ChatGPT in higher education: considerations for academic integrity and student learning
Open accessAbstract
The release of ChatGPT has sparked significant academic integrity concerns in higher education. However, some commentators have pointed out that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT can enhance student learning. Consequently, academics should adapt their teaching and assessment practices to embrace the new reality of living, working, and studying in a world where AI is freely available. Despite this important debate, very little academic literature has been published on ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. This article uses content analysis to examine news articles (N=100) about how ChatGPT is disrupting higher education, concentrating specifically on Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It explores several key themes, including university responses, academic integrity concerns, the limitations and weaknesses of AI tool outputs, and opportunities for student learning. The data reveals mixed public discussion and university responses, with a focus mainly on academic integrity concerns and opportunities for innovative assessment design. There has also been a lack of public discussion about the potential for ChatGPT to enhance participation and success for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, the students’ voice is poorly represented in media articles to date. This article considers these trends and the impact of AI tools on student learning at university.
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
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.
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?
Research emerging from late 2022 to early 2023 began to reflect significant concerns about academic dishonesty and the threat to traditional modes of assessment.
“research emerging from late 2022 to early 2023 began to reflect significant concerns about academic dishonesty and the threat to traditional modes of assessment (Sullivan et al., 2023).”
From The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as Sullivan et al., 2023
The Discussion reports that news articles published in late 2022 and early 2023 focused on academic dishonesty and passing traditional exams. The Academic integrity and Avoidance sections also document widespread cheating concerns and changes to assignments and exams. The source analyzes news coverage from that period, however; it does not establish that academic research emerging throughout that period reflected those concerns. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSullivan et al. (2023) identified systemic marginalization of student voices in favor of institutional integrity narratives.
“Sullivan et al. (2023) identified systemic marginalization of student voices in favor of institutional integrity narratives.”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Sullivan et al. (2023)
The Voice and Discussion sections report that university representatives dominated the sampled news coverage of ChatGPT, while student voices were limited; the Discussion and Conclusion also describe a focus on academic integrity. But the study examines 100 media articles from select Western countries, not systemic marginalization of students across higher education. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost studies on generative AI adoption in higher education focus on Western or East Asian institutional contexts, leaving African higher education settings substantially underexplored.
“while research on generative AI adoption in higher education has grown rapidly, most studies focus on Western or East Asian institutional contexts [1, 6, 7], leaving African higher education settings substantially underexplored.”
From Generative AI Usage and Information Literacy Skills among University Students in North-West Nigeria (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The Research focus describes this paper’s analysis of news articles from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The Limitations section recommends including non-Western sources for a more comprehensive global review. These passages support a geographic limitation in this paper’s media analysis, but not the claim that most generative-AI adoption studies focus on Western or East Asian institutions or that African higher education is substantially underexplored. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatbots can be responsive pedagogical tools, but educators have raised the alarm about students using chatbots to compose essays, write computer code, and complete other homework assignments.
“Whilst chatbots can be responsive pedagogical tools [41], educators have raised the alarm about students using chatbots to compose essays, write computer code, and complete other homework assignments [56].”
From New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution (2023) · cites this paper as [56]
The citation [56] attaches to the educators’ concerns, not the claim that chatbots can be pedagogical tools. The Academic integrity section reports concerns about students outsourcing essays and using ChatGPT to write assignments. It mentions computer science assignments, but does not establish the specific concern that students use chatbots to write computer code. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT became the most well-known aid for written assignments in universities in 2023.
“In 2023, ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, USA) became the most well-known aid for written assignments in universities (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
From Using version control to document genuine effort in written assignments: a protocol with examples for universities (2023) · cites this paper as Sullivan et al., 2023
The Introduction reports that over one-third of surveyed university students used ChatGPT for assessment writing in January 2023, and the Discussion describes ways it could help with writing tasks. Neither passage establishes that it became the most well-known aid for written assignments compared with other tools. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
To date, there has been little discussion of the student perspectives of GenAI in HE in both media and research.
“Despite the evolving levels of nuance in our understanding of these technologies in HE, to date, there has been little discussion of the student perspectives of GenAI in HE in both media and research (Sullivan et al., 2023).”
