CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Thematic Analysis

Open access
Kaushik, Abhishek, Yadav, Sargam, Browne, Andrew, Lillis, David, Williams, David, Donnell, Jack Mc, Grant, Peadar, Kernan, Siobhan Connolly, Sharma, Shubham, Arora, Mansi·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2501.10134arXiv 2501.10134
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The recent advancements in Generative Artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology have been transformative for the field of education. Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Bard can be leveraged to automate boilerplate tasks, create content for personalised teaching, and handle repetitive tasks to allow more time for creative thinking. However, it is important to develop guidelines, policies, and assessment methods in the education sector to ensure the responsible integration of these tools. In this article, thematic analysis has been performed on seven essays obtained from professionals in the education sector to understand the advantages and pitfalls of using GenAI models such as ChatGPT and Bard in education. Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) has been performed on the essays to extract further insights from the text. The study found several themes which highlight benefits and drawbacks of GenAI tools, as well as suggestions to overcome these limitations and ensure that students are using these tools in a responsible and ethical manner.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2501.10134

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. M. Cascella, J. Montomoli, V. Bellini, E. Bignami, Evaluating the fea- sibility of chatgpt in healthcare: an analysis of multiple clinical and research scenarios, Journal of medical systems 47 (1) (2023) 33.
  2. Y. Li, S. Wang, H. Ding, H. Chen, Large language models in finance: A survey, in: Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on AI in finance, 2023, pp. 374-382.
  3. J. Cui, Z. Li, Y. Yan, B. Chen, L. Yuan, Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16092 (2023). · arXiv
  4. S. Bird, E. Klein, E. Loper, Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit, " O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2009.
  5. S. Yadav, A. Kaushik, K. McDaid, Hate speech is not free speech: Ex- plainable machine learning for hate speech detection in code-mixed lan- guages, in: 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1-8.
  6. S. Yadav, A. Kaushik, K. McDaid, Leveraging weakly annotated data for hate speech detection in code-mixed hinglish: A feasibility-driven transfer learning approach with large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02121 (2024). · arXiv
  7. F. Stahlberg, Neural machine translation: A review, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 69 (2020) 343-418.
  8. A. M. N. Allam, M. H. Haggag, The question answering systems: A survey, International Journal of Research and Reviews in Information Sciences (IJRRIS) 2 (3) (2012).
  9. R. S. Wallace, The anatomy of ALICE, Springer, 2009.
  10. J. Weizenbaum, Eliza-a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine, Communications of the ACM 9 (1) (1966) 36-45.
  11. A. Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017).
  12. Y. Liu, Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 364 (2019). · arXiv
  13. S. Yadav, A. Kaushik, Comparative study of pre-trained language mod- els for text classification in smart agriculture domain, in: Advances in Data-driven Computing and Intelligent Systems: Selected Papers from ADCIS 2022, Volume 2, Springer, 2023, pp. 267-279.
  14. S. Yadav, A. Kaushik, Contextualized embeddings from transformers for sentiment analysis on code-mixed hinglish data: an expanded ap- proach with explainable artificial intelligence, in: International Confer- ence on Speech and Language Technologies for Low-resource Languages, Springer, 2022, pp. 99-119.
  15. R. Glotzbach, Generative ai: An overview, in: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2024, pp. 754-756.
  16. D. M. Katz, M. J. Bommarito, S. Gao, P. Arredondo, Gpt-4 passes the bar exam, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 382 (2270) (2024) 20230254.
  17. B. Khosrawi-Rad, H. Rinn, R. Schlimbach, P. Gebbing, X. Yang, C. Lattemann, D. Markgraf, S. Robra-Bissantz, Conversational agents in education-a systematic literature review (2022).
  18. B. A. Becker, P. Denny, J. Finnie-Ansley, A. Luxton-Reilly, J. Prather, E. A. Santos, Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of ai code generation, in: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 2023, pp. 500-506.
  19. W. Mayer, M. Stumptner, D. Wieland, F. Wotawa, Can ai help to im- prove debugging substantially? debugging experiences with value-based models, in: ECAI, 2002, pp. 417-421.
  20. A. Y. Wang, D. Wang, J. Drozdal, M. Muller, S. Park, J. D. Weisz, X. Liu, L. Wu, C. Dugan, Documentation matters: Human-centered ai system to assist data science code documentation in computational notebooks, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 29 (2) (2022) 1-33.
