CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Is ChatGPT an opportunity or a threat? Preventive strategies employed by academics related to a GenAI-based LLM at a faculty of education

Open access
Van Wyk, Micheal M·2024·Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
DOI 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.15
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Within the past decade, enormous strides have been made related to the disruptive effect of AI in education, which has grown exponentially. Recent developments in GenAI conversational models have highlighted the need to investigate this phenomenon in different contexts. This prompted me to investigate academics’ views on ChatGPT as a GenAI-based conversation tool at a faculty of education. The conversation theory is foregrounding this research. An exploratory qualitative design study foregrounded the constructivist-interpretative perspective and a sample of eight participants was purposively selected. Semi-structured interviews were generated by Microsoft Teams (transcribed), recordings were downloaded, and themes were identified as guided by the thematic analysis process. Participants echoed sentiments of the usefulness of generative AI tools in promoting or advancing teaching and learning experiences. An awareness of the ethical considerations in using generative AI tools is important before adopting chatbots. To prevent the unethical behaviour of students, it is necessary to create and adopt measures to prevent academic dishonesty. Further research is needed to build on recent gains in academic awareness of GenAI tools for teaching and learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.15

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Al Matari, A. S., Mukit, A., Al Saadi, S., Balushi, W. A., & Al- Abri, J. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching in higher education at A'Sharqiyah University (ASU) in Oman. Proceeding International Pelita Bangsa, 1(01), 182- 200.
  2. Ali, F. (2023). Let the devil speak for itself: Should ChatGPT be allowed or banned in hospitality and tourism schools? Journal of Global Hospitality and Tourism, 2(1), 1-6. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1026&context=jght
  3. Ali, M. J., & Djalilian, A. (2023). Readership awareness series- Paper 4: Chatbots and chatbot-ethical considerations in scientific publications. In Seminars in ophthalmology (pp. 1-2).
  4. Taylor & Francis. Antonenko, P., & Abramowitz, B. (2023). In-service teachers' (mis)conceptions of artificial intelligence in K-12 science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(1), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.21194 · DOI
  5. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., ... & Jandrić, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53-130. https://www. asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/709
  6. Brendel, A. B., Mirbabaie, M., Lembcke, T.-B., & Hofeditz, L. (2021). Ethical management of artificial intelligence. Sustainability, 13(4), 1974. https://doi.org/10.3390/
  7. Chaka, C. (2023). Detecting AI content in responses generated by ChatGPT, YouChat, and Chatsonic: The case of five AI content detection tools. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 94-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.2. · DOI
  8. Goralski, M. A., & Tan, T. K. (2023). Artificial intelligence: Poverty alleviation, healthcare, education, and reduced inequalities in a post-COVID world. In F. Mazzi, & L. Floridi (Eds.), The ethics of artificial intelligence for the sustainable development goals (pp. 97-113). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21147-8_6 · DOI
  9. Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Grotewold, K., Hartwick, P., & Papin, K. (2023). Generative AI and teachers' perspectives on its implementation in education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 313-338. https://www.learntechlib.org/ primary/p/222363/.
  10. Megahed, F. M., Chen, Y. J., Ferris, J. A., Knoth, S., & Jones- Farmer, L. A. (2023). How generative AI models such as ChatGPT can be (mis) used in SPC practice, education, and research? An exploratory study. Quality Engineering, 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.10916 · DOI
  11. Oravec, J. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence implications for academic cheating: Expanding the dimensions of responsible human-AI collaboration with ChatGPT. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 213-237. https://www.learntechlib. org/primary/p/222340/ Oxford Analytica. (2023). GenAI will transform workplace tasks across industries. Emerald Expert Briefings. https://doi. org/10.1108/OXAN-DB279960 · DOI
  12. Pask, G. (1966). A cybernetic model for some types of learning and mentation. Bionics Symposium, Dayton, Ohio.
  13. Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Elsevier.
  14. Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence education for young children: Why, what, and how in curriculum design and implementation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. caeai.2022.100061 Copyright: © 2024. · DOI
  15. Micheal M Van Wyk. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Van Wyk, M. M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2024-02-18
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
35-45
ISSN
2591-801X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.15
OpenAlex
W4391921616
Cited by
35
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, large language models, academic ethics, academic dishonesty prevention, student misbehavior, teacher perceptions, artificial intelligence in education, conversation theory, chatbots, teaching-learning process

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review