The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 108 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines the potential benefits and challenges of using the generative AI model, ChatGPT, in higher education, in the backdrop of the constructivist theory of learning. This perspective-type study presents five benefits of ChatGPT: the potential to facilitate adaptive learning, provide personalised feedback, support research and data analysis, offer automated administrative services, and aid in developing innovative assessments. Additionally, the paper identifies five challenges: academic integrity concerns, reliability issues, inability to evaluate and reinforce graduate skill sets, limitations in assessing learning outcomes, and potential biases and falsified information in information processing. The paper argues that tertiary educators and students must exercise caution when using ChatGPT for academic purposes to ensure its ethical, reliable, and effective use. To achieve this, the paper proposes various propositions, such as prioritising education on the responsible and ethical use of ChatGPT, devising new assessment strategies, addressing bias and falsified information, and including AI literacy as part of graduate skills. By balancing the potential benefits and challenges, ChatGPT can enhance students’ learning experiences in higher education.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
72 Not checked yet · 25 Own interpretation
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By engaging students in conversation and encouraging them to participate in the learning process, ChatGPT can scaffold their prior knowledge and experiences to help them construct new knowledge.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“ChatGPT's logical algorithms that build new knowledge based on existing knowledge align with this approach (Hein, 1991).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hein, 1991
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incorporating ChatGPT into the assessment process can help students construct their knowledge actively.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, ChatGPT's individualised feedback can support this process by building on their prior knowledge and experiences and providing personalised suggestions for further learning (Ippolito et al., 2022;Vygotsky, 1962).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ippolito et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Vygotsky, 1962
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it is clear that ChatGPT, as an AI-powered tool, has the potential to facilitate a constructivism learning experience for students by enabling them to explore and experiment with ideas, ask questions, and receive immediate feedback that allows them to construct their own understanding of knowledge.”
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, the diagnostic feature of ChatGPT has the potential to serve as the MKO, providing diagnostic individualised (formative) feedback that helps students detect errors and guides them to improve successfully.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By focusing on authentic assessments, in line with the constructivist theory (Wiggins, 1990), and allowing students to engage with topics they are genuinely interested in, ChatGPT can foster creativity and critical thinking skills (Rudolph et al., 2023a;Dennick, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023a
- Not checked yetcites Dennick, 2016
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Large Learning Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT provide a scaffolded approach to learning that is consistent with the constructivist theory of learning (Schunk, 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schunk, 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In higher education, large language models like ChatGPT have the potential to greatly assist researchers and students with various tasks, such as efficiently and effectively completing research and writing tasks, including text generation, language translation, and responding to academic queries (Dwivedi et al., 2023;Kasneci et al., 2023;Lund et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dwivedi et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Kasneci et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Lund et al., 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar to tools like Leximancer (Smith & Humphreys, 2006), LLMs can also reliably conduct text analysis for sentiment analysis, pattern detection, and emotion detection (Dwivedi et al., 2023;Guo et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dwivedi et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Guo et al., 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, recent studies have shown that GPT-3 can stimulate curiosity, enhance students' questionasking skills, and generate programming code explanations (Abdelghani et al., 2022;MacNeil et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abdelghani et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites MacNeil et al., 2022
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It leverages deep learning and powerful algorithms to perform various language-related tasks, such as text generation, question answering, and translation, while comprehending the context to produce responses that resemble human language (Lund et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lund et al., 2023
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This feedback can help students detect errors and guide them towards successful improvement, making ChatGPT an effective”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geng & Razali, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), which was released by OpenAI (San Francisco, California) in 2018, is a type of Large Language Model (LLM) that aims to replicate human language processing capabilities (Cascella et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cascella et al., 2023
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“OpenAI released the ChatGPT-3.5language model family in November 2022 and, subsequently, the ChatGPT-4 family in March 2023 (Skavronskaya et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Skavronskaya et al., 2023
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Large language models have become a subject of interest in higher education due to their extensive range of applications, especially as there are now other similar options, such as Bing Chat, Bard, and Ernie (Rudolph et al., 2023b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This chatbot can engage in coherent and contextually relevant conversations by responding based on its comprehension of the language and context of the prompts (Gilson et al., 2023;Pavlik, 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilson et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Pavlik, 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Academics acknowledge that ensuring the responsible integration of AI into education is critical (Fadel et al., 2019;Polak et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fadel et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Polak et al., 2022
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Overall, incorporating ChatGPT in the learning process enables educators and students to benefit from personalised learning experiences, efficient and effective use of resources, and adaptive learning approaches that enhance the learning outcomes for all, consistent with the principles of constructivist theory (Bada & Olusegun, 2015;Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bada & Olusegun, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such LLMs can help conduct initial literature reviews, summarise research papers, generate draft versions of research papers (Rahman et al., 2023;Rudolph et al., 2023a), and even assist authors from non-English speaking backgrounds in overcoming language barriers (Gao et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rahman et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023a