From The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as Sullivan et al., 2023
GenAI can enhance student learning through innovative assessment designs.
“Other authors see the benefits of GenAI to enhance student learning through innovative assessment designs [41], potentially addressing such student concerns in the long term.”
From Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Questions persist regarding students' capacity to critically evaluate AI-generated resources.
“yet questions persist regarding their capacity to critically evaluate such resources [1].”
From Generative AI Usage and Information Literacy Skills among University Students in North-West Nigeria (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The emergence of generative AI has sparked discussions about academic integrity and the possible exploitation of such technology in student assignments.
“The emergence of generative AI has sparked discussions about academic integrity and the possible exploitation of such technology in student assignments (Sullivan et al., 2023).”
From Assessment design through co-creation (2025) · cites this paper as Sullivan et al., 2023
The release of ChatGPT and other free-to-use generative AI tools has provided a new and distinct method for cheating in university assessments.
“However, the release of ChatGPT and other free-touse generative AI tools have provided a new and distinct method for cheating.”
From Bob or Bot: Exploring ChatGPT's Answers to University Computer Science Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
The unprecedented level of support from ChatGPT raises concerns about academic integrity and the role of course instructors.
“Nonetheless, this unprecedented level of support also raises concerns about academic integrity and the role of course instructors [26].”
From Exploring ChatGPT’s impact on post-secondary education: A qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
In the education sector there is serious concern about academic integrity and plagiarism regarding GenAI.
“The public discourse surrounding GenAI has been mostly positive, but in the education sector there is serious concern about academic integrity and plagiarism (Dehouche, 2021;Lampropoulos et al., 2023;Sullivan et al., 2023;Yeo, 2023).”
From Not quite eye to A.I.: student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process (2023) · cites this paper as Sullivan et al., 2023
Previous studies indicate the importance of rethinking, improving, and redesigning innovative assessment methods in the era of chatbots.
“The findings from previous studies indicate the importance of rethinking, improving, and redesigning innovative assessment methods in the era of chatbots [14, 20, 64, 75]”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [75]
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
Suspending OpenMP Tasks on Asynchronous Events: Extending the Taskwait Construct
Pereira, R., Martin, M., Roussel, A., Carribault, P., & Gautier, T. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-40744-4_5 · Cited by 13,140 · see citing works
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · see citing works
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · see citing works
Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education
Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 · Cited by 2,019 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In broad terms, AI and its impact on learning have been researched for decades (Popenici & Kerr, 2017; Dodigovic, 2005; Garito, 1991; Frasson & Gauthier, 1990; Brown et al., 1978).”
BackgroundWhat if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x · Cited by 2,003 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Another recent journal article has explored social media sentiments about ChatGPT in the context of education, finding that the public discourse has been generally positive so far (Tlili et al., 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialSetting the agenda: the mass media and public opinion
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-6312 · Cited by 1,826 · 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 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Consequently, academics should adapt teaching and assessment practices to embrace the new reality of living, working, and studying in a world where AI is freely available (Liu et al., 2023; García-Peñalvo, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023).”
BackgroundOuyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 · Cited by 831 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…reviews focused on AI in higher education highlight that studies tend to frame AI principally as a tool for improving assignment feedback and assisting with administrative duties rather than exploring concerns relating to academic integrity (Ouyang et al., 2022; Zawacki-Ricther et al., 2019).”
Contract cheating: a survey of australian university students
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023) · Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) · doi:10.14201/eks.31279 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
AI in the headlines: the portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media
Ouchchy, L., Coin, A., & Dubljević, V. (2020) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
McNicholl, A., Casey, H., Desmond, D., & Gallagher, P. (2021) · Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1642395 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Public understanding of artificial intelligence through entertainment media
Nader, K., Toprac, P., Scott, S., & Baker, S. (2022) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01427-w · Cited by 143 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, the general public understanding of AI is patchy across different populations and is influenced by media coverage (e.g., Nader et al., 2022; Selwyn & Gallo Cordoba, 2022; Sun et al., 2020).”
BackgroundUnderstanding Student Cheating and What Educators can do About it
Hutton, P. A. (2006) · College Teaching · doi:10.3200/ctch.54.1.171-176 · Cited by 134 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Student perceptions are especially critical, as social norms can impact the likelihood of cheating (Hutton, 2006).”
