbluh, I., Berger, E., Grove, C., Heffernan, A., Freeman, N., Kewalramani, S., Krebs, S., Dsouza, L., Mackie, G., Chapman, D., & Fleer, M. (2021). Work like a girl: Redressing gender inequity in academia through systemic solutions. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.3.3 · DOI
  5. Allen, K. A., Donoghue, G. M., Pahlevansharif, S., Jimerson, S. R., & Hattie, J. A. C. (2020). Addressing academic rejection: Recommendations for reform. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(5), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.5.19 · DOI
  6. Beasy, K., Crawford, J., Young, S., & Kelder, J. (2022). A quantitative study on Australian doctoral students' perceptions of employability preparedness: How gender and age matter. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(8), 1092-1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2050687 · DOI
  7. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. H., Tu, Y. F., & Yang, K. H. (2022). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7526 · DOI
  8. Crawford, J., Cowling, M., Ashton-Hay, S., Kelder, J. A., Middleton, R., & Wilson, G. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and authorship editor policy: ChatGPT, Bard Bing AI, and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(5). https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol20/iss5/1/
  9. Denis, C., Colet, N. R., & Lison, C. (2019). Doctoral supervision in North America: Perception and challenges of supervisor and supervisee. Higher Education Studies, 9(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n1p30 · DOI
  10. Evans, T., Macauley, P., Pearson, M., & Tregenza, K. (2003). A decadic review of PhDs in Australia. In Educational research, risks and dilemmas-Proceedings of the NZARE/AARE Joint Conference (pp. 1- 16). Australian Association for Research in Education. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2003/eva03090.pdf
  11. Geary, E., Allen, K. A., Gamble, N., & Pahlevansharif, S. (2023). Online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does social connectedness and learning community predict self-determined needs and course satisfaction? Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(1). https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol20/iss1/13
  12. Hughes, R. T., Zhu, L., & Bednarz, T. (2021). Generative adversarial networks-enabled human-artificial intelligence collaborative applications for creative and design industries: A systematic review of current approaches and trends. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 604234. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.604234 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Igumbor, J. O., Bosire, E. N., Karimi, F., Katahoire, A., Allison, J., Muula, A. S., Peixoto, A., Otwombe, K., Gitau, E., Bondjers, G., Fonn, S., & Ajuwon, A. (2022). Effective supervision of doctoral students in public and population health in Africa: CARTA supervisors' experiences, challenges and perceived opportunities. Global Public Health, 17(4), 496-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1864752 · DOI
  14. Janssen, V. (2012). Indirect tracking of drop bears using GNSS technology. Australian Geographer, 43(4), 445-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2012.731307 · DOI
  15. Jeyaraj, J. J., Wald, N., & Harland, T. (2021). Higher education teachers' experiences of becoming research active: Striving for university status in the Global South. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22, 417-425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09688-8 · DOI
  16. Jiang, S., & Yan, X. (2020). Research on the effect of supervisor feedback for undergraduate thesis writing. English Language Teaching, 13(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt. · DOI
  17. v13n1p43 · DOI
  18. Kaur, A., Kumar, V., & Noman, M. (2022). Partnering with doctoral students in research supervision: Opportunities and challenges. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 789-803. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1871326 · DOI
  19. Kenny, J., & Fluck, A. E. (2022). Emerging principles for the allocation of academic work in universities. Higher Education, 83(6), 1371-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00747-y · DOI
  20. Khosa, A., Wilkin, C., & Burch, S. (2023). PhD students' relatedness, motivation, and well-being with multiple supervisors. Accounting Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2023.2179889 · DOI
  21. Kumar, N. N., Summerell, E., Spehar, B., & Cranney, J. (2021). Experiences of honours research students and supervisors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A pilot study framed by self-determination theory. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 758960. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.758960 · DOI
  22. Kung, T.H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., & Tseng, V. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health, 2(2), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Lee, Y., Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., Williams-Diehm, K., Davies, D., & Stock, S. (2011). The effect of student-directed transition planning using a computer-based reading support program on the self- determination of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 45(2), 104-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909358916 · DOI
  24. Levesque-Bristol, C. (2023). Fostering students' learning experiences in higher education -Reflections from student-centered pedagogy and course transformation. In L. Waller & S. Waller (Eds.), Higher education -Reflections from the field. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110327 · DOI
  25. Lodge, J. M., Thompson, K., & Corrin, L. (2023). Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8695 · DOI · Paper page
  26. In J. Knight (Ed.), Global perspectives on higher education (pp. 47-64). Brill Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087908164_005 · DOI
  27. McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590979 · DOI
  28. Meer, N. M., & Chapman, A. (2014). Assessment for confidence: Exploring the impact that low-stakes assessment design has on student retention. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(2), 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.01.003 · DOI
  29. Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Harvard University Press.