- Not checked yetcites Gao et al., 2022
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the higher education sector, innovative assessment activities have gained a lot of attention because they assist students in getting involved with learning resources to think critically and have real learning experiences (Boud & Soler, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boud & Soler, 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, ChatGPT's ability to provide individualised feedback based on the constructivist theory of learning has significant potential to enhance the learning experience and promote successful learning outcomes.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“ChatGPT's research and analysis support, though currently at a basic level, has the potential to fundamentally impact research and higher education, depending on the quality of the prompts (Dwivedi et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dwivedi et al., 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, users should exercise caution as ChatGPT may be prone to hallucinations (Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023) and fabricate references and quotes (Sallam, 2023;Shen et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023
- Not checked yetcites Sallam, 2023
- Not checked yetcites Shen et al., 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“ChatGPT can act as a research assistant, answering users' questions based on the related literature it has learned (Lin, 2023), and analysing data (Goel, 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lin, 2023
- Not checked yetcites Goel, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automated administrative support through ChatGPT can use data and analytics to provide timely and personalised non-academic feedback to students, such as notifications about upcoming deadlines, reminders about incomplete tasks, and progress reports on completed tasks, based on individual needs and preferences.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While further research is needed to fully understand the potential of ChatGPT in the tertiary education sector, the constructivist theory of learning supports the use of ChatGPT for automated administrative support as it can facilitate active participation in learning, provide personalised feedback to students, and create a supportive learning environment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For academic staff, ChatGPT may be able to summarise and clarify student emails for administrative members to process more efficiently and generate personalised response templates for staff to address students' queries (Dwivedi et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dwivedi et al., 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As indicated earlier, ChatGPT can provide individualised feedback based on the students' prompts, making learning a more rewarding experience (Bridges, 2009;Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bridges, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contributing to a smart learning environment, ChatGPT can utilise big data and learning analytics to monitor student performance, predict success, and respond to students, including their emotional states, in real-time, resulting in personalised adaptive learning (PAL) that is consistent with constructivist theory (Peng et al., 2019;Rudolph et al., 2023a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peng et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The integration of ChatGPT can assist in creating a supportive learning environment for students by providing timely and accurate information, reducing administrative burdens, and presenting a cost-saving measure for higher education institutions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This provides a degree of efficiency and effectiveness, allowing for a synchronous interaction for students (Howlett, 2017;Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2021) and presenting a cost-savings measure for higher education institutions (Merelo et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Howlett, 2017
- Not checked yetcites Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2021
- Not checked yetcites Merelo et al., 2022
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is obvious that the implementation of advanced LLMs like ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionise the tertiary education sector by automating some elements of administrative support and providing a degree of efficiency and effectiveness.”
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The conversational nature of LLMs such as ChatGPT facilitates the active construction of students' knowledge as they are continuously engaged with the task, encouraged to find patterns through a scaffolded approach (Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2019), and learn through experimentation and experience, which is an important part of knowledge generation (Rudolph et al., 2023a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2019
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“AI applications like ChatGPT can provide accurate and efficient individualised feedback and automated grading, but users need to carefully check the outputs as they depend on the prompts (Rudolph et al., 2023a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, ChatGPT-generated text may contain factual biases due to biased training data, which could perpetuate misconceptions held by learners (Karim, 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karim, 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to the constructivism learning theory, learning happens best when there are good interactions between the instructor and learner (Schuh, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schuh, 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is no secret that ChatGPT challenges ethical and equity practices in the higher education sector, as it potentially contradicts the constructivist theory of learning that emphasises active student participation and the construction of knowledge.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
In the paper
“Using ChatGPT as a tool for exploration and inquiry, students can actively construct their own knowledge and meaning, reducing the likelihood of academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism or cheating (Keith, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keith, 2022
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“ChatGPT can generate initial ideas for assessment design, create multiple-choice or short-answer questions for academics, and produce drafts of case studies or other assessments for further editing (Bridgeman et al., 2023;Liu & Bridgeman, 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bridgeman et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Liu & Bridgeman, 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Creating authentic learning experiences would require collaborative and consultative learning experiences (Muhajirah, 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Muhajirah, 2020
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Passive shortcuts, potentially resulting in academic integrity breaches, hinder the active involvement of learners and hence impede learning.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
In the paper
“Another challenge of ChatGPT is the acceptance of feedback provided by AI rather than human instructors, which is against the constructivist theory of learning that emphasises interactions and social collaboration in learning (Hein, 1991).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hein, 1991
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
In the paper
“However, ChatGPT could impact students' ability to actively construct their own knowledge, as some students may have greater access to ChatGPT than others, resulting in a knowledge gap between students (Hein, 1991).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hein, 1991