BackgroundNewspaper coverage of artificial intelligence: A perspective of emerging technologies
Sun, S., Zhai, Y., Shen, B., & Chen, Y. (2020) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101433 · Cited by 125 · cited 8× · see citing works
“We also coded who spoke in the article, focusing on whether university staff, students, or ChatGPT were quoted or had a voice in the media, as Sun et al. (2020) argue that examining how stakeholders are represented in the media provides important insight into the framing of AI.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGarvey, C. S., & Maskal, C. (2020) · Omics · doi:10.1089/omi.2019.0078 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Australian public understandings of artificial intelligence
Selwyn, N., & Cordoba, B. G. (2021) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01268-z · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & HARRIS, G. (1978) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-526650-5.50010-1 · Cited by 59 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In broad terms, AI and its impact on learning have been researched for decades (Popenici & Kerr, 2017; Dodigovic, 2005; Garito, 1991; Frasson & Gauthier, 1990; Brown et al., 1978).”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence in Second Language Learning
Dodigovic, M. (2005) · Multilingual Matters eBooks · doi:10.21832/9781853598319 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in education: evolution of the teaching—learning relationship
Garito, M. A. (1991) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1991.tb00050.x · Cited by 36 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In broad terms, AI and its impact on learning have been researched for decades (Popenici & Kerr, 2017; Dodigovic, 2005; Garito, 1991; Frasson & Gauthier, 1990; Brown et al., 1978).”
BackgroundPlagiarism in higher education: tackling tough topics in academic integrity
Kim, D. L. (2022) · Public & Access Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15228959.2022.2085422 · Cited by 27 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Academic integrity researchers have observed that plagiarism stories in the media frequently occur, as they tend to attract the attention of a large audience (Eaton, 2021).”
BackgroundDetecting Textual Reuse in News Stories, At Scale
Nicholls, T. (2019) · International journal of communication · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Engaging Students as Partners in Assessment and Enhancement Processes
Matthews, K., & Cook‐Sather, A. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80889-1_5 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Listening for Retention: Enabling Student Success Through Partnering with the Student Voice
Millard, L., & Evans, R. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80045-1_8 · Cited by 8 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A university-wide approach to student partnership improves student engagement and retention (Millard & Evans, 2021) and should be a key part of institutional approaches to AI.”
BackgroundNotícias e análises de conteúdo no século XXI
Hendrickx, J., & Pakvis, M. (2022) · Media & Jornalismo · doi:10.14195/2183-5462_41_7 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Frasson, C., & Gauthier, G. (Eds.). (1990). Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroad of artificial intelligence and education. Intellect Books.
- Miriam Sullivan, Andrew Kelly, and Paul McLaughlan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. university PR on science news coverage? A longitudinal automated content analysis of university media releases and newspaper coverage in Switzerland, 2003-2017. International Journal of Communication, 14, 3143-3164. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13498/3113
Cited by
Sorted by citations
New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution
Kamalov, F., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151612451 · Cited by 1,089 · see citing works
A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Yao, Y., Duan, J., Xu, K., Cai, Y., Sun, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · High-Confidence Computing · doi:10.1016/j.hcc.2024.100211 · Cited by 1,083 · see citing works
Grassini, S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13070692 · Cited by 1,048 · see citing works
“There is a pressing demand to adapt assessment practices and institutional protocols to manage the issues brought to the fore by the proliferation of AI-generated content in academic work [89].”
BackgroundRole of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review
Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1 · Cited by 1,043 · see citing works
“ChatGPT stands out among AI-powered chatbots used in education due to its advanced natural language processing capabilities and sophisticated language generation, enabling more natural and human-like conversations.”
BackgroundChallenges and Opportunities of Generative AI for Higher Education as Explained by ChatGPT
Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13090856 · Cited by 877 · see citing works
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881 · Cited by 807 · see citing works
“…applications in higher education, di ff erent areas can be discussed as software is producing fake citations (Cooper, 2023), developing assignments (Sullivan et al., 2023), supporting essay writing (Crawford et al., 2023), and encouraging critical re fl ection on AI ’ s use in society (van Dis…”
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
“The rise of AI was sparked in November 2022, when U.S. company OpenAI (San Francisco, CA, USA) released ChatGPT [1], an AI program that draws upon a large language database to generate responses from text-based inputs entered by humans [2].”
