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 401–500 of 566
The Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education Institutions in Germany
Bohlens, C. (2025) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7949-3.ch012 · Cited by 1
Tanuwijaya, S., Agustinus, J., & Heripracoyo, S. (2024) · International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent System (ICORIS) · doi:10.1109/icoris63540.2024.10903835 · Cited by 2
Shi, W. (2024) · Higher education and practice. · doi:10.62381/h241b19 · Cited by 1
Opportunities and Threats of the ChatGPT Revolution in Completing Students’ Final Assignments
Mansur, A., Amaliya, W., Lestari, W. A., & Adiba, F. (2025) · Journal of Education Research and Evaluation · doi:10.23887/jere.v9i1.83227 · Cited by 4
Pipia, E., & Gurgenishvili, T. (2025) · European Scientific Journal ESJ · doi:10.19044/esj.2025.v21n10p190 · Cited by 3
Six-step approach for developing customized GPT in medical education
Hassanien, M. A., Elsamanoudy, A. Z., Ghoneim, F. M., Hegazy, G. A., Amin, H. A., Mustafa, H. N., Younès, M., Abo-Halawa, N., Saadany, S. A. E., & Abou-Kamer, R. A. (2025) · Journal Of Advanced Pharmacy Education And Research · doi:10.51847/1ghl2sws00 · Cited by 1
“Using learning theories like constructivism and the Community of Inquiry framework, customized GPT technologies like ChatGPT are efficiently incorporated into medical education [17].”
Investigating the Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in English Listening Teaching
Lv, Z., & Zhang, L. (2025) · International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies · doi:10.4018/ijwltt.381303 · Cited by 5
Learners’ Awareness of AI as Originator of an Academic Text During Revision: An Exploratory Study
Radtke, A., Meyer, J., & Rummel, N. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98417-4_1 · Cited by 1
Muchaku, S., Kabiti, H. M., & Nthambeleni, B. (2025) · International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) · doi:10.20525/ijrbs.v14i6.4080 · Cited by 1
Can LLMs help students learn accounting? A performance analysis across models and prompts
Llacay, B., & Vilá, M. P. C. (2026) · Journal of Accounting Education · doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2026.101037 · Cited by 2
Hsieh, M.-Y. (2025) · Research in Science & Technological Education · doi:10.1080/02635143.2025.2546984 · Cited by 2
“The pervasive influence of ChatGPT application of AI technology in education mirrors its broader impact on society, comparable to the transformative effects of earlier information, website, wireless, and computer-coding technologies (Rasul et al. 2023).”
Ujvari, M. M., & Odeh, A. O. (2025) · An-Najah University Journal for Research - B (Humanities) · doi:10.35552/0247.40.4.2538 · Cited by 1
Hsiao, C.-H., & Chiu, C.-H. (2025) · 2025 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (ICAIE) · doi:10.1109/icaie64856.2025.11158580 · Cited by 3
“A substantial body of research has demonstrated that ChatGPT enhances students’ confidence in their learning, which in turn contributes to improved academic performance [11]– [15].”
Learning map: Representing and reasoning over diverse assimilation patterns of learners
Praseeda, Srinivasa, S., & Ram, P. (2025) · Next research. · doi:10.1016/j.nexres.2025.100804 · Cited by 2
STRATEGIES FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF UNIVERSITIES
Teker, S., Teker, D., & Tavman, E. B. (2025) · Journal of Technology and Information · doi:10.5507/jtie.2025.005 · Cited by 1
Nurhayati, S., Lotfi, F. Z., Taufikin, T., & Hidayat, A. W. (2025) · Information systems engineering and management · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05306-0_1 · Cited by 3
Martín, A. S., Mendoza, J. L. C., & Serrano-Pérez, E. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0801-2.ch010 · Cited by 1
Biswas, B., & Biswas, S. (2025) · Vojnotehnicki glasnik · doi:10.5937/vojtehg73-55682 · Cited by 1
Kumar, R., Siddiqui, A., -, M. B. S., & Mulyaningtiyas, R. D. (2025) · PromptAI Academy Journal · doi:10.37497/promptai.4.2025.92 · Cited by 1
Addressing Challenges and Seizing Opportunities with ChatGPT in Computer Programming Education
Tang, C. M., Ng, V. S. C., Leung, H. M. F., & Yuen, J. C. H. (2025) · Signals and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-96855-6_11 · Cited by 1
Masriyah, Indrawatiningsih, N., Hartono, S., Sa'diyah, M., Hanifah, U., & Sari, A. S. L. (2025) · Multidisciplinary Science Journal · doi:10.31893/multiscience.2026331 · Cited by 1
Bobula, M. (2025) · Bridging human and machine: future education with intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-0950-8_13 · Cited by 1
Nagy, P., Nagy-Tóth, B., & Nagy, A. S. (2025) · International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics (ICEME) · doi:10.1145/3760557.3760590 · Cited by 2
Arista, A., Shuib, L. M., Ismail, M. A., Theresiawati, Niqotaini, Z., & Seta, H. B. (2025) · International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS) · doi:10.1109/icimcis68501.2025.11327417 · Cited by 2
“Students may obtain personalized feedback from ChatGPT to identify mistakes, improve work, and develop expertise [51].”