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The misuse of ChatGPT to create content instantly as a shortcut goes against the philosophy of constructivism and any learning theory, for that matter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition 10 (P10): ChatGPT's ability to develop innovative and authentic student assessments depends on its focus on the work context and the students' existing knowledge.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
In the paper
“It can also be integrated into assessment tasks, where students critique generated text or essays and build high-quality articles based on generated drafts, provoking students' existing mental models and developing critical thinking skills (Dennick, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dennick, 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This technology can be integrated into innovative assessment activities, facilitating collaborative learning, scaffolding, real-time feedback, personalised learning, scalability, interactivity, and fostering knowledge creation and dissipation effectively (Kumar, 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumar, 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition 12 (P12): The integration of ChatGPT in innovative assessment activities can promote critical thinking, problemsolving, and collaboration skills among students.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the learning environment includes social groups, instructional strategies, and a motivational atmosphere, to name a few (Zajda, 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zajda, 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although chatbot technology has shown positive influences on explicit reasoning, learning achievement, knowledge retention, and learning interest, studies have not yet demonstrated significant improvements in critical thinking, learning engagement, and motivation (Deng & Yu, 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deng & Yu, 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using ChatGPT to facilitate learning could lead to unethical and inequitable practices, destroying the spirit of learning (Hein, 1991).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hein, 1991
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the constructivist theory of learning suggests that learners actively develop knowledge for themselves through experiences and interactions with others rather than passively acquiring it through external tools like ChatGPT (Geary, 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geary, 1995
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, incorporating AI literacy as part of graduate skills could enhance graduates' employability and preparedness for the rapidly evolving job market.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition 18 (P18): The use of ChatGPT in learning and assessment can impact the development of graduate skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Graduate skills, including critical thinking and problemsolving, communication, collaboration and teamwork, leadership, adaptability, digital literacy, global and cultural awareness, ethics, and professionalism, are essential for future professional and personal success (Abelha et al., 2020;Osmani et al., 2019;Oliver & de St Jorre, 2018; University of Adelaide, 2022; University of Sydney, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abelha et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Osmani et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Oliver & de St Jorre, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This could also make it challenging to evaluate the effectiveness of group learning activities and assess students' ability to work collaboratively.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the use of ChatGPT for assessment is a passive process and does not allow for social interaction, hindering students' ability to construct meaning through reflection on their experiences (Biggs, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Biggs, 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The use of ChatGPT presents an opportunity to incorporate artificial intelligence literacy as part of graduate skills, preparing graduates for effective workplace application of large language models that may replace some existing jobs and create new ones (Cradle, 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cradle, 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the incorporation of these methods into the curriculum and assessment could promote the development of graduate skills beyond the use of ChatGPT alone.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
The paper relies on this without support.
LLMs like ChatGPT are ubiquitous in higher education.
“The ubiquity of LLMs like ChatGPT has prompted a reevaluation of assessment design, with a focus on fostering creativity, critical thinking, authenticity, practicality, and collaboration (Nieminen et al., 2022;Villarroel et al., 2018), aligning with the constructivist theory's emphasis on authentic and formative assessment (Wiggins, 1990;Black & Wiliam, 2009).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Constructivist learning theory is the appropriate framework for evaluating ChatGPT's role in higher education.
“The paper presented five challenges and five benefits of ChatGPT for the higher education sector in the backdrop of the constructivism learning theory (Figure 1).”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, this shift toward individual learning raises important considerations for business education, where teamwork and interpersonal skills are crucial for professional success [15].”
From Scaffolding Creativity: Integrating Generative AI Tools and Real-World Experiences in Business Education (2025) · cites this paper as [15]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The arrival of AI in education has potential to produce significant transformations in the teacher-student relationship [54].”
From New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution (2023) · cites this paper as [54]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The diverse learning trajectories observed in these cases illustrate how AI tools can facilitate non-linear, adaptive learning processes by enabling students to dynamically integrate new information with prior knowledge and external resources [15, 16].”
From Scaffolding Creativity: Integrating Generative AI Tools and Real-World Experiences in Business Education (2025) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“ChatGPT has the potential to offer personalized learning experiences and support an effective learning process by providing students with customized feedback and explanations tailored to their needs and abilities”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [60]
In the citing paper
“Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions [4,6].”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Evaluate graduate skill sets
“(Fosnot, 1996)”
§ References
“40. Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Constructivist theory of learning
“(Taber, 2011)”
§ References
“125. Taber, K. S. (2012). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Adaptive learning
“(White et al., 2014;Kasneci et al., 2023)”
§ References
“139. White, P. J., Larson, I., Styles, K., Yuriev, E., Evans, D. R., Rangachari, P. K., Short, J. L., Exintaris, B., Malone, D. T., Davie, B., Eise, N., McNamara, K., & Naidu, S. (2016).”
Citations
Cites
Yaşlı Kadınlarda Üreme Sağlığı
Kokanalı, D., & Engin Üstün, Y. (n.d.) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 170,090
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · cited 24×
“LLMs like ChatGPT can also be incorporated into assessment tasks as text-generators, with students tasked to critically evaluate the generated output (Monash University, 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialZawacki-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 · cited 2×
“Nonetheless, adaptive learning systems aim to transform students from passive recipients to active collaborators through a scaffolded approach to learning (Deng & Yu, 2023; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).”