BackgroundAI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2 · Cited by 589 · see citing works
“…across Australia, New Zealand, The U.K., and the U.S., general sentiment appeared evenly split between positive and negative, but concerns about academic integrity have been raised (Sullivan, 2023), with some educational institutions deciding to ban ChatGPT than to allow its use (Yang, 2023).”
BackgroundThe role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 · Cited by 561 · see citing works
“Therefore, to maintain academic integrity while using ChatGPT, responsible and ethical use of information generated by the model is necessary (Keith, 2022; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
MethodUnlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023) · BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations · doi:10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Transformative Effects of ChatGPT on Modern Education: Emerging Era of AI Chatbots
Gill, S. S., Xu, M.-X., Patros, P., Wu, H.-M., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., Fuller, S., Singh, M., Arora, P., Parlikad, A., et al. (2023) · Internet Things Cyber Phys. Syst. · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.06.002 · Cited by 466 · see citing works
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
“Naumowa (2023) stresses critical thinking in using AI, whereas Hsu (2023), Ivanov and Soliman (2023), Lim et al. (2023), Crawford et al. (2023), Sullivan et al. (2023), and Cooper (2023), explore the ethical and practical implications, calling for ethical guidelines and theoretical frameworks.”
Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 · Cited by 461 · see citing works
What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22 · Cited by 431 · see citing works
“Willems (2023) discussed the ethical implications of using large language models like ChatGPT in universities, while Halaweh (2023) and Crawford et al.”
Background(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Elkhatat, A. M., Elsaid, K., & Almeer, S. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348 · Cited by 452 · see citing works
Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
“The public discourse surrounding GenAI has been mostly positive, but in the education sector there is serious concern about academic integrity and plagiarism (Dehouche, 2021; Lampropoulos et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023; Yeo, 2023).”
BackgroundLuo (Jess), J. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Empowering lifelong learning in the digital age of higher education
Rawas, S. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12114-8 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
“The main difficulties with ChatGPT in higher education are covered in this section (Atlas, 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023; Mhlanga, 2023).”
Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Essuman, A. B., & Amankwa, J. O. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100198 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
“Also, ChatGPT can enhance academic research and constructive writing tasks, critical thinking, problem-solving, and develop research skills (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundPerkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/q3azde36 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
“In one of the few studies in this area, Kelly et al.'s (2023) survey of HE students suggests relatively low experience of the technologies and little confidence in their applications for learning and assessment.”
BackgroundInfluentialHigher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions
Ravšelj, D., Keržič, D., Tomaževič, N., Umek, L., Brezovar, N., A. Iahad, N., Abdulla, A. A., Akopyan, A., Aldana Segura, M. W., AlHumaid, J., et al. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315011 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
Drivers and Consequences of ChatGPT Use in Higher Education: Key Stakeholder Perspectives
Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2023) · European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education · doi:10.3390/ejihpe13110181 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
“Challenges affiliated with reliability involve depending on biased information (i.e., restricted range of data used) [27,28], the lack of updated information (i.e., updated information stopped in 2021) [29] and providing inaccurate/fake data (i.e., presenting fabricated references) [30].”
BackgroundGenerative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda
Bittle, K., & El-Gayar, O. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16040296 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
“Other authors see the benefits of GenAI to enhance student learning through innovative assessment designs [41], potentially addressing such student concerns in the long term.”
A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Teaching and Learning Practice
Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., & Sharma, H. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060636 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
“Sullivan et al. [32] used a systematic search to review English language newspapers and online news sources about how ChatGPT is disrupting HE across selected countries.”
