CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence Applications

Generative AI in higher education: Perspectives of students, educators and administrators

Open access
Kutty, Sangeetha, Chugh, Ritesh, Perera, Pethigamage, Neupane, Arjun, Jha, Meena, Li, Lily, Gunathilake, Wijendra, Perera, Nimeshia Chamini·2024·Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
DOI 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.27
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With Generative AI’s (GenAI) rapid development and the ability to generate sophisticated human-like text, it has evolved as a powerful technology in various domains. However, its application in the education domain was initially met with resistance due to concerns about disrupting traditional learning and assessment methods, raising questions about academic integrity, and provoking ethical dilemmas related to data privacy and bias. Many schools, higher educational institutions, and governments initially chose to ban the use of GenAI tools due to the disruptions they caused to learning and teaching practices, only to rescind their bans later. This study conducts a literature review to investigate GenAI tools from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the educational domain—students, educators, and administrators—highlighting their benefits while identifying challenges and limitations. The review found several benefits of using GenAI, such as personalised learning, immediate support, language support, and reduced administrative workload. This paper also provides usage guidelines for stakeholders and outlines future research areas to support GenAI adoption in higher education. Our findings indicate that most studies involving students had a positive view of using GenAI. There is a noticeable gap in research focusing on administrators, highlighting the need for further investigation.

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.2024.7.2.27

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 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?

  • Pedagogical redesign includes adopting AI-informed teaching strategies such as using AI-generated content for critique, simulation, or peer evaluation exercises.

    “This includes adopting AI-informed teaching strategies such as using AI-generated content for critique, simulation, or peer evaluation exercises (Azcárate, 2024; Kutty et al., 2024; Nofal et al., 2025)”

    From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Kutty et al., 2024

    The Discussion recommends that educators help students check AI-generated work and integrate GenAI into curriculum design and teaching practices. The For educators section also calls for redesigning assessments. These passages support critique of AI outputs and broader pedagogical redesign, but do not describe simulation or peer-evaluation exercises. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Institutions are establishing cross-departmental AI governance committees to ensure that policymaking reflects the diverse needs of various academic disciplines.

    “institutions are establishing cross-departmental AI governance committees to ensure that policymaking reflects the diverse needs of various academic disciplines (Gonsalves, 2025; Kim et al., 2025; Kutty et al., 2024).”