Background(2023) · doi:10.1126/science · Cited by 6,063
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846
Signals from Chloroplasts Converge to Regulate Nuclear Gene Expression
Koussevitzky, S., Nott, A., Mockler, T. C., Hong, F., Sachetto‐Martins, G., Surpin, M. A., Lim, J. C.-S., Mittler, R., & Chory, J. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1140516 · Cited by 5,765
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · Cited by 4,584
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Adar, N., & Kandemir M. C (2008, May 8). M-learning tools for palm device: M-test and m-exercise [Paper presentation]. 8th International Educational Technology Conference, Anadolu University, Eskisehir.
- Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
- Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
- Dijkstra, R., Genç, Z., Kayal, S., & Kamps, J. (2022, July 27-31). Reading comprehension quiz generation using generative pre-trained transformers [Paper presentation]. The 23th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED' 2022).
- Jansen, S. C., & Martin, B. (2015). The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International Journal of Communication, 9, 656-671.
- June, S., Yaacob, A., & Kheng, Y. K. (2014). Assessing the use of YouTube videos and interactive activities as a critical thinking stimulator for tertiary students: An action research. International Education Studies, 7(8), 56-67. https://doi. org/10.5539/ies. · DOI
- Kılıç, E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Karataş, S. (2003). İnternet destekli yapici ogrenme ortamlari. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 23(2), 149-160.
- Makewa, L. N. (2019). Constructivist theory in technology- based learning. In L. N. Makewa, B. M. Ngussa, & J. M. Kuboja (Eds.), Technology-supported teaching and research methods for educators (pp. 268-287). IGI Global.
- Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 1-23). Harvard University Press.
- Qiu, J. (2019). A preliminary study of English mobile learning model based on constructivism. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(9), 1167-1172. http://dx.doi. org/10.17507/tpls.0909. · DOI
- In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp. 39-61). Nova.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
- Yang, T. C., Hwang, G. J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2013). Development of an adaptive learning system with multiple perspectives based on students' learning styles and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 185-200.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 566
Alnaim, N. M., Alsanad, D. S., Albelali, S., Almulhem, M., Almuhanna, A., Attar, R. W., Alsahli, M. A., Albagmi, S., Bakhshwain, A. M., Almazrou, S. H., et al. (2024) · Nutrition and Health · doi:10.1177/02601060241273596 · Cited by 12
“AI technologies, particularly conversational agents like ChatGPT, have revolutionized educational practices by offering innovative solutions to diverse learning needs and challenges (Dai et al., 2023; Lo, 2023; Michail et al., 2023; Rasul et al., 2023; Tangadulrat et al., 2023).”
Mikael, K., Öz, C., Rashid, T. A., & Nariman, G. S. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3552501 · Cited by 21
“Generative models are particularly valuable in educational settings for open-ended tasks, such as providing personalized explanations or creative prompts [41], [42].”
ChatGPT: Systematic Review of Potentials and Limitations in Education
Patrício, M. R., & Gonçalves, B. F. (2024) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54256-5_32 · Cited by 12
Rane, N. L., Choudhary, S., & Rane, J. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4681733 · Cited by 15
Predicting the Use Behavior of Higher Education Students on ChatGPT: Evidence from the Philippines
Hernandez, A. A., Abisado, M., Rodriguez, R. L., & Imperial, J. M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering · doi:10.1109/tale56641.2023.10398324 · Cited by 15
“As such, many universities are not ready on the potential effects of ChatGPT use as it self-evolves in education [4].”
BackgroundChatGPT in Higher Education: Perceptions of Computer Science-Related Students
Hammer, S., Ottinger, S., Zönnchen, B., Hohendanner, M., Hobelsberger, M., & Thurner, V. (2024) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon60312.2024.10578742 · Cited by 13
“A constructivist learning experience with personalized tutoring, automated essay grading and both, interactive and adaptive learning modalities is potentially within reach [3], [4].”
BackgroundHussain, F., & Anwar, M. A. (2024) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2024.2422917 · Cited by 12
Karafil, B., & Uyar, A. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13291-w · Cited by 14
“…integrity and plagiarism concerns (Cotton et al., 2023), an excessive reliance on artificial intelligence (Crawford et al., 2023; Sok & Heng, 2024), false information (Karaköse, 2023; Zhuo et al., 2023), and biased learning assessment (Rasul et al., 2023) have been the main points of concern.”
Generative AI and Its Potential Impact on Humanity
Nasr, R. S., & El‐Deeb, S. (2025) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.70024 · Cited by 16
Exploring the potential use of generative ai for learner support in ODL at scale
Gevher, M., Öncü, S. E., & Erdoğdu, E. (2025) · Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning · doi:10.31681/jetol.1559442 · Cited by 15
Apriani, E., Daulay, S. H., Aprilia, F., Marzuki, A. G., Warsah, I., Supardan, D., & Muthmainnah, M. (2025) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2025.17913 · Cited by 41
“This is particularly notable in the context of lengthy essays and creative writing assignments, where ChatGPT exhibits remarkable performance (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Unraveling the influential factors driving persistent adoption of ChatGPT in learning environments
Moghavvemi, S., & Jam, F. A. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13662-x · Cited by 16
Use of case studies in social work assessments – ChatGPT’s kryptonite?