MAPPING RESEARCH ON GENERATIVE AI AND CRITICAL THINKING IN EDUCATION
Idrus, N. M., Ghani, N. A. A., & Rahman, H. A. (2025) · International Journal of Education Psychology and Counseling · doi:10.35631/ijepc.1061067 · Cited by 1
Exploratory Study on a Generative AI Literacy Education Program for College Students Focusing on PBL
Bang, U.-J., & Jung, H.-K. (2026) · Journal of Digital Contents Society · doi:10.9728/dcs.2026.27.1.165 · Cited by 1
Parmin, N. N. A., Yazam, S. S. N. M., Ibrahim, M., & Adziz, A. C. A. (2025) · International Journal of Modern Education · doi:10.35631/ijmoe.728064 · Cited by 1
Aljoudeh, J., Balkhi, A. A., Ranjous, Y., Shbani, A., Takieddin, D., & Izzat, M. B. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/84942 · Cited by 2
“For students, AI assists in editing texts, generating medical case scenarios, summarizing complex topics, and simplifying difficult information, which saves time and enhances efficiency [4, 5].”
The Improvement or Hindrance of the New Generation of Artificial Intelligence
Li, Y., Cheng, W., Chen, Z., He, Y., Liu, D., & Chen, Z. (2026) · International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach · doi:10.4018/ijitsa.406761 · Cited by 1
Global Research Trends on Higher Education and Employability
Laaz, A. F., & Rodríguez, V. G. (2026) · Prisma social · doi:10.65598/rps.6086 · Cited by 1
Hassanikordedeh, M., Fathi, M. R., & Payvar, A. (2026) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/09610006251411534 · Cited by 3
Abbasi, F. F., Usman, M., & Latif, B. (2026) · European journal of training and development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-07-2025-0151 · Cited by 1
Embang, J. E. G., Tan, Y. H. V., Hooi, S. C., Wong, A. H., & Wong, L. (2026) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-026-10547-7 · Cited by 1
Alnujaidi, S. (2026) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2026.27903 · Cited by 2
The impact of artificial intelligence use on enhancing research efficacy among postgraduate students
Al-Rantisi, A. M., & Koofan, E. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01742-0 · Cited by 1
“For example, Tareq et al., [56] reported that gaps in technical skills and reliability issues may limit students’ ability to fully benefit from AI.”
Eray, O., & Polat, L. N. Ö. (2026) · Journal of Intelligent Systems Theory and Applications · doi:10.38016/jista.1831503 · Cited by 1
Application of ChatGPT in Doctoral Education and Programming
Long, K. B., & Adams, K. R. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1054-0.ch008 · Cited by 2
Applications Areas, Possibilities, and Limitations of ChatGPT
Qamar, R., & Zardari, B. A. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-6824-4.ch004 · Cited by 1
Exploring Engineering Students' Perceptions of ChatGPT in ENSA School
Remch, A. (2024) · Advances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3045-6.ch012 · Cited by 1
Egolet, W. M., & Kachroo, A. K. (2024) · International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) · doi:10.38124/ijisrt/ijisrt24aug455 · Cited by 1
Chat GPT in Higher Education: An Analysis of Research Trends and Themes
Ibrahimi, G., & Benchekroun, B. A. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65691-0_2 · Cited by 1
Qureshi, R., Noreen, S., & Ismaeel, G. (2024) · iRASD journal of educational research. · doi:10.52131/jer.2024.v5i1.2551 · Cited by 2
Hemşirelik Eğitiminde Dönüşüm: ChatGPT’nin Potansiyeli, Yararları, Sınırlılıkları ve Zorlukları
Karaçay, P., Yaşar, Ö., Küçükkaya, A., & Göktaş, P. (2024) · Fenerbahçe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi · doi:10.56061/fbujohs.1497062 · Cited by 2
USO DO CHATGPT POR ESTUDANTES ITALIANOS NA UNIVERSIDADE DEGLI STUDI DI PERUGIA-UNIPG
Brognoli, P. C., & Rodrigues, M. B. (2025) · Revista Nova Paideia - Revista Interdisciplinar em Educação e Pesquisa · doi:10.36732/riep.v7i1.421 · Cited by 1
Affordably Fine-tuned LLMs Provide Better Answers to Course-specific MCQs
Raimondi, B., Giallorenzo, S., & Gabbrielli, M. (2025) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/3672608.3707732 · Cited by 1
From Chatting to Cheating: How Can Ethical Considerations Be Ensured in this AI-Driven Research Era?