BackgroundAn, Y., Yu, J. H., & James, S. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Kostka, I., & Toncelli, R. (2023) · Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language--TESL-EJ · doi:10.55593/ej.27107int · Cited by 253 · see citing works
The use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning: a systematic review through SWOT analysis approach
Mai, D. T. T., da, C. A. N., & Hanh, N. V. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1328769 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
“Up to December 2023, we have identified many systematic studies discussing the significance of ChatGPT in education (Mhlanga, 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023), ethical issues related to ChatGPT (Sallam, 2023), SWOT analysis of ChatGPT (Alabool, 2023; Farrokhnia et al., 2023), the impacts of ChatGPT in…”
BackgroundTossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
“In education, the launch of ChatGPT has resulted in mixed feelings among educators [3], popular media [4], and researchers [5] with some declaring the college essay now dead [6] or banning the use of ChatGPT [7].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe use of ChatGPT in the digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation
Limna, P., Kraiwanit, T., Jangjarat, K., Klayklung, P., & Chocksathaporn, P. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.32 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
“Comprehensive guidelines should outline the appropriate use of AI-generated content, citation requirements, and limitations (Crawford et al., 2023 ; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., & Bhutta, S. M. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12223-4 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
“At the first level, students use ChatGPT for generating ideas as a pre-writing strategy, facilitating the initial stages of the writing process (Rudolph et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Higher Education Institutions: A Systems Approach
Katsamakas, E., Pavlov, O. V., & Saklad, R. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16146118 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
A Primer on Generative Artificial Intelligence
Kalota, F. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14020172 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
“Some institutions have banned such tools altogether, while others are reviewing and updating their policies [56].”
BackgroundKurtz, G., Amzalag, M., Shaked, N., Zaguri, Y., Kohen-Vacs, D., Gal, E., Zailer, G., & Barak-Medina, E. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14050503 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
“For example, GenAI applications make it possible to create content that is almost indistinguishable from human-created work [2,47,48].”
BackgroundA systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education
Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Grájeda, A., Burgos, J., Olivera, P. C., & Sanjinés, A. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2287917 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
“Sullivan et al. (2023) acknowledge these challenges but also emphasize the potential of ChatGPT and other generative AI tools to enhance learning, provided they are used ethically and appropriately.”
Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
“…email addresses, phone numbers, or personal issues should not be stored or shared without the user’s consent; however, there have been reports of cyberattacks and vulnerabilities in the system that risk privacy concerns (Sullivan et al., 2023; The Lancet Digital Health, 2023; Wu et al., 2023).”
Kelly, A., Sullivan, M., & Strampel, K. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.6.12 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
“These responses have ranged from completely banning the use of these tools to allowing use with appropriate acknowledgement (Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Self-citationKofinas, A. K., Tsay, C. H., & Pike, D. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13585 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Gallent Torres, C., Zapata González, A., & Ortego Hernando, J. L. (2023) · RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa · doi:10.30827/relieve.v29i2.29134 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Challenges and Benefits in Software Programming for Higher Education
da Silva, C. A. G., Ramos, F. N., de Moraes, R. V., & dos Santos, E. L. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16031245 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
“Overall, the use of ChatGPT in education has the potential to enhance student learning outcomes [23], improve the quality of instruction, and make education more accessible and engaging for all learners, including primary school students [24].”
MethodGenerative AI: Is it a paradigm shift for higher education
O’Dea, X. (2024) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2024.2332944 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
“In addition, it appears that the responses produced by GenAI cannot be detected easily by plagiarism checkers and AI detectors (Sullivan, Kelly, and McLaughlan 2023).”
BackgroundSedkaoui, S., & Benaichouba, R. (2026) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-02-2024-0129 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Akpan, I. J., Kobara, Y. M., Owolabi, J., Akpan, A. A., & Offodile, O. F. (2024) · International Transactions in Operational Research · doi:10.1111/itor.13522 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Balalle, H., & Pannilage, S. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101299 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.12 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2024) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101425 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
“…in AI detection tools, the effectiveness of conventional anti-plagiarism software, such as iThenticate and Turnitin, remains questionable against AI-generated content (Perkins, 2023; Chaka, 2023, 2024; Hassoulas et al., 2023; Ifelebuegu, 2023; Mohammadkarimi et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
MethodWill artificial intelligence drive the advancements in higher education? A tri-phased exploration
Kumar, S., Rao, P., Singhania, S., Verma, S., & Kheterpal, M. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123258 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Unveiling Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Usage in Higher Education
Zhou, X., Zhang, J., & Chan, C. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/xzjprb23 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Almulla, M. A. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32220 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Gonsalves, C. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2415654 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
“In response, universities have adopted varied approaches: some have banned generative AI or employed detection tools, while others permit and even encourage its use with appropriate acknowledgment (Perkins 2023; Sullivan, Kelly, and McLaughlan 2023; Xiao, Chen, and Bao 2023).”
Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Using ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Literature Review
Sok, S., & Heng, K. (2024) · Journal of Digital Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/jdet/14027 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
“Sullivan et al. (2023), similarly, suggested various formats of assessment, such as assigning students to conduct in-class presentations, producing podcasts, working on group projects, and attending lab activities, to name a few.”
BackgroundEvangelista, E. D. L. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/15775 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
“Additionally, Sullivan et al. (2023) concentrated on strategies for reorganizing assignments or tasks that ChatGPT cannot complete.”
Ahmed, Z., Shanto, S. S., Rime, M. H. K., Morol, M. K., Fahad, N., Hossen, M. J., & Abdullah-Al-Jubair, M. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3461874 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
“Academic policymakers have raised significant concerns about the widespread adoption of generative AI tools in educational settings [92].”
BackgroundPractical Applications of ChatGPT in Undergraduate Medical Education
Tsang, R. (2023) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205231178449 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Bobula, M. (2024) · Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education · doi:10.47408/jldhe.vi30.1137 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Salifu, I., Arthur, F., Arkorful, V., Nortey, S. A., & Osei-Yaw, R. S. (2024) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2023.2300177 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
The ChatGPT Effect: Nursing Education and Generative Artificial Intelligence
Topaz, M., Peltonen, L., Michalowski, M., Štiglic, G., Ronquillo, C., Pruinelli, L., Song, J., O’Connor, S., Miyagawa, S., & Fukahori, H. (2024) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20240126-01 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Dalgıç, A., Yaşar, E., & Demir, M. (2024) · Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education · doi:10.1016/j.jhlste.2024.100481 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Cai, L., Msafiri, M. M., & Kangwa, D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Xiao, P., Chen, Y., & Bao, W. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4458269 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
“Some educators are concerned that these tools, capable of quickly generating substantial amounts of readable, wellcrafted, and unique text, may foster academic dishonesty and provide unfair assistance in programming and problem-solving endeavours (Sullivan et al. 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialMohammadkarimi, E. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.10 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“Teachers may struggle to distinguish between genuine effort and fraud as a consequence of learners’ capacity to adapt AI-generated content to seem as if it was their original work (Farrokhnia et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundUniversity students’ self-reported reliance on ChatGPT for learning: A latent profile analysis
Stojanov, A., Liu, Q., & Koh, J. H. L. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100243 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Saúde, S., Barros, J. P., & Almeida, I. A. T. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13080410 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Qu, Y., Tan, M. X. Y., & Wang, J. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00341-6 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
“Recent research has begun to investigate students’ general perceptions towards GenAI and its potential effects, with studies finding generally positive attitudes but also concerns regarding accuracy, privacy, and ethical considerations (Chan & Hu, 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Analyzing ChatGPT adoption drivers with the TOEK framework
Jo, H., & Bang, Y. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-49710-0 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Jo, H. (2023) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669231202764 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Exploring student perspectives on generative artificial intelligence in higher education learning
Baidoo-Anu, D., Asamoah, D., Amoako, I., & Mahama, I. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00173-z · Cited by 136 · see citing works
“The relevant application of ChatGPT in higher education focuses on several areas, including developing assignments [4], supporting essay writing [5], and encouraging critical reflection on AI’s use in society [6].”
Naznin, K., Mahmud, A. A., Nguyen, M. T., & Chua, C. (2025) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers14020053 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Accused: How students respond to allegations of using ChatGPT on assessments
Gorichanaz, T. (2023) · Learning: Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/23735082.2023.2254787 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“The anxieties around ChatGPT in higher education center on academic integrity, learning and skill development, limitations of LLMs, policy and social concerns, and workforce challenges (Li et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMsambwa, M. M., Wen, Z., & Daniel, K. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12909 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Magalhães Araujo, S., & Cruz-Correia, R. (2024) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/51151 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
“Encouraging the integration of ChatGPT in education requires the formulation of policies that promote best practices, nurturing students’critical thinking and equipping them with the necessary skills to effectively use AI tools [4,7,25].”