Netto, N. R. (2023) · Social Work Education · doi:10.1080/02615479.2023.2266461 · Cited by 14
“Another paper also articulated that ChatGPT had the potential to facilitate adaptive learning, provide personalized feedback, support research and data analysis, offer automated administrative services, and aid in developing innovative assessments (Rasul et al., 2023).”
InfluentialRudolph, J., Tan, S., & Aspland, T. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.1 · Cited by 13
Soto, D., Higashida, M., Shirai, S., Ueda, M., & Uranishi, Y. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.198 · Cited by 10
Wang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1761562 · Cited by 16
AI and student assessment in human-centered education
Balducci, B. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1383148 · Cited by 16
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Sustainable Development Goal 4 for Tertiary Education
Matthew, U. O., Oyekunle, D. O. T., Akpan, E. E., Oladipupo, M. A., Chukwuebuka, E. S., Adekunle, T. S., Waliu, A. O., & Onumaku, V. C. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2418-9.ch010 · Cited by 10
Raimi, L., Bamiro, N. B., & Lim, S. A. (2024) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s2043-052320240000023012 · Cited by 11
Prompting for pedagogy? Australian F-10 teachers’ generative AI prompting use cases
Crosthwaite, P. R., Smala, S., & Spinelli, F. (2024) · The Australian Educational Researcher · doi:10.1007/s13384-024-00787-0 · Cited by 20
“…a socio-constructivist lens has highlighted the need to include strategies facilitating active learning, promoting meaningful interactions, providing scaffolding, fostering collaboration, encouraging reflection, emphasising authenticity, and ensuring ethical use of ChatGPT (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Amer, M. I. B., Rababah, L. M., & Rababah, M. A. (2025) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.17507/jltr.1601.04 · Cited by 17
“According to Rasul et al. (2023), future exams should include a high focus on helping students enhance their analytical, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and communication.”
Zhang, C. (., Wang, L. H., & Rice, R. E. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100385 · Cited by 21
Bridging the Gap: ChatGPT’s Role in Enhancing STEM Education
Luan, L., Lin, X. Y., & Dai, Y. (2025) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.685 · Cited by 18
Al‐Mamary, Y. H. (2025) · Human Systems Management · doi:10.1177/01672533251340523 · Cited by 10
“Referring to Tajik and Tajik 17 and Rasul et al., 18 ChatGPT has great scope to enhance the performance of the students because it improves the students ’ accessibility.”
Cutillas, A. L. (2025) · Environment and Social Psychology · doi:10.59429/esp.v10i4.3185 · Cited by 12
Madsen, D. Ø., & Toston, D. M. (2025) · Digital · doi:10.3390/digital5030024 · Cited by 16
Application of Chatgpt in Higher Education and Research – a Futuristic AnalysisPreprint
Aithal, P. S., & Aithal, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4674364 · Cited by 10
Yakin, A. M. A., Obaid, A. J., Abdul, L., Warsah, I., Muthmainnah, M., & Elngar, A. A. (2023) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0502-7.ch020 · Cited by 9
Digital Learning Management using OpenAI ChatGPT: A Systematic Literature Review
Faruq, M. S. S. A., Sunoko, A., Ibda, H., & Wahyudi, K. (2023) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.12.2 · Cited by 16
Issa, M., Faraj, M., & AbiGhannam, N. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3409514 · Cited by 10
“It could also uphold the constructivist theory of learning through personalized feedback and guidance to students,enhancingtheirwritingjourney[30],[31].”
BackgroundUYGUN, T., Şendur, A., Top, B., & Coşgun-Başeğmez, K. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13084-1 · Cited by 9
“This finding can be encouraged by the findings of the previous research emphasizing the role of ChatGPT in designing lessons and materials (Javaid et al., 2023; Kasneci et al., 2023; Rasul et al., 2023; Tlili et al., 2023).”
InfluentialOfem, U. J., Ene, E. I., Ajuluchukwu, E. N., Neji, H. A., Edam-Agbor, I. B., Orim, F. S., Nwogwugwu, C. E., Ovat, S. V., Ukatu, J. O., Ekpang, P. O., et al. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100337 · Cited by 14
Borup, J., West, R. E., Lowenthal, P. R., & Archambault, L. (2025) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.769 · Cited by 11
“For instance, Rasul et al. (2023) explained that ChatGPT could be used to analyze, summarize, and clarify student emails or small group class conversations that instructors are monitoring to detect challenges or questions.”
