ChatGPT as an Educational Tool: Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations for Communication, Business Writing, and Composition Courses
Open accessAbstract
This empirical study examines ChatGPT as an educational and learning tool. It investigates the opportunities and chal-lenges that ChatGPT provides to the students and instruc-tors of communication, business writing, and composition courses. It also strives to provide recommendations. After conducting 30 theory-based and application-based ChatGPT tests, it is found that ChatGPT has the potential of replacing search engines as it provides accurate and relia-ble input to students. For opportunities, the study found that ChatGPT provides a platform for students to seek an-swers to theory-based questions and generate ideas for ap-plication-based questions. It also provides a platform for in-structors to integrate technology in classrooms and conduct workshops to discuss and evaluate generated responses. For challenges, the study found that ChatGPT, if unethically used by students, may lead to human unintelligence and un-learning. This may also present a challenge to instructors as the use of ChatGPT negatively affects their ability to dif-ferentiate between meticulous and automaton-dependent students, on the one hand, and measure the achievement of learning outcomes, on the other hand. Based on the out-come of the analysis, this study recommends communica-tion, business writing, and composition instructors to (1) re-frain from making theory-based questions as take-home as-sessments, (2) provide communication and business writing students with detailed case-based and scenario-based as-sessment tasks that call for personalized answers utilizing critical, creative, and imaginative thinking incorporating lec-tures and textbook material, (3) enforce submitting all take-home assessments on plagiarism detection software, espe-cially for composition courses, and (4) integrate ChatGPT generated responses in classes as examples to be discussed in workshops. Remarkably, this study found that ChatGPT skillfully paraphrases regenerated responses in a way that is not detected by similarity detection software. To maintain their effectiveness, similarity detection software providers need to upgrade their software to avoid such incidents from slipping unnoticed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
GenAI can be used in the administrative process in higher education institutions.
“GenAI can also be used in the administrative process in higher education institutions.”
From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as AlAfnan et al., 2023
The Literature Review says AI can perform administrative tasks and that some educational institutions have automated administrative chores. It does not specifically say that generative AI can do this in higher education institutions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSeveral studies have already considered the effectiveness of Generative AI (ChatGPT, davinci-003) in completing student assignments.
“Several studies have already considered the effectiveness of Generative AI (ChatGPT, davinci-003) in completing student assignments [38,45].”
From New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
AI-generated text often went undetected by plagiarism software, such as Turnitin.
“AI-generated text often went undetected by plagiarism software, such as Turnitin”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 402
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- S. Bayne, "Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching," Teach. High. Educ. Crit. Perspect., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 455-467, 2015.
- A. Elgammal, "AI is blurring the definition of artist: advanced algorithms are using machine learning to create art autonomously'," Am. Scientist, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 18-21, 2019.
- Authors
- AlAfnan, M. A., Dishari, S., Jovic, M., & Lomidze, K.
- Affiliations
- American University of the Middle East (KW)
- Venue
- Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology
- Published
- 2023-03-06
- ISSN
- 2766-8649 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4323313947
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 169 · 2023: 69
- FWCI
- 93.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- American University of Beirut
- American University of the Middle East
- 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 › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in education, communication courses, composition courses, academic integrity, plagiarism detection software, similarity check, scenario-based assessment, student reliance on AI
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
