Perceptions About Generative AI and ChatGPT Use by Faculty and College Students
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.26209/td2024vol17iss21825 · Paper page
Abstract
The published version of this article can be found at: https://journals.psu.edu/td/article/view/1825Since November 2022, ChatGPT has created a stir on college campuses. November, 2022. Many colleges and universities have taken a proactive approach and updated academic integrity policies or even outright banned the use of ChatGPT (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. Very 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 across multiple campuses. Participants completed an online 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. We find 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 with faculty and students agreeing Cha…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A dichotomizing approach of either using AI or completely banning it in higher education institutions is unrealistic, given ChatGPT's widespread adoption.
“Our findings suggest that a dichotomizing approach of either using AI or completely banning it in higher education institutions is unrealistic, given ChatGPT ' s widespread adoption (Petricini et al., 2023).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2023
Cites
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · see citing works
BERGER, C. R., & CALABRESE, R. J. (1975) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x · Cited by 3,006 · see citing works
Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective
Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3524 · Cited by 2,007 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 · Cited by 1,261 · see citing works
A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories
Taherdoost, H. (2018) · Procedia Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137 · Cited by 1,162 · see citing works
Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all?
Carleton, R. N. (2016) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.03.011 · Cited by 647 · see citing works
Health Care Students’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence: Countrywide Survey in Canada
Teng, M., Singla, R., Yau, O., Lamoureux, D., Gupta, A., Hu, Z., Hu, R., Aissiou, A., Eaton, S., Hamm, C., et al. (2022) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/33390 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
ENAI Recommendations on the ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Foltynek, T., Bjelobaba, S., Glendinning, I., Khan, Z. R., Santos, R., Pavletic, P., & Kravjar, J. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00133-4 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schei, O. M., Møgelvang, A., & Ludvigsen, K. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14080922 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
“ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI
Baek, C., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100294 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Interplay of rationality and morality in using ChatGPT for academic misconduct
Zhang, L., Amos, C., & Pentina, I. (2025) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2325023 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Personality and acceptance as predictors of ChatGPT use
de Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Eisma, Y. B. (2024) · Discover Psychology · doi:10.1007/s44202-024-00161-2 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Mathew, R., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2024) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-024-00964-z · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Reacting to Generative AI: Insights from Student and Faculty Discussions on Reddit
Wu, C., Wang, X., Carroll, J., & Rajtmajer, S. (2024) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/h79ms · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Petricini, T., Wu, C., & Zipf, S. T.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2023-08-13
- OpenAlex
- W4385808081
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, academic integrity, AI policy in higher education, trust in AI, artificial intelligence in higher education, generative AI tools
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
