CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose

Open access
Imran, Atika A., Lashari, Ajab Ali·2023·Global Social Sciences Review
DOI 10.31703/gssr.2023(viii-i).34
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The study aims to explore the impact of ChatGPT on the writing skills of undergraduate students. This is a qualitative study in which 24 randomly selected students from two private sector universities in Karachi were interviewed and analyzed. The sample size was small but diversified, which was comprised of male and female BS (final year) students from humanities and sciences backgrounds.The data was classified into four categories to show different levels of responses from positive to negative. The result showed a mixed trend in which the majority of students were of the opinion that ChatGPT hinders creative writing, whereas the other group, was of the opinion that it is beneficial if used but under proper supervision / controlled conditions. The responses seem quite reasonable because ChatGPT is still in its infancy stage and may take some time to fully understand its technical aspects. However, more in-depth studies are required for its effective application in different academic areas.

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 · 10.31703/gssr.2023(viii-i).34

Cites

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?

  • AI can help students obtain more English writing teaching resources in a shorter time compared to other resource acquisition methods.

    “Compared to other resource acquisition methods, AI can help students obtain more English writing teaching resources in a shorter time [3,4].”

    From The Intelligent Writing Revolution: The Transformation of AI Writing Tools in College English Writing Teaching in the Past Five Years (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction (page not specified) says ChatGPT provides much more information in a shorter time than other sources of knowledge. The paper focuses on English writing skills, but that comparison is about information generally; it does not specifically establish that students obtain more English-writing teaching resources. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 19

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Al Afnan, M. A., Dishari, N. S., Jovic, N. M., & Lomidze, N. K. (2023). ChatGPT as an Educational Tool: Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations for Communication, Business Writing, and Composition Courses. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology. https://doi.org/10.37965/jait.2023.0184 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Antony, L., & Hornstein, N. (2003). Chomsky and His Critics. In Wiley eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470690024 · DOI
  3. Baker, A., & Johnson, M. (2022). Enhancing English Language Learning through ChatGPT: A Pilot Study. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 567-582.
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An Attainable Version of High Literacy: Approaches to Teaching Higher-Order Skills in Reading and Writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1987.11075275 · DOI
  5. Brown, T., Mann, B. F., Ryder, N. C., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J. C., Winter, C., . . . Amodei, D. (2020). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf
  6. Chomsky, N. (1993). On the nature, use, and acquisition of language. In MIT Press eBooks (pp. 511–534). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203055069-2 · DOI
  7. Firat, M. (2023). How Chat GPT Can Transform Autodidactic Experiences and Open Education? Anadolu University. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9ge8m · DOI · Paper page
  8. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective. Routledge.
  9. Hariri, W. (2023). Unlocking the Potential of ChatGPT: A Comprehensive Exploration of its Applications, Advantages, Limitations, and Future Directions in Natural Language Processing. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.02017 · DOI
  10. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Lembersky, G., Ordan, N., & Wintner, S. (2011). Language Models for Machine Translation: Original vs. Translated Texts. Computational Linguistics, 38(4), 799–825. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00111 · DOI
  12. Li, H. (2022, July 1). Language Models: Past, Present, and Future. July 2022 | Communications of the ACM. https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2022/7/262080-language-models/abstract
  13. Lin, Z. (2023). Why and how to embrace AI such as ChatGPT in your academic life. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sdx3j · DOI · Paper page
  14. Luong, T. M., Kayser, M. A., & Manning, C. D. (2015). Deep Neural Language Models for Machine Translation. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/k15-1031 · DOI
  15. Lyu, C., Xu, J., & Wang, L. (2023). New Trends in Machine Translation using Large Language Models: Case Examples with ChatGPT. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.01181 · DOI
  16. Meyers, E. M., Erickson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: an introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.783597 · DOI
  17. Phelps-Terasaki, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (1991). Teaching Competence in Written Language. Intervention in School and Clinic. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129102600411 · DOI
  18. Shur-Ofry, M. (2023). Multiplicity as an AI Governance Principle. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4444354 · DOI
  19. Skavronskaya, L., Hadinejad, A., & Cotterell, D. (2023). Reversing the threat of artificial intelligence to opportunity: a discussion of ChatGPT in tourism education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2023.2196658 · DOI
  20. Smith, J., Johnson, A., & Davis, M. (2022). Enhancing English Language Learning with ChatGPT: A Case Study. Journal of Language Education, 15(3), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/j le.2022.15.3.125.
  21. Sun, Y. (2021, July 5). ERNIE 3.0: Large-scale Knowledge Enhanced Pre-training for Language Understanding and Generation. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.02137 · arXiv
  22. Wang, L., Lyu, C., Ji, T., Zhang, Z., Yu, D., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2023). Document-Level Machine Translation with Large Language Models. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.02210 · DOI
  23. APA : Imran, A. A., & Lashari, A. A. (2023). Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose. Global Social Sciences Review, VIII(I), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2023(VIII-I).34
  24. CHICAGO : Imran, Atika A., and Ajab Ali Lashari. 2023. "Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose." Global Social Sciences Review, VIII (I): 375-384 doi: 10.31703/gssr.2023(VIII-I).34
  25. HARVARD : IMRAN, A. A. & LASHARI, A. A. 2023. Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose. Global Social Sciences Review, VIII, 375-384.
  26. MHRA : Imran, Atika A., and Ajab Ali Lashari. 2023. "Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose." Global Social Sciences Review, VIII: 375-384
  27. MLA : Imran, Atika A., and Ajab Ali Lashari. "Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose." Global Social Sciences Review, VIII.I (2023): 375-384 Print.
  28. OXFORD : Imran, Atika A. and Lashari, Ajab Ali (2023), "Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose", Global Social Sciences Review, VIII (I), 375-384
  29. TURABIAN : Imran, Atika A., and Ajab Ali Lashari. "Exploring the World of Artificial Intelligence: The Perception of the University Students about ChatGPT for Academic Purpose." Global Social Sciences Review VIII, no. I (2023): 375-384. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2023(VIII-I).34

Authors
Imran, A. A., & Lashari, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Jinnah University for Women (PK)
  • Sindh Madressatul Islam University (PK)
ORCID
Lashari, Ajab Ali
Venue
Global Social Sciences Review
Publisher
Humanity Only - HO
Published
2023-03-30
Volume
VIII
Issue
I
Pages
375-384
ISSN
  • 2520-0348 (ISSN-L)
  • 2616-793X
DOI
10.31703/gssr.2023(viii-i).34
OpenAlex
W4381094696
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Global Social Sciences Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI in education, student perceptions, academic writing, writing skills, undergraduate students, creative writing, AI-assisted learning

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