The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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 citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
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 13,143
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286
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
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×
“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×
“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
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×
“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×
“…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).”
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071873045 · Cited by 480
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
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
Items 801–857 of 857
The Essential Re-evaluation of Programming Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Kesserwan, N., Al‐Jaroodi, J., Jathlan, T. B., Alfaifi, F., & Alharbi, A. (2026) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--60406
How Generative AI Use Affect College Students' Innovative Behavior: An Empirical Study in China
Guo, Z., Ma, J., Chen, K., & Cao, H. (2026) · International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) · doi:10.1109/cste69562.2026.11649817
“Sullivan et al. (2023) believe that the integration of GenAI into the whole process of education and teaching is the general trend, and students' learning behavior will also undergo important changes [7].”
Dallal, A. H. (2026) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--60630
The impact of artificial intelligence on cognitive skill development in future professionals
Izmagambetova, R., Agranovich, E., Боранбаева, А. Р., Aiman, T., Gulnar, A., & Ospanbekova, M. (2026) · International Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES · doi:10.21833/ijaas.2026.07.011
Review of Large Language Model-Enhanced Curriculum Design in E-Learning
Simon, B. F., Hartvég, Á., Szász, L., Dénes-Fazakas, L., Eigner, G., & Kovács, L. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES) · doi:10.1109/ines69513.2026.11661260
“…AI assistance has the potential to reduce overall development cycles compared to traditional manual approaches, with particularly pronounced gains in content drafting and multimedia specification phases, though comprehensive quantitative studies with rigorous controls remain limited [35], [36].”
Kulyk, S. (2026) · Academic Visions · doi:10.66556/2786-586x.58.kulyk-s
Goya, O. F. C. (2026) · Prometeo Conocimiento Científico · doi:10.55204/pcc.v6i1.e160
Hoang, L. P., Vo, T. T. B., & Le, H. T. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70838
Students’ agency in GenAI-mediated group assessment: an ecological-emergent perspective
Chen, X., & Zou, T. X. P. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2730644
Li, H., & Zhang, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1871022 · Cited by 1
“Critics frequently warn that the unchecked proliferation of generative tools in higher education threatens student authorship, potentially encouraging plagiarism, unauthorized synthesis, and intellectual passivity (Macfarlane, 2024; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Kahyaoğlu, M., & Kenanoğlu, R. (2026) · Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi · doi:10.56423/fbod.1841698
AI and Emerging Technologies in Transnational Higher Education
Gupta, D., Xoliyorovich, N. X., Azizbek, I., Sotvoldiev, F., Rafikova, F., Karlibaeva, R., & Islamkulov, A. K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-3653-2.ch001
User Attitudes Toward AI Language Tools: Focus on ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Quillbot
Ibrahim, A. S., Amin, G. A. H., Saeed, K. A., & Abdulrahman, B. A. (2026) · Academic Journal of International University of Erbil · doi:10.63841/iue33422
Reyes, A. T. C., Sánchez, M. A. F., Zúñiga, P. I. V., Palacios, I. A. M., & Palacios, G. M. M. (2026) · Ciencia Interdisciplinaria Internacional · doi:10.70577/cieninter.v4i3.131
Reconceptualizing Assessment in Higher Education
Saha, S., & Singh, M. K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9089-5.ch001
MAIN DRIVERS OF CHATGPT ADOPTION BY ROMANIAN COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS
Popescu, P. Ș., Mihăescu, M. C., & Pribeanu, C. (2026) · Problems of Education in the 21st Century · doi:10.33225/pec/26.84.646
Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity
Halupa, C. M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9089-5.ch003
Shauki, N. B. I. (2026) · Springer Proceedings in Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0411-3_2
Zagkos, C., Kyridis, A., Kamarianos, I., Tourtouras, C. D., Ladias, G., & Kyridi, A. (2026) · Journal of Digital Educational Technology · doi:10.29333/jdet/19285
Asio, J. M. R. (2026) · Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research · doi:10.29333/mjosbr/19292
“In relation to this finding, Sullivan et al. (2023) argued that public opinion was mixed, and university responses focused on academic integrity concerns and opportunities, with an emphasis on innovation and assessment design.”
Just Ask ChatGPT: How a Handy Tool is Quietly Teaching My Students Not to Think for Themselves
Pratama, R. K. (2026) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2026.2737425
Rupa, R. A., Haque, A., Sultana, F., Sultana, A., Mosharrafa, R. A., & Amin, M. A. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/8847712
Kim, S. Y., Bong, J. Y., Maxwell, D. W., & Oyarzun, B. A. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10713-z · Cited by 1
Mera, B. J. C., Peñafiel, J. L. T., Tutivén, R. S. A., Muñoz, A. E. A., & Santos, B. A. D. (2026) · Revista Multidisciplinar Epistemología de las Ciencias · doi:10.71112/c0ccex62
Hess, S., Asenjo, M. P. F., & Meroño, M. C. P. (2026) · INNOVA Research Journal · doi:10.33890/innova.v11.n3.2026.3002
Hayoune, K. (2026) · Islamic Reports · doi:10.66638/fsavt586 · Cited by 1
“Sullivan et al. (2023), in a content analysis of one hundred news articles from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, argue that academics should adapt teaching and assessment to the new conditions.”