  30. Narayan, A. K., Northcott, D., & Parker, L. D. (2017) Managing the accountability-autonomy tensions in university research commercialisation. Financial Accountability and Management, 33(4), 335-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12127 · DOI
  31. Nasiri, F., & Mafakheri, F. (2015). Postgraduate research supervision at a distance: A review of challenges and strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10), 1962-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914906 · DOI
  32. Newstead, T., Eager, B. & Wilson, S. (2023). How AI can perpetuate -or help mitigate -gender bias in leadership. Organizational Dynamics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2023.100998 · DOI
  33. O'Dea, X., & O'Dea, M. (2023). Is artificial intelligence really the next big thing in learning and teaching in higher education? A conceptual paper. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.05 · DOI
  34. Popenici, S. (2023). The critique of AI as a foundation for judicious use in higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.4 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.01.003 · DOI
  36. Reddy, K. S., Xie, E., & Tang, Q. (2016). Higher education, high-impact research, and world university rankings: A case of India and comparison with China. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.004 · DOI
  37. Ryan, R. M. (2023). The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801976000047.001.0001 · DOI
  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Sambell, K., & Hubbard, A. (2004). The role of formative 'low-stakes' assessment in supporting non- traditional students' retention and progression in higher education: Student perspectives. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 6(2), 25-36. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/openu/jwpll/2004/00000006/00000002/art00004
  40. Sawatsky, A. P., O'Brien, B. C., & Hafferty, F. W. (2022). Autonomy and developing physicians: Reimagining supervision using self-determination theory. Medical Education, 56(1), 56-63. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/medu.14580 · DOI
  41. Shaw, J. (2009). The diversity paradox: Does student diversity enhance or challenge excellence?. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(4), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770903266018 · DOI
  42. Spinrad, M. L., Relles, S. R., & Watson, D. L. (2022). Not in the greater good: Academic capitalism and faculty labor in higher education. Education Sciences, 12(12), Article 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120912 · DOI
  43. Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947), 214-216. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Tice, D., Baumeister, R., Crawford, J., Allen, K. A., & Percy, A. (2021). Student belongingness in higher education: Lessons for Professors from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(4), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.4.2 · DOI
  45. Wisker, G., McGinn, M. K., Bengtsen, S. S., Lokhtina, I., He, F., Cornér, S., Leshem, S., Inouye, K., & Löfström, E. (2021). Remote doctoral supervision experiences: Challenges and affordances. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 612-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991427 · DOI
  46. Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: Communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors, and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701486720 · DOI
  47. Yang, H., & Kyun, S. (2022). The current research trend of artificial intelligence in language learning: A systematic empirical literature review from an activity theory perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 180-210. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7492 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cowling, M., Crawford, J., Allen, K.-A., & Wehmeyer, M.
Affiliations
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Kansas (US)
ORCID
Venue
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education
Published
2023-11-23
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
89-103
ISSN
  • 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-5554
DOI
10.14742/ajet.8598
OpenAlex
W4388935810
Cited by
55
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 1
FWCI
12.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, research supervision, doctoral supervision, undergraduate research supervision, student independence, relatedness, formative feedback, AI ethics in higher education, data bias, AI equity

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