InfluentialCordero, J., & Cordero-Castillo, A. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85930-4_23 · Cited by 15
CPVis: Evidence-based Multimodal Learning Analytics for Evaluation in Collaborative Programming
Zhang, G., Ji, S., Li, Y., Tang, J., Ding, J., Xia, M., Sun, G., & Liang, R. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713353 · Cited by 15
Eddine, R. J., Gide, E., & Al-Sabbagh, A. (2025) · STEM Education · doi:10.3934/steme.2025035 · Cited by 13
“Digital Centaur”: Human-AI Collaborative Learning in Universities
Игоревич, З. Д., & Gruzdev, I. (2025) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2025-34-10-47-62 · Cited by 9
Özbay, Ö. (2026) · Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.59409/ojer.1755463 · Cited by 9
Generative AI and digital neocolonialism in global education: Towards an equitable framework
Nyaaba, M., Wright, A. L., & Choi, G. L. (2026) · Journal of Digital Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/jdet/17862 · Cited by 9
Slomp, E. M., Ropelato, D., Bonatti, C., & da Silva, M. D. (2024) · 2024 IEEE World Engineering Education Conference (EDUNINE) · doi:10.1109/edunine60625.2024.10500580 · Cited by 8
“…[14], the provision of personalized feedback to students [13], [14], support for research and data analysis [14], automated administrative services [14], and the development of innovative educational materials and assessments [14], [15], demonstrating the value of these technologies in education.”
BackgroundInfluentialUsing Generative AI to Promote the APA's Five Goals for Undergraduate Majors
Fortner, M., & Katzarska-Miller, I. I. (2024) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/00986283241264793 · Cited by 8
“Using GAI as a learning tool can “ transform students from passive recipients to active collaborators ” (Rasul et al., 2023, p. 44), which is a central goal of personalized learning models.”
Luo, J.-H., Keung, C. P. C., & Tang, H.-H. H. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2444890 · Cited by 10
Zakarneh, B. M., Aljabr, F. S., Said, N. A., & Jlassi, M. (2025) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n3p364 · Cited by 16
Artemiou, E., Hooper, S. E., Dascanio, L., Schmidt, M., & Gilbert, G. (2025) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2024.1504598 · Cited by 15
Chopra, G., Bhaskar, P., Purohit, A., & Strzelecki, A. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13536-2 · Cited by 12
“ChatGPT is an effective tool for enhancing student learning, critical thinking abilities and promotes self-directed learning (Alneyadi & Wardat, 2023; Rasul et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023).”
Arista, A., Shuib, L. M., & Ismail, M. A. (2024) · International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS) · doi:10.1109/icimcis63449.2024.10956736 · Cited by 10
Luo, Y. T., Liu, T., Pang, P. C., Wang, Z., & Chan, K. I. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15137515 · Cited by 8
Sell, R., Razdan, R., Kase, K., & Rüütmann, T. (2025) · International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) · doi:10.3991/ijep.v15i5.56681 · Cited by 11
Shen, W., Lin, X., Liu, J., Liang, X., Chen, R., Xiao-yun, L., & Zheng, X. N. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70140 · Cited by 10
Mapping artificial intelligence research in higher education toward sustainable development
Hong, T. T. M., Tung, N. T. T., & Thanh, N. T. P. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-02162-0 · Cited by 16
Abbas, A., Azar, B. B., Mahrishi, M., Núñez, J. L. M., & Mishra, D. (2025) · Equilibrium Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy · doi:10.24136/eq.3551 · Cited by 16
“Thirdly, establishing data protection and privacy policies to ensure the responsible handling of sensitive student (Rasul et al. , 2023).”
Learning and teaching with ChatGPT: Potentials and applications in foreign language education
Çobanoğulları, F. (2024) · The EuroCALL Review · doi:10.4995/eurocall.2024.19957 · Cited by 20
Habiba, U., & Partho, P. P. B. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4329543/v1 · Cited by 8
Generative AI as a Personal Tutor for English Language Learning: A Review of Benefits and ConcernsPreprint
Pang, S., Nol, E., & Heng, K. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4865398 · Cited by 8
“…offers a number of advantages for language learning, such as providing a responsive, interactive conversational platform that allows learners to practice and enhance their English skills at any time and place, making it an important resource for continuous learning outside the classroom [62, 63].”
Motivations and Affordances of ChatGPT Usage for College Students’ Learning
Lee, S. K., Ryu, J., Jie, Y., & Ma, D. H. (2025) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.9508 · Cited by 7
Towards Responsible Use: Student Perspectives on ChatGPT in Higher Education
Yang, H. (2024) · European Conference on e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ecel.23.1.2790 · Cited by 7
“Rasul et al. (2023) highlight how ChatGPT can facilitate personalised learning by adapting to individual student needs and providing tailored feedback.”
BackgroundSobaih, A. E. E., & Abuelnasr, A. (2025) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2025.8.1.7 · Cited by 11
The impact of guilt on student interactions with generative AI technology
Jo, H. (2025) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2466152 · Cited by 8
“Relying heavily on AI for assignments may undermine students’ development of critical thinking and ethical decision-making skills, fostering dependency on technology rather than independent learning (Khalil & Er, 2023; Minh, 2024; Rasul et al., 2023; Zhai et al., 2024; S. Zhang et al., 2024).”