The experience–intention disconnect in AI chatbot feedback: evidence from higher education
Moryossef, I. G., Emmanouil, C., & Nathan, D. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1942006
ПОНЯТТЯ «ШТУЧНОГО ДИСКУРСУ» В КОГНІТИВНІЙ ЛІНГВІСТИЦІ: ЛІНГВОФІЛОСОФСЬКИЙ ТА МЕТОДОЛОГІЧНИЙ АСПЕКТИ
Sharapanovska, Y. (2026) · International Humanitarian University Herald Philology · doi:10.32782/2409-1154.2026.79.27
Jin, Z. (2026) · Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.54097/v37tsw96
Generative AI in the Global South: a PLS-SEM analysis of student perceptions and intentions
Dzidzornu, A. A. K., & Xu, X. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-14166-y
Mir, K., Elhayany, M., & Staubitz, T. (2026) · IEEE Digital Education and MOOCS Conference (DEMOcon) · doi:10.1109/democon70840.2026.11708144
Research on ChatGPT in higher education: shifting from exploration to policy development
Qi, B., Poo, M. C., Wang, C., & Wang, B. (2026) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2026.2744212
Hosni, N. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1824854
Building Pedagogical Capacity in the Age of Generative AI
Manjunath, B. R., Kumar, S., & Kumar, C. H. V. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-4664-7.ch008
Reframing Quality and Integrity in AI-Powered Assessment
Saha, S., & Singh, M. K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8939-4.ch003
From Cheating Prevention to Integrity Innovation in AI-Based Assessment
Nandal, N., Chahal, D., -, R. D., Joshi, R., & Yadav, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8939-4.ch010
Khlaif, Z. N., Hamamra, B. T., Farran, H. K., & Salama, N. (2026) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-026-09768-7
“Recent scholarship has linked GenAI to ethical ambiguity, authorship erosion, policy instability, and assessment insecurity (Bozkurt, 2024; Chan, 2023; Dabis & Csáki, 2024; Duah & McGivern, 2024; Eke, 2023; Perkins, 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Liu, X., Luo, J., Chen, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1948768
“However, the application of AI still faces important challenges, including the reliability of generated content, the risk of plagiarism, and concerns regarding data privacy and ethics (6, 7).”
Surkhonidinovna, E. G., Raupova, M. H., Chowdhury, S. A., & Рахматова, С. Т. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1862623
GenAI utilization and the cognitive outsourcing paradox in library and information science
Kyprianos, K., & Moustakas, G. (2026) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/09610006261493523
Tan, S.-J., & Chen, Y. C. K. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt68022.2026.00013
Javed, S., Firmin, S., & Maroulis, J. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10351087/v1
Li, H. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80592-979-620261010
Diaz-Garcia, J. A., Morcillo-Jiménez, R., Ortiz-Viso, B., & Ruiz, M. D. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences · doi:10.4995/muse.2026.26470
Figueredo, Ó. R. B., Meza-Jaque, J., & Peréz, L. (2026) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.182491.2
Helesh, A., & Ozarkiv, A. Z. (2026) · Academic Visions · doi:10.66556/2786-586x.60.helesh-a
Artificial Intelligence in Eurasian Higher Education: An Empirical Study of Student Practices
Sheymardanov, S., Adnan, M. H. M., & Mufazalov, T. (2026) · Education & Self Development · doi:10.26907/esd.21.3.05
Generative artificial intelligence in education mapping research trends and future directions
Lutskovskaia, L., Chigisheva, O., Gimaliev, V. G., Zhdanov, S. P., Zakharova, V. L., & Smirnova, L. M. (2026) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/19639
郭, 浩. (2026) · Advances in Education · doi:10.12677/ae.2026.16102251
Exploring undergraduate experiences with AI tools in higher education
Özfidan, B., Luaces, S., Reyes, C., & Verna, N. (2026) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-11-2025-0348
Greinke, L., Lange, L., & Richter, J. (2026) · World sustainability series · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-34574-5_26
Song, J., Wei, Z., He, C., Liao, J., Xu, X., & Yip, D. K. M. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2745545
Pizarro, L. I. M., & Chávez, A. A. (2026) · Erevna Research Reports · doi:10.70171/wrwxkz66
Integrating Generative AI in CSD Education: A Practical Tutorial for Faculty and Students
Walker, B. B., & Meyerowitz, E. (2026) · Communication Disorders Quarterly · doi:10.1177/15257401261498030
Asghar, M., Ashraf, T., & Naseem, A. (2026) · The regional tribune. · doi:10.55737/trt/v-ix.453
The impact of Artificial Intelligence Tools on E-Learning outcomes in higher education
Nkalanga, S. D., & Ntshangase, M. X. (2026) · Journal of Education and Learning Technology · doi:10.38159/jelt.2026794
“10 Even though AI-generated writing is still hard to identify, some educators consider this a challenge and therefore focus more on creative activities that AI cannot easily replicate.”
Sztuczna inteligencja w pracy nauczyciela akademickiego: asystent czy konkurent?
Wedler, J. B. (2026) · Przegląd Prawa i Administracji · doi:10.19195/0137-1134.144.16
Metadata
- 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › 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