Benaissa, M., Attou, Y., Seddik, M., & Nfissi, A. (2025) · International Journal of Language and Literary Studies · doi:10.36892/ijlls.v7i1.1996 · Cited by 3
Chau, M. T., Arruzza, E. S., & Singh, C. (2025) · Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101982 · Cited by 1
The Use of ChatGPT in Academic Writing Skills for EFL Learners: A Systematic Literature Review
Ganesha, U. P., Kirana, N. P. Y., Ganesha, U. P., & Hery, H. (2024) · Education of English as A Foreign Language · doi:10.21776/ub.educafl.2024.007.02.04 · Cited by 8
Vivekananda, M. N., Shidlyali, P. A., & Malgi, V. V. (2025) · International Conference on Advances in Modern Age Technologies for Health and Engineering Science (AMATHE) · doi:10.1109/amathe65477.2025.11081314 · Cited by 1
“While existing models perform well in high-resource languages, there is a growing need to support low-resource languages to ensure in-clusivity and global impact [14].”
Introducing ChatGPT in Undergraduate Research among Nursing Students: A Quasi- experimental StudyPreprint
Tuppal, C. P., Atendido, M. R. A., Atendido, A. B. C., Ninobla, M. M. G., Fadlilah, S., & Roa, M. N. T. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915492/v1 · Cited by 1
Wang, J., Li, Y., & Qian, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 9th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology · doi:10.1145/3761843.3761883
ChatGPT's Academic Odyssey: Navigating Higher Education's AI RevolutionPreprint
Sen, S. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4628243
Stepping Stones for Self-Learning
Hai-Jew, S. (2023) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0074-9.ch005
Are ChatGPT-Like Applications Harmful for the Learning Process?
Marian, R. M., Surubaru, T., & Isoc, D. (2024) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52667-1_22
Facing Mega-Crises in the Global Era of AI
Lukacovic, M. N., & Sellnow‐Richmond, D. D. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0831-8.ch008
Liberman, C. J. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0831-8.ch006
Investigating ChatGPT: A Threat or Benefit to Higher Education?
Mlambo, P. B. (2024) · Futurity Education · doi:10.57125/fed.2024.03.25.14 · Cited by 4
“Another negative impact is that ChatGPT makes it hard to maintain academic integrity and to evaluate students’ skill sets (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Tekeş, A., Voicu, R., & Tekeş, C. (2024) · ASEE Southeast Section Conference · doi:10.18260/1-2--45586
ChatGPT és más nagy nyelvi modellek (LLM-ek) biztonsági kérdései, szervezeti és társadalmi hatásai
Nagy, P. (2024) · Rendvédelem · doi:10.53793/rv.2024.2.1 · Cited by 1
Yuan, Y., & Harun, J. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4337026/v1
Arora, S. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-6824-4.ch008
The Influence of the PBL Model to Student Learning Outcomes on Heat and its Transfer Concepts
Otoluwa, S. M., Uloli, R., Abdjul, T., Mursalin, M., Odja, A. H., & Ntobuo, N. E. (2024) · Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA · doi:10.29303/jppipa.v10i7.8003
“More than the education and teaching styles of the past were needed to sustain learning according to the student's needs (Rasul et al., 2023; Shehata et al., 2024; Bahtiar et al., 2023).”
BackgroundJournal, A. W. E. (2024) · SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/7jdkf
Shaping the Future of Higher Education
(2024) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-4074-5.ch003
Offor, J. O., Izuka, M. O., Munirah, A., Benedict, E., Olukemi, M. O., Achusi, I. B., & Iyelobu, C. E. (2024) · Universal library of medical and health sciences. · doi:10.70315/uloap.ulmhs.2024.0203005
The use of ChatGPT in higher education: Students' perceptions
Dragojević, T. N., & Turudić, J. (2024) · Nastava i vaspitanje · doi:10.5937/nasvas2403315d
THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON LANGUAGE LEARNING
PONOMARENKO, N., Timchenko, G., & Neustroieva, G. (2024) · ТHE SOURCES OF PEDAGOGICAL SKILLS · doi:10.33989/2075-146x.2024.34.318106
Erturk-Mincheva, A., Dakova, M., Stoykovski, G., & Nikolov, N. (2024) · Proceedings of CBU in Economics and Business · doi:10.12955/peb.v4.386
ฉกามานนท์, ส., บุณยพุกกณะ, โ., สิทธิพันธุ์, ป., วงศ์วิเศษ, ข., สาเมาะ, อ., & Khabuan, S. (2025) · Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal · doi:10.60027/iarj.2025.280525 · Cited by 2
Жумашева, С. С., & Bitleuov, A. A. (2024) · Habaršy. Pedagogika ġylymdary seriâsy · doi:10.51889/2959-5762.2024.84.4.013
Quality of Argumentation Questions on Excretory System Materials Using the ANATES Application
Lorika, R., Arsih, F., Alberida, H., & Irdawati (2024) · Journal of Education Research and Evaluation · doi:10.23887/jere.v8i4.83905
“In addition, the differentiating power of the questions showed a fairly good variation (Kamalov et al., 2023; Rasul et al., 2023).”