    From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Kutty et al., 2024

    The Discussion (page unavailable) recommends that administrators establish a university-wide GenAI task force to inform policies and procedures. The For administrators section (page unavailable) notes the need for coherent guidance across departments and disciplines. The paper does not report that institutions are already establishing cross-departmental committees, or explicitly say such committees would represent the needs of different disciplines. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to A.I.: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 59-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Chiu, T. K. F. (2023). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.202 · DOI
  3. Chugh, R. (2010). E-learning tools and their impact on pedagogy. In D. S. Ubha & J. Kaur (eds.), Emerging paradigms in commerce and management education (pp. 58-81).
  4. Chugh, R., Turnbull, D., Cowling, M. A., Vanderburg, R., & Vanderburg, M. A. (2023). Implementing educational technology in higher education institutions: A review of technologies, stakeholder perceptions, frameworks and metrics. Education and Information Technologies, 28. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11846-x · DOI
  5. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., . . . Wright, R. (2023). Opinion paper: "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2023). Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, (ahead-of-print), 1-20.
  7. Hargreaves, S. (2023). 'Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup': ChatGPT & law school assessments. Legal Education Review, 33(1). https://doi. org/10.53300/001c.83297 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2023). Drivers and consequences of ChatGPT use in higher education: Key stakeholder perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(11), 2599-2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110181 · DOI
  9. Hauge, K. (2021). Self-study research: Challenges and opportunities in teacher education. In H.-S. Maria Jose (Ed.), Teacher education in the 21st century (pp. Ch. 9). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96252 · DOI
  10. Ifelebuegu, A. O., Kulume, P., & Cherukut, P. (2023). Chatbots and AI in Education (AIEd) tools: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 332- 345. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.29 · DOI
  11. Ismail, F., Crawford, J., Tan, S., Rudolph, J., Tan, E., Seah, P., Tang, F. X., Ng, F, Kaldenbach, L.V., Naidu, A, Stafford, V & Kane, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in higher education database (AIHE V1): Introducing an open-access repository. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 140-148. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.35 · DOI
  12. Ismail, F., Tan, E., Rudolph, J., Crawford, J., & Tan, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education. A protocol paper for a systematic literature review. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.2.34 · DOI
  13. Keiper, M. C., Fried, G., Lupinek, J., & Nordstrom, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence in sport management education: Playing the AI game with ChatGPT. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 33, 100456. https://doi. org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2023.100456 · DOI
  14. Kiryakova, G., & Angelova, N. (2023). ChatGPT-A challenging tool for the university professors in their teaching practice. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1056-1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101056 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kostka, I., & Toncelli, R. (2023). Exploring applications of ChatGPT to english language teaching: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. TESL-EJ (Berkeley, Calif.), 27(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.27107int · DOI
  16. Luo, W., He, H., Liu, J., Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., Zhou, Y., & Li, H. (2023). Aladdin's Genie or Pandora's Box for early childhood education? Experts chat on the roles, challenges, and developments of ChatGPT. Early education and development (ahead-of-print), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080 /10409289.2023.2214181 · DOI
  17. Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systemic review: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 33(Spring), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_21 · DOI
  18. Munoz, A., Wilson, A., Pereira Nunes, B., Del Medico, C., Slade, C., Bennett, D., Tyler, D., Seymour, E., Hepplewhite, G., Randell-Moon, H., Janine, A., McPherson, J., Game, J., Rhall, J., Myers, K., Absolum, K., Edmond, K., Nicholls, K., ... Duke, Z. (2023). AAIN Generative artificial intelligence guidelines. Australian Academic Integrity Network, 1-7. https://doi. org/10.26187/sbwr-kq49 · DOI
  19. Neupane, A., Shahi, T. B., Cowling, M., & Tanna, D. (2024). Threading the GenAI needle: Unpacking the ups and downs of GenAI for higher education stakeholders. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-9. http://dx.doi. org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.4 · DOI
  20. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., & Moher, D. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Perera, P., & Lankathilaka, M. (2023). AI in higher education: A literature review of ChatGPT and guidelines for responsible implementation. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(6), 306-314. https://EconPapers. repec.org/RePEc:bcp:journl:v:7:y:2023:i:6:p:306-314
  22. Pinochet, L. H. C., Moreira, M. Â. L., Fávero, L. P., Santos, M. D., & Pardim, V. I. (2023). Collaborative work alternatives with ChatGPT based on evaluation criteria for its use in higher education: Application of the PROMETHEE-SAPEVO-M1 method. Procedia Computer Science, 221, 177-184. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.07.025 · DOI
  23. Popenici, S., Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). A critical perspective on generative AI and learning futures. An interview with Stefan Popenici. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 311-331. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.2. · DOI
  24. Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Buenestado-Fernández, M., & Lara-Lara, F. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students' perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 323-339. https://doi. org/10.7821/naer.2023.7.1458 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ruiz-Rojas, L. I., Acosta-Vargas, P., De-Moreta-Llovet, J., & Gonzalez-Rodriguez, M. (2023). Empowering education with generative artificial intelligence tools: Approach with an instructional design matrix. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 15(15), 11524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511524 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Sánchez-Ruiz, L. M., Moll-López, S., Nuñez-Pérez, A., Moraño-Fernández, J. A., & Vega-Fleitas, E. (2023). ChatGPT challenges blended learning methodologies in engineering education: A case study in mathematics. Applied Sciences, 13(10), 6039. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106039 · DOI
  27. Sevnarayan, K., & Potter, M. A. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in distance education: Transformations, challenges, and impact on academic integrity and student voice. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 104- 114. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.41 · DOI
  28. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Stracke, C. M., Chounta, I. A., Holmes, W., Tlili, A., & Bozkurt, A. (2023). A standardised PRISMA-based protocol for systematic reviews of the scientific literature on Artificial Intelligence and Education (AI&ED). Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.2.38 · DOI
  30. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Tlili, A., Huang, R., Mustafa, M. Y., Zhao, J., Bozkurt, A., Xu, L., Wang, H., Salha, S., Altinay, F., Affouneh, S., & Burgos, D. (2023). Speaking of transparency: Are all Artificial Intelligence (AI) literature reviews in education transparent?. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 44-55. https://doi. org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.15 · DOI
  32. Totlis, T., Natsis, K., Filos, D., Ediaroglou, V., Mantzou, N., Duparc, F., & Piagkou, M. (2023). The potential role of ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in anatomy education: A conversation with ChatGPT. Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.), 45(10), 1321-1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00276-023-03229-1 · DOI
  33. Sangeetha Kutty, Ritesh Chugh, Pethigamage Perera, Arjun Neupane, Meena Jha, Lily Li, Wijendra Gunathilake and Nimeshia Chamini Perera. 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. threat? Preventive strategies employed by academics related to a GenAI-based LLM at a faculty of education. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 35-45. https://doi. org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.15 · DOI · Paper page
  34. van Wyk, M. M., Adarkwah, M. A., & Amponsah, S. (2023). Why all the hype about chatGPT?: Academics' views of a chat-based conversational learning strategy at an open distance e-learning institution. Open Praxis, 15(3), 214-225. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.3.563 · DOI
  35. von Garrel, J., & Mayer, J. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in studies-use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 799-799. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02304- 7 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Watermeyer, R., Phipps, L., Lanclos, D., & Knight, C. (2023). Generative AI and the automating of academia. Postdigital Science and Education, 6(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s42438-023-00440-6 · DOI
  37. Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners' use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages (Basel), 8(3), 212. https://doi. org/10.3390/languages8030212 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students' computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100147-100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. caeai.2023.100147 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Zou, M., & Huang, L. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students' acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1259531-1259531. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2023.1259531 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kutty, S., Chugh, R., Perera, P., Neupane, A., Jha, M., Li, L., Gunathilake, W., & Perera, N. C.
Affiliations
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University (LK)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2024-08-27
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
47-60
ISSN
2591-801X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.27
OpenAlex
W4401899222
Cited by
45
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 3
FWCI
11.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
generative AI, higher education, student perceptions, educator perspectives, administrator perspectives, academic integrity, personalized learning, language support, administrative workload, data privacy, artificial intelligence adoption, stakeholder attitudes

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