What Artificial Intelligence Means to Us – Students’ Insights
Pisica, A. I., & ZAHARIA, R. M. (2025) · European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies · doi:10.24818/ejis.2025.09 · Cited by 8
Ratniyom, J., Panmas, W., Rattanakorn, P., & Tientongdee, S. (2025) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.14.4.1087 · Cited by 10
Chan, N. N., Bailey, R. P., Tan, M. H. J., Dipolog-Ubanan, G. F., Tan, G. W., Motevalli, S., Samsudin, N., & Ang, C. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102733 · Cited by 7
Artificial intelligence as a mentor in the graduate online classroom: opportunities and challenges
Kellam, H., Cortés, L. P., & Gilmore, T. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1108/aiie-10-2024-0034 · Cited by 9
Noor, N., Tong, A., & Zainol, Z. (2025) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-03-2025-0071 · Cited by 9
Taani, O., Alarabi, K., Tairab, H. H., Khurma, O. A., & AlSadrani, B. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/17315 · Cited by 9
Wessels, B. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00562-w · Cited by 7
“Through active learning, students critically engage with texts, digital resources, and academic debates, and draw on their own experiences in the course of academic study (Rasul et al., 2023).”
A Case Study of Sustainable Development in Hospitals in Thailand Using ChatGPT
Siripipatthanakul, S., Chaiprakarn, S., Rungsiyanont, S., & Phuangsuwan, P. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9800-5.ch001 · Cited by 7
Generative AI-driven feedback in higher education: a scoping review
Zhang, K., Li, S., & Huang, Y. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2617157 · Cited by 13
The Role of ChatGPT in Improving the Efficiency of Education Management Processes
Harini, H. (2023) · Indo-MathEdu Intellectuals Journal · doi:10.54373/imeij.v4i2.199 · Cited by 7
“ChatGPT's capacity to deliver prompt information, personalised support, and aid in the learning journey (Rasul et al., 2023).”
BackgroundDamaševičius, R., & Sidekerskienė, T. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2728-9.ch001 · Cited by 7
TEACHERS AND LEARNERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE AI IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Chukhno, O. (2024) · Modern Information Technologies and Innovation Methodologies of Education in Professional Training Methodology Theory Experience Problems · doi:10.31652/2412-1142-2024-73-53-60 · Cited by 7
“Rasul [13] examines the role of ChatGPT in higher education, identifying its benefits, such as personalised feedback and innovative assessments, alongside challenges like academic integrity concerns and reliability issues.”
BackgroundPublic attitudes toward higher education using sentiment analysis and topic modeling
Göçen, A., Ibrahim, M. M., & Khan, A. U. I. (2024) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00195-4 · Cited by 13
“5 language model on 30 November 2022 and then the ChatGPT-4 on 14 March 2023 [45], which sparked many discussions on higher education level [46].”
Ismail, M. F. B. M., Crawford, J., Tan, S., Rudolph, J., Tan, E., Seah, P., Tang, F. X., Ng, F., Kaldenbach, L. V., Naidu, A. A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.35 · Cited by 7
Kumar, A., Baijal, A., & Kharat, M. (2025) · Journal of International Education in Business · doi:10.1108/jieb-07-2024-0086 · Cited by 6
Responses to the Initial Hype: ChatGPT Supporting Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship?
Cefa, B., Macgilchrist, F., ElGamal, H., Bai, J. Y. H., Zawacki‐Richter, O., & Loglo, F. S. (2025) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.17.2.872 · Cited by 10
Artificial Intelligence and Multiliteracies: Preparing Learners for a Technologically Evolving World
Apata, S. B., Owojori, O. M., Shogbesan, Y. O., & Ugom, M. K. (2025) · International Journal of New Education · doi:10.24310/ijne.15.2025.21332 · Cited by 6
Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Liu, H. (2026) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2549310 · Cited by 6
“Its impact is evident across a range of writing-related tasks, including research, source summarization, translation, automated text evaluation, personalized feedback, and text generation (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Liu, Y., & Tınmaz, H. (2025) · Higher Education Quarterly · doi:10.1111/hequ.70073 · Cited by 11
Ma, Y., Zhang, Z., & Liu, C. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13850-9 · Cited by 6
“Its core mechanism lies in the fact that while thinking offloading superficially frees up cognitive resources, it may also reduce the necessity for students to engage in deep analytical reasoning and independent problem-solving (Chen et al., 2023 ; Rasul et al., 2023 ).”
Raghavendra, G., Mallya, J., & Payini, V. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2591500 · Cited by 7
AKÇA, N. C., Özbek, Ö. Y., Cobutoğlu, S. A., & Akça, M. F. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-06368-5 · Cited by 6
“0 to its subscribers with payment money (Rasul et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2023; Skavronskaya et al., 2023).”