Wang, P. (2025) · Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences · doi:10.2478/amns-2025-0125
Chen, Y., & Chen, Z. (2025) · Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences · doi:10.2478/amns-2025-0287
BA-GPT: Battlefield Awareness Interactive Q&A System Based on RAG
Yu, C., Mao, Z., Wu, Y., Tu, Q., & Shen, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3564-1_29
Tapales, E. (2025) · Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.350303
Lee, A. (2025) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Futures in Education and Society · doi:10.58946/apjfes-4.1.p1 · Cited by 1
Cao, Y. (2025) · International Conference on Cryptography, Network Security and Communication Technology (CNSCT) · doi:10.1145/3723890.3723902
Syahrial, S., Asrial, A., Sabil, H., Rahmi, R., Azzahra, M. Z., & Nawahdani, A. M. (2025) · Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE) · doi:10.37251/jee.v6i2.1225
Kohan, N., Ahmady, S., Yaseen, S., Hoshmandjah, M., Keshavarzi, M. H., & Rezaei, P. (2024) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/56325
The Application and Effectiveness Evaluation of ChatGPT in English Teaching
Hou, M., Zhang, Z., Chen, X., & Lin, B. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Energy Systems and Power Engineering (EESPE) · doi:10.1109/eespe63401.2025.10986788
Sadiq, M. A., Kefas, H. I., Ukaegbu, F. C., & Isiaku, L. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5251679
(2025) · مجلة التربية في القرن 21 للدراسات التربوية والنفسية · doi:10.21608/jsep.2025.427908
Hidayat-ur-Rehman, I. (2025) · International Conference on Computing and Information Technology (ICCIT) · doi:10.1109/iccit63348.2025.10989377
Innovating IT Ethics Education: The Role of AI in Course Development
Lorenz, B., & Kikkas, K. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93564-0_20
Sofa, N. A., Kunaepi, A., & Nasikhin, N. (2024) · Edukasi Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran · doi:10.19109/6cdck053
“Additionally, ChatGPT simulates interactive discussions that allow students to ask questions and get in-depth and diverse answers, thus enriching their insights into religious and social issues in Islam (Rasul et al., 2023).”
Richie, C. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198945215.003.0009
Kınık, F. Ş. F. (2025) · Journal of Teacher Development and Education · doi:10.29329/journalted.42 · Cited by 1
Hidayanto, A. N., Phusavat, K., & Kurnia, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8430-4_2
ChatGPT-Assisted Learning: A New Paradigm for Information Technology Education
Fernandez, J. R. E., Baylosis, M. C., & Detuya, K. D. (2025) · International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology · doi:10.48175/ijarsct-28247
The role of information technology in improving technical competencies in computer science
Sajid, N. M., Abdulrazzq, R. A., & Ahmed, M. A. (2025) · International Journal of Engineering in Computer Science · doi:10.33545/26633582.2025.v7.i1d.186
Motivations, Means, and Meanings: Understanding AI Tool Usage Among Students in the Global South
Ratul, M. A. I., Haque, F., Saha, P., Noor, J., & Haque, S. M. T. (2025) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3719160.3737624
Miranda, J. P. P., & Yambao, J. A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5364333
Revolutionizing Education With AI
Ganguli, A., Kataria, A., & Dhaundiyal, P. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9841-8.ch004
Attitude Towards Artificial Intelligence: Perspectives From Students in Economic Studies
Іванівна, В. Н., Balytska, M., & Honchar, I. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83608-904-920251005
From Google Scholar to Chat GPT: Is AI a Research Tool or the Paper Author?
Wahby, A. (2025) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87550-2_36
Lajane, H., allioui, W., Gouifrane, R., Arai, M., Idrissi, W. E. M. E., Lamiri, A., Abidi, O., Chemsi, G., & Radid, M. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.82466
Manoj Kumar, A. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2185-1.ch012
Maldonado-López, B., Suárez-Redondo, E., Sánchez, R. A., & Almeida, P. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5473475
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
