CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Artificial Intelligence in EducationAI in Service InteractionsTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

The Influence of ChatGPT on Social Science Students: Insights Drawn from Undergraduate Students in the United States

Open access
Jowarder, Mohaimenul Islam·2023·Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS)
DOI 10.47540/ijias.v3i2.878
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recently, the artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT has turned into a global sensation, especially among students. This research paper investigates the influence of this AI-powered chatbot, on undergraduate social science students based on insights drawn from semi-structured interviews. The study aims to understand the level of awareness, adoption, perceived usefulness, and impact of ChatGPT on academic performance. 200 undergraduate students were selected and verbatim transcription was used and later thematic analysis was implemented. We implied our custom code to analyze the data based on sample collection from the students. The findings indicate that most of the participants were aware of ChatGPT and had used it for academic work. Perceived usefulness and ease of use were found to be significant factors that influenced the adoption of this technology. Social influence was also found to be a significant factor, with peer recommendations playing a role in shaping students' attitudes toward new technology. ChatGPT had a positive impact on the academic performance of the participants, particularly in assisting them in understanding difficult concepts and providing them with relevant study materials. The study suggests that chatbots can be valuable tools for learning and academic assistance, particularly in disciplines such as social science that require extensive research and analysis. The findings provide useful insights for educators and researchers seeking to integrate chatbots into existing teaching and learning methods to optimize their benefits. More research is needed to assess the future impacts on students and the education sector alike.

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 · 10.47540/ijias.v3i2.878

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.

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?

  • In educational settings, these expectations may be informed by course descriptions, instructor guidance, and peer experiences with similar tools.

    “In educational settings, these expectations may be informed by course descriptions, instructor guidance, and peer experiences with similar tools”

    From Exploring the Role of Generative AI as a Research Assistant in Undergraduate Sociology Research Methods (2026) · cites this paper as Jowarder, 2023

    The 'Factors Leading to the Adaptation of this Software' section reports that peer recommendations and positive feedback influenced students’ decisions to adopt ChatGPT. It does not identify course descriptions or instructor guidance as sources of expectations, so only the peer-influence part is supported. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • GenAI tools have the capabilities to personalize and adapt learning to fit students' different learning styles by tailoring instructional content.

    “GenAI tools have the capabilities to personalize and adapt learning to fit students' different learning styles by tailoring instructional content.”

    From Exploring the Role of Generative AI as a Research Assistant in Undergraduate Sociology Research Methods (2026) · cites this paper as Jowarder, 2023

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says chatbots provide students with personalized support, feedback, and guidance. It does not say they adapt learning to different learning styles or tailor instructional content; those more specific capabilities are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This enables deeper student engagement with material, potentially fostering independent learning practices and improving educational outcomes.

    “This enables deeper student engagement with material, potentially fostering independent learning practices and improving educational outcomes”

    From Exploring the Role of Generative AI as a Research Assistant in Undergraduate Sociology Research Methods (2026) · cites this paper as Jowarder, 2023

    In “Impacts on Academic Performance” (page unavailable), students report that ChatGPT helped them understand difficult concepts, and the paper describes a positive impact on academic performance. That supports the claim about learning and potential educational benefits, but not its suggestion that ChatGPT fosters independent learning: the Conclusion (page unavailable) reports students depending on it instead of exploring scholarly resources and says it should not replace independent learning. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Concerns regarding academic integrity include plagiarism and the lack of proper citation.

    “Concerns regarding academic integrity include plagiarism and the lack of proper citation.”

    From Exploring the Role of Generative AI as a Research Assistant in Undergraduate Sociology Research Methods (2026) · cites this paper as Jowarder, 2023

    The “Impacts on Academic Performance” section describes students submitting ChatGPT-generated assignments and receiving zero marks, supporting a concern about academic integrity. It does not discuss plagiarism explicitly or the lack of proper citation, so the claim is only partly supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 36