  21. S. Pudasaini, L. Miralles-Pechuán, D. Lillis, M. Llorens Salvador, Sur- vey on ai-generated plagiarism detection: The impact of large language models on academic integrity, Journal of Academic Ethics (2024) 1-34.
  22. O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, F. Gouverneur, System- atic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education-where are the educators?, International Journal of Educa- tional Technology in Higher Education 16 (1) (2019) 1-27.
  23. M. I. Alhojailan, Thematic analysis: a critical review ofits process and evaluation, in: WEI international European academic conference pro- ceedings, Zagreb, Croatia, Citeseer, 2012.
  24. R. S. Baker, T. Martin, L. M. Rossi, Educational data mining and learn- ing analytics, The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment: Frame- works, methodologies, and applications (2016) 379-396.
  25. L. Law, Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in lan- guage teaching and learning: A scoping literature review, Computers and Education Open (2024) 100174.
  26. M. Maguire, B. Delahunt, Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step- by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars., All Ireland journal of higher education 9 (3) (2017).
  27. N. Lucchi, Chatgpt: a case study on copyright challenges for genera- tive artificial intelligence systems, European Journal of Risk Regulation 15 (3) (2024) 602-624.
  28. S. A. Meo, M. Talha, Turnitin: Is it a text matching or plagiarism detection tool?, Saudi journal of anaesthesia 13 (Suppl 1) (2019) S48- S51.
  29. H. B. Dixon Jr, My" hallucinating" experience with chatgpt, Judges' Journal 62 (2) (2023) 37-39.
  30. S. Cai, W. Cui, Evade ChatGPT detectors via a single space, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02599 (2023). · arXiv
  31. M. Lee, P. Liang, Q. Yang, Coauthor: Designing a human-ai collab- orative writing dataset for exploring language model capabilities, in: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2022, pp. 1-19.
  32. A. Yuan, A. Coenen, E. Reif, D. Ippolito, Wordcraft: story writing with large language models, in: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 2022, pp. 841-852.
  33. J. Crawford, M. Cowling, S. Ashton-Hay, J.-A. Kelder, R. Middleton, G. S. Wilson, Artificial Intelligence and authorship editor policy: Chat- GPT, Bard Bing AI, and beyond, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20 (5) (2023) 1.
  34. C. Dede, A. Etemadi, T. Forshaw, Intelligence augmentation: Upskilling humans to complement AI, The Next Level Lab at the Harvard Grad- uate School of Education. President and Fellows of Harvard College: Cambridge, MA (2021).
  35. G. Jawahar, B. Sagot, D. Seddah, What does BERT learn about the structure of language?, in: ACL 2019-57th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, 2019.
  36. S. Bubeck, V. Chandrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Ka- mar, P. Lee, Y. T. Lee, Y. Li, S. Lundberg, et al., Sparks of artifi- cial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023). · arXiv
  37. P. Liu, W. Yuan, J. Fu, Z. Jiang, H. Hayashi, G. Neubig, Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing, ACM Computing Surveys 55 (9) (2023) 1-35.
  38. N. Lucchi, ChatGPT: a case study on copyright challenges for genera- tive artificial intelligence systems, European Journal of Risk Regulation (2023) 1-23.
  39. Q. Ma, T. Wu, K. Koedinger, Is ai the better programming partner? human-human pair programming vs. human-ai pair programming, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05153 (2023). · arXiv
  40. C. Arora, U. Venaik, P. Singh, S. Goyal, J. Tyagi, S. Goel, U. Singhal, D. Kumar, Analyzing LLM Usage in an Advanced Computing Class in India, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04603 (2024). · arXiv
  41. D. C. Engelbart, Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework, in: Augmented Education in the Global Age, Routledge, 2023, pp. 13- 29.
  42. D. Heaven, Why deep-learning AIs are so easy to fool, Nature 574 (2019) 163 -166. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203928744
  43. N. Selwyn, Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of edu- cation, John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
  44. A. Seldon, O. Abidoye, The fourth education revolution, Legend Press Ltd, 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kaushik, A., Yadav, S., Browne, A., Lillis, D., Williams, D., Donnell, J. M., Grant, P., Kernan, S. C., Sharma, S., & Arora, M.
Affiliations
  • Dundalk Institute of Technology (IE)
  • Dublin Business School (IE)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Technological University Dublin (IE)
  • Jagan Institute of Management Studies (IN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2501.10134
arXiv
2501.10134
OpenAlex
W4406604153
Cited by
2
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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
generative AI in education, large language models, ChatGPT, Google Bard, responsible AI use, ethical use of AI, AI in education policy, automation of routine tasks

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