Jepkemoi, B., Mulwa, P. K., & Mwanda, S. O. (2024) · Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies · doi:10.53103/cjess.v4i1.206 · Cited by 6
Dindorf, C., Weisenburger, F., Bartaguiz, E., Dully, J., Klappenberger, L., Lang, V., Zimmermann, L., Fröhlich, M., & Seibert, J. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14050531 · Cited by 11
Future Prospects of ChatGPT in Higher Education
Phutela, N., Grover, P., Singh, P., & Mittal, N. (2024) · International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO) · doi:10.1109/icrito61523.2024.10522294 · Cited by 9
Broadhead, L.-A. (2024) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.9 · Cited by 6
Leveraging ChatGPT for Personalized Learning: A systematic Review in Educational Settings
Sreen, A. H. S., & Majid, M. H. M. (2024) · Amandemen Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Studies · doi:10.61166/amd.v2i1.72 · Cited by 6
Rawas, S., & AlSaeed, D. (2024) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83608-424-220241002 · Cited by 6
Uçar, S. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101394 · Cited by 18
ELT Teachers' perception and usage of ChatGPT as a teaching tool in the Bangladeshi EFL context
Tarannum, T., Ahmed, R., Seraj, P. M. I., & Khan, T. S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13515-7 · Cited by 12
Matheis, P., & Jacob-John, J. (2024) · Advances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0240-8.ch008 · Cited by 7
Li, C., Yang, J., Zhang, H., Tian, L., Guo, J., & Yu, G. (2024) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202406.1835.v1 · Cited by 8
Amaya, E. A. V., Zavaleta, A. R. S., Luján, I. G. V., López, E. G., Reyna, J. T., & Gonzales, J. D. R. (2025) · International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.24.12.6 · Cited by 6
Leveraging Past Assignments to Determine If Students Are Using ChatGPT for Their Essays
Zhao, Y., Zou, C., Sridhar, R., Cui, C., & Starner, T. E. (2024) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3657604.3664707 · Cited by 5
Detecting AI-Generated Writing Using GPTZero
Paullet, K., Pinchot, J., Kinney, E., & Stewart, T. (2025) · Information Systems Education Journal · doi:10.62273/pzww7741 · Cited by 5
“It has caused mixed feelings among educators, as some view it as an opportunity for advanced teaching and learning while others focus on the drawbacks which include plagiarism, generation of incorrect information, and biases in data training (Baidoo-Anu & Ansah, 2023; Rasul et al., 2023).”
Wu, J.-T. (2025) · International Journal of Linguistics Literature & Translation · doi:10.32996/ijllt.2025.8.5.10 · Cited by 8
“Generative AI models, such as ChatGPT, have been recognized for their capacity to generate grammatically precise and contextually relevant text that closely mirrors human-authored writing in terms of structure and coherence (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Postdigital Citizenship Education and Argumentation: Can AI Support Students’ Critical Literacy?
Rapanta, C. (2025) · Globalisation, comparative education and policy research · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-86145-1_5 · Cited by 6
Kotamjani, S. S., Shirinova, S., Muratova, K., & Sharma, M. (2024) · International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems (ICFNDS) · doi:10.1145/3726122.3726266 · Cited by 5
“Maintaining fundamental human abilities like ethical reasoning and critical analysis while giving students the tools to succeed in an AI-mediated workforce requires striking this balance [9., 12., 23., 24.].”
Abdulmuhsin, A. A., Al-Atraqchi, O. M. A., Rehman, S. U., Alkhwaldi, A. F., & Mjlae, S. (2026) · Knowledge and Process Management · doi:10.1002/kpm.70060 · Cited by 5
“Several studies, including those by Alrayes et al. (2024), Elbanna and Armstrong (2023), Filippi and Motyl (2024), Shen (2024), Zhu et al. (2024) and Rasul et al. (2023), have explored meth-ods for adapting LLMs to develop internal knowledge bases and conversational systems intended for doctors or…”
Hrechanyk, N., Васюк, О., Matsenko, L., Фоломєєва, Н. А., Корякін, О. О., & Виговська, С. (2023) · Journal of Curriculum and Teaching · doi:10.5430/jct.v12n5p96 · Cited by 5
The Impact of ChatGPT on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
Li, M. (2024) · Advances in information quality and management · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7366-5.ch079 · Cited by 5
Curse or a Blessing: Excessive Use of ChatGPT in Academia
Sajjad, M. (2024) · Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE) · doi:10.61506/01.00329 · Cited by 7
“Such theoretical frameworks highlight the valuable insights for knowing the complex dynamic forces which are the cause of excessive use of ChatGPT in academia (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D. R., Robin, M., Santini, F. D. O., Ladeira, W. J., Sun, M., Day, I., Rather, R. A., & Heathcote, L.
- Affiliations
- Australian Institute of Business (AU)
- Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (BR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2023-05-11
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2591-801X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4376139682
- Semantic Scholar
- 9e7cd4ce1ed4b842e8a428c3774bd06ca3a5b769
- Cited by
- 561
- References
- 122
- Citations by year
- 2026: 69 · 2025: 235 · 2024: 209 · 2023: 47
- FWCI
- 131.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in education, higher education, constructivist learning theory, adaptive learning, personalized feedback, academic integrity, AI evaluation, AI literacy, algorithmic bias, ethical use of AI, graduate competencies
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