BackgroundInfluentialLi, Y., Sadiq, G., Qambar, G., & Zheng, P. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12981-9 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
“While concerns exist regarding academic integrity, ChatGPT also holds the potential to enhance teaching and learning (Kohnke et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023 ).”
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 · see citing works
The use of Generative AI in qualitative analysis: Inductive thematic analysis with ChatGPT
(2024) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.22 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Qi, W., Pan, J., Lyu, H., & Luo, J. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2024.102158 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Nelson, A. S., Santamaría, P. V., Javens, J. S., & Ricaurte, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15050611 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Abdelhalim, S. M. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12948 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
The use of generative AI by students with disabilities in higher education
Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Chen, X. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101014 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Linking artificial intelligence facilitated academic misconduct to existing prevention frameworks
Birks, D., & Clare, J. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00142-3 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
RECIPE: How to Integrate ChatGPT into EFL Writing Education
Han, J., Yoo, H., Kim, Y., Myung, J., Kim, M., Lim, H., Kim, J., Lee, T. Y., Hong, H., Ahn, S.-Y., et al. (2023) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3573051.3596200 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“While earlier chatbots were unnatural and incapable of engaging language learners [5], ChatGPT can generate natural and personalized responses, which make students’ learning experience more interactive and engaging [8, 9].”
BackgroundRahimzadeh, V., Kostick-Quenet, K., Blumenthal Barby, J., & McGuire, A. L. (2023) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2233358 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Application of ChatGPT in Higher Education and Research – A Futuristic Analysis
Aithal, P. S., & Aithal, S. (2023) · International Journal of Applied Engineering and Management Letters · doi:10.47992/ijaeml.2581.7000.0193 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Lubbe, A., Marais, E., & Kruger, D. J. D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13476-x · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Daniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., & Wen, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70036 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Tayan, O., Hassan, A., Khankan, K., & Askool, S. (2023) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2023.100513 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Wang, P., Jing, Y., & Shen, S. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.100996 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Spasić, A. J., & Jankovic, D. S. (2023) · International Scientific Conference on Information, Communication and Energy Systems and Technologies (ICEST) · doi:10.1109/icest58410.2023.10187269 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Lyu, W., Zhang, S., Chung, T., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100383 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“…those who view traditional educational methods as outdated—labeling skeptics and distrust as “ you’re a dinosaur [39]”—and those who caution against an unrestrained embrace of AI, fearing it could undermine fundamental educational values, such as critical thinking and academic integrity [108, 113].”
Mamo, Y., Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Nickel, C. (2024) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-024-00954-1 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“Sullivan et al. (2023), conducted a study focused on higher education to provide a content analysis of 100 news articles from Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom.”
Gulati, A., Saini, H., Singh, S., & Kumar, V. (2024) · Marketing Education Review · doi:10.1080/10528008.2023.2300139 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Yan, W., Nakajima, T., & Sawada, R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14040433 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Rethinking online assessment strategies: Authenticity versus AI chatbot intervention
Ifelebuegu, A. O. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.2 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“However, they concurrently pose challenges to the authenticity of learning outcomes, as they can be misused to automate or assist in traditional assessments (Daniel, 2020, Rudolph et al., 2023a, Sullivan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT and higher education assessments: More opportunities than concerns?
Gamage, K. A. A., Dehideniya, S. C. P., Xu, Z., & Tang, X. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.32 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Emerging Research and Policy Themes on Academic Integrity in the Age of Chat GPT and Generative AI
Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A., & Quesada, A. (2023) · Asian Journal of University Education · doi:10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24697 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Lin, C.-H., Zhou, K., Li, L., & Sun, L. (2025) · Computers and Composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102895 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P.
- Affiliations
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2023-03-21
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2591-801X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4327918021
- Cited by
- 853
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 192 · 2025: 255 · 2024: 284 · 2023: 122
- FWCI
- 199.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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
- ChatGPT, generative AI, academic integrity, higher education, student learning, assessment design, student participation, disadvantaged students, news media coverage
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
