The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opportunities, challenges, and strategies for using ChatGPT in higher education: A literature review
Open accessAbstract
While there is a growing body of research on chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) in education, there appears to be little research that provides a comprehensive review of challenges, opportunities, and strategies for the effective utilization of ChatGPT in higher education. This study aims to fill this research gap by focusing on the opportunities, challenges, and strategies for using ChatGPT in higher education. The study adopted a literature review approach and employed document analysis as a research design. It reviewed various types of documents, particularly research articles, published since 2022 when ChatGPT was launched. Based on the extensive review, the study shows that ChatGPT offers a variety of opportunities for higher education, including assessment innovation, instructional support, remote learning support, research design and development support, academic writing support, and administrative assistance and productivity. However, ChatGPT also presents a number of challenges and issues related to academic integrity, security and privacy, reliance on artificial intelligence, learning assessment, and information accuracy. The study offers a set of recommendations for the effective utilization of ChatGPT in higher education. It concludes that the application of ChatGPT in higher education presents both benefits and challenges; thus, efforts and strategies are needed to ensure the effective use of ChatGPT for academic purposes.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
Creswell, J. W. (1994) · Cited by 35,213
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · cited 5×
“This issue can affect students ’ enthusiasm to undertake research and develop their own solutions or strategies for learning success (Farrokhnia et al., 2023; Kasneci et al., 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialDwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · Cited by 4,584
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115 · cited 1×
“…of data derived from multiple internet sources, including websites, journal articles, and textbooks (Adiguzel et al., 2023; Choi et al., 2023; Kung et al., 2023), ChatGPT is capable of generating precise responses to an array of prompts and inquiries instantaneously (Qadir, 2022) and…”
BackgroundBAİDOO-ANU, D., & OWUSU ANSAH, L. (2023) · Journal of AI · doi:10.61969/jai.1337500 · Cited by 3,939
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · cited 3×
“…generate responses within seconds, research has shown that the outputs generated by it might be misleading (Day, 2023; Gordijn & Have, 2023; Hügle, 2023; Sallam, 2023; Tlili et al., 2023; Wen & Wang, 2023), which could in turn cause a destructive effect on users, particularly teachers and students.”
BackgroundMethodChatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · cited 9×
“The concerns have focused on academic honesty and plagiarism issues (Cotton et al., 2023), overdependence on AI (Crawford et al., 2023; Jarrah et al., 2023; Sok & Heng, 2023), misleading information (Karakose et al., 2023; Zhuo et al., 2023), and biased learning assessment (Rasul et al., 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialChatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · Cited by 3,004
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Kraugusteeliana, K., Indriana, I. H., Krisnanik, E., Muliawati, A., & Irmanda, H. N. (2023). Utilization of ChatGPT’s artificial intelligence in improving the quality and productivity of lecturers’ work. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Konseling [Journal of Education and Counseling], 5(2), 3245-3249.
- Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2017). Methods for literature reviews. In F. Lau, & C. Kuziemsky (Eds.), Handbook of eHealth evaluation: An evidence-based approach (pp. 157-180). University of Victoria.
- Turnitin. (2023). Turnitin announces AI writing detector and AI writing resource center for educators. Turnitin. https://www.turnitin.com/press/turnitin-announces-ai-writing-detector-and-ai-writing-resource-center-for-educators
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048 · Cited by 295
“Such approaches help students develop critical thinking skills about GenAI and its capabilities [43].”
The impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students’ writing skills
Poláková, P., & Ivenz, P. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2410101 · Cited by 246
“ChatGPT can provide effective and efficient answers saving time and effort (Sok & Heng, 2024).”
InfluentialA Systematic Review of the Limitations and Associated Opportunities of ChatGPT
Cong‐Lem, N., Soyoof, A., & Tsering, D. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2344142 · Cited by 140
“Similarly, the opportunities identified in this study resonate with the findings on opportunities in a review by Sok and Heng (2024).”
Salih, S., Husain, O., Hamdan, M., Abdelsalam, S., Elshafie, H., & Motwakel, A. (2025) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103837 · Cited by 74
Artificial intelligence-powered tools and academic writing: to use or not to use ChatGPT
Al-Sofi, B. (2024) · Saudi Journal of Language Studies · doi:10.1108/sjls-06-2024-0029 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Sok, S., & Heng, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Puthisastra (KH)
- Paññāsāstra University of Cambodia (KH)
- Corresponding author
- Sok, Sarin
- Venue
- Journal of Digital Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Modestum Ltd
- Published
- 2024-01-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- ep2401
- ISSN
- 2752-5503 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4389733229
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 25
- FWCI
- 28.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Digital Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, higher education, artificial intelligence in education, academic integrity, assessment innovation, academic writing support, AI reliance, information accuracy, privacy and security, pedagogical support, research support
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
