CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in Service Interactions

Chatbots and other AI for learning: A survey of use and views among university students in Sweden

Open access
Malmström, Hans, Stöhr, Christian, Ou, Wanyu·2023·Chalmers University of Technology
DOI 10.17196/cls.csclhe/2023/01
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

HIGHLIGHTS: 5,894 students from across Swedish universities were surveyed about their use of and attitudes towards AI for learning purposes, both about chatbots (such ChatGPT) and other AI language tools (such as Grammarly). 1,707 survey respondents offered individual comments, adding thoughts and reflections about the effective and ethical use of AI in higher education. Overall, most students are positive towards the use of chatbots and other AI-language tools in education; many claim that AI makes them more effective as learners. Almost all the respondents are familiar with ChatGPT (but typically not with other chatbots); more than a third use ChatGPT regularly. Students’ knowledge and usage of other AI-language tools, particularly language translation tools, is widespread. More than half of the respondents express concern about the impact of chatbots in future education; concerns about other types of AI-language tools are much less pronounced. More than sixty percent believe that the use of chatbots during examination is cheating; this is not the case for other AI-language tools. However, a majority of students is against the prohibition of AI in education settings. Most students do not know if their educational institutions have rules or guidelines regarding the responsible use of AI; one in four explicitly says that their institution lack such rules or guidelines.

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

DataCite · 10.17196/cls.csclhe/2023/01

Cites

0 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?

  • Students tended to be more positive than teachers about genAI.

    “Overall, students tended to be more positive than teachers about genAI but agreed it was wrong to submit an entirely AIgenerated text as their own (see also Malmström et al., 2023).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Malmström et al., 2023

    The 'Attitudes towards AI chatbots' and 'Attitudes towards other AI language tools' sections report positive views among students. The survey covers students, however, and provides no teacher attitudes with which to establish that students were more positive than teachers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Students and teachers agreed it was wrong to submit an entirely AI-generated text as their own.

    “Overall, students tended to be more positive than teachers about genAI but agreed it was wrong to submit an entirely AIgenerated text as their own (see also Malmström et al., 2023).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Malmström et al., 2023

    The Concluding remarks (page unavailable) say that submitting an entire chatbot-written text as one’s own is perceived as cheating. The paper surveys students, however, and does not establish that teachers agreed with them on this point. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A survey of Swedish university students revealed that most were supportive of GAI in education but concerned about its impact on education quality and cheating.

    “A survey of Swedish university students revealed that most were supportive of GAI in education but concerned about its impact on education quality and cheating.”

    From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Abstract says most surveyed students were positive about AI tools in education. The 'Attitudes towards AI chatbots' section reports that 54% were concerned about chatbots’ future impact on education and 62% considered using them to complete assignments or exams cheating. The claim extends those chatbot-specific findings to GAI generally and describes the concern as one about education quality, which the survey does not specifically establish. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A survey on attitudes toward AI tools among 5894 Swedish students in their first, second and third year across five different universities revealed a lack of clarity in institutional guidelines and the need for clear guidelines for GAI.

    “This aligns with a survey on attitudes toward AI tools among 5894 Swedish students in their first, second and third year across five different universities, which revealed a lack of clarity in institutional guidelines and the need for clear guidelines for GAI [14].”

    From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • None of the surveys or interview-based studies investigated students with disabilities' use of generative AI in a systematic way.

    “However, none of these surveys or interview-based studies investigated students with disabilities' use of generative AI in a systematic way, though Malmström, Stöhr and Ou (2023) did note that open text comments provided anecdotal evidence of the value of AI to students with learning disabilities.”

    From The use of generative AI by students with disabilities in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Malmström, Stöhr and Ou (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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023). The perception of artificial intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or panic? Education in the Knowledge Society, 24, Article e31279. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31279 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Vincent-Lancrin, S., & Van der Vlies, R. (2020). Trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) in education: Promises and challenges", OECD Education Working Papers, No. 218, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/a6c90fa9-en Welding, L. (2023). Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. BestColleges. Retrieved (2023-05-01): https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/ · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malmström, H., Stöhr, C., & Ou, W.
Affiliations
Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Chalmers University of Technology
Publisher
Chalmers University of Technology
Published
2023
DOI
10.17196/cls.csclhe/2023/01
OpenAlex
W6906268664
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2
FWCI
8.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology)
Funders
Chalmers University of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
chatbots, artificial intelligence in education, ChatGPT, university students, student attitudes, Grammarly, academic integrity, cheating, responsible AI use, AI policy in higher education, Swedish universities

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