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Simeone, A. L., Cools, R., Depuydt, S., Gomes, J. M., Goris, P., Grocott, J., ... & Gerling, K. (2022, April). Immersive speculative enactments: bringing future scenarios and technology to life using virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1- 20).
  2. Andrew, L., Maslin-Prothero, S., & Ewens, B. (2015). Enhancing the online learning experience using virtual interactive classrooms. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 22-31.
  3. Olimov, S. S., & Mamurova, D. I. (2022). Information Technology in Education. Pioneer: Journal of Advanced Research and Scientific Progress, 1(1), 17-22.
  4. Armier, D. J., Shepherd, C. E., & Skrabut, S. (2016). Using game elements to increase student engagement in course assignments. College Teaching, 64(2), 64-72.
  5. Bakker, A. B., Vergel, A. I. S., & Kuntze, J. (2015). Student engagement and performance: A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 49-62.
  6. Wei, Y. (2022). Toward technology-based education and English as a foreign language motivation: A review of literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 870540.
  7. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computer in Higher Education, 25(1), 1-11.
  8. Jobirovich, Y. M. (2022). Effectiveness of using digital technologies in educational system. European Journal of Modern Medicine and Practice, 2(4), 124-128.
  9. Urbina, F., Lentzos, F., Invernizzi, C., & Ekins, S. (2022). Dual use of artificial-intelligence- powered drug discovery. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3), 189-191.
  10. Romero-Martín, S., Elías-Cabot, E., Raya- Povedano, J. L., Gubern-Mérida, A., Rodríguez-Ruiz, A., & Álvarez-Benito, M. (2022). Stand-alone use of artificial intelligence for digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening: a retrospective evaluation. Radiology, 302(3), 535-542.
  11. Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Vieira, S. (2014). Higher Education and Emerging Technologies: Shifting Trends in Student Usage. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 124-133.
  12. Chang, J. W., & Wei, H. Y. (2016). Exploring Engaging Gamification Mechanics in Massive Online Open Courses. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 177-203.
  13. Chawinga, W. D. (2017). Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 3.
  14. Rokan, N. Z., & Monang, S. (2023). The Impact of Tiktok Application Users in Social Life. International Journal of Cultural and Social Science, 4(2), 66-71.
  15. Muydinovich, R. I., Valentinovna, M. S., & Xabibjonqizi, M. D. (2022). The Role of Information Technology in Modern Methods in the System of Higher Education. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 14(7).
  16. Dyson, B., Vickers, K., Turtle, J., Cowan, S., & Tassone, A. (2015). Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase student engagement and understanding in lecture-based classes. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 69(2), 303-313.
  17. Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process of learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 902-915
  18. Farley, P. C. (2013). Using the computer game "FoldIt" to entice students to explore external representations of protein structure in a biochemistry course for nonmajors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(1), 56-57
  19. Hewege, C. R., & Perera, L. R. (2013). Pedagogical significance of wikis: Towards gaining effective learning outcomes. Journal of International Education in Business, 6(1), 51- 70.
  20. Hou, H., Wang, S., Lin, P., & Chang, K. (2015). Exploring the learner's knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 610-620.
  21. Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291-301
  22. Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287.
  23. Kidd, T., Davis, T., & Larke, P. (2016). Experience, adoption, and technology: Exploring the phenomenological experiences of faculty involved in online teaching at once school of public health. International Journal of E-Learning, 15(1), 71-99.
  24. Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 945-957.
  25. Lee, H., & Hwang, Y. (2022). Technology- enhanced education through VR-making and metaverse-linking to foster teacher readiness and sustainable learning. Sustainability, 14(8), 4786.
  26. George, A. S., & George, A. H. (2023). A review of ChatGPT AI's impact on several business sectors. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 1(1), 9-23.
  27. Limna, P., Jakwatanatham, S., Siripipattanakul, S., Kaewpuang, P., & Sriboonruang, P. (2022). A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education during the digital era. Advance Knowledge for Executives, 1(1), 1-9.
  28. Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542-570.
  29. Zhao, B. (2023). Analysis on the Negative Impact of AI Development on Employment and Its Countermeasures. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 154, p. 03022). EDP Sciences.

Authors
Jowarder, M. I.
Affiliations
Lamar University (US)
Corresponding author
Jowarder, Mohaimenul Islam
ORCID
Jowarder, Mohaimenul Islam
Venue
Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS)
Publisher
CV. Literasi Indonesia
Published
2023-06-30
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
194-200
ISSN
2775-4162 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.47540/ijias.v3i2.878
OpenAlex
W4384157467
Cited by
36
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS) (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, social sciences students, undergraduate students, technology adoption, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, social influence, peer recommendations, academic performance, academic dishonesty, educational chatbots, student attitudes toward 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