Cited by 8Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarism

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Perceptions About Generative AI and ChatGPT Use by Faculty and Students

Open access
Petricini, Tiffany, Zipf, Sarah, Wu, Chuhao·2024·Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Approaches to ChatGPT by colleges and universities have varied, including updating academic integrity policies or even outright banning its use (Clercq, 2023; Mearian, 2023; Schwartz, 2023). As this new technology continues to evolve and expand, colleges and universities are grappling with the opportunities and challenges of using such tools. Little literature exists on student and faculty perceptions of AI use in higher education, particularly related to generative AI tools. The present study aims to fill this gap and offer perceptions from both students and faculty from a large research university in the mid-Atlantic. Survey participants consisted of 286 faculty and 380 students. Participants completed a questionnaire that included open-ended responses, scaled items, and finite questions. Overall, the reported use of ChatGPT technology is infrequent, though most respondents feel its use is inevitable in higher education. Faculty and students are uncertain but familiar with generative AI tools and ChatGPT. Institutions interested in developing policies around using ChatGPT on campus may benefit from building trust in generative AI, for both faculty and students. Concerns with academic integrity are prevalent and while both faculty and students agree that using ChatGPT violates institutional policy, they also agree generative AI has value in education.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.26209/td2024vol17iss21825

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Petricini, T., Zipf, S., & Wu, C.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal
Publisher
Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal
Published
2024-11-30
OpenAlex
W6889812093
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice (University of Pittsburgh)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, academic integrity, AI policy in higher education, trust in AI, artificial intelligence in education, research 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