Cited by 45Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in Service Interactions

Unlock the potential for Saudi Arabian higher education: a systematic review of the benefits of ChatGPT

Open access
Faisal, Eman·2024·Frontiers in Education

Abstract

This systematic review investigates the potential benefits of integrating ChatGPT in higher education. Focusing on ChatGPT’s impact, the study identifies themes such as ChatGPT’s role in teaching and instruction, enhancing student learning and engagement, aiding language learning, and promoting inclusivity. The review underscores ChatGPT’s ability to reshape the educational landscape, improve research and writing, bridge language gaps, and address specific challenges. ChatGPT emerges as a transformative tool empowering educators and students, aligning with Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of academic excellence and future workforce readiness.

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 · 10.3389/feduc.2024.1325601

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Generative AI can support scaffolding and higher-order learning-provided that integration is appropriately structured and ethically bounded, with explicit institutional attention to plagiarism prevention, overreliance mitigation, and bias awareness.

    “A systematic review focused specifically on ChatGPT in Saudi higher education argues that generative AI can support scaffolding and higher-order learning—provided that integration is appropriately structured and ethically bounded, with explicit institutional attention to plagiarism prevention, overreliance mitigation, and bias awareness (Faisal, 2024).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faisal, E.
Affiliations
King Saud University (SA)
Corresponding author
Faisal, Eman
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Published
2024-04-26
Volume
9
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395670028
Cited by
44
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 3
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
ChatGPT, generative AI in education, higher education, AI in teaching, student engagement, language learning, educational inclusivity, academic writing support, career readiness, Saudi Arabia

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