The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI)
Open accessAbstract
The OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3, or Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer was released in November 2022 without significant warning, and has taken higher education by storm since. The artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbot has caused alarm for practitioners seeking to detect authenticity of student work. Whereas some educational doomsayers predict the end of education in its current form, we propose an alternate early view. We identify in this commentary a position where educators can leverage AI like ChatGPT to build supportive learning environments for students who have cultivated good character. Such students know how to use ChatGPT for good, and can engage effectively with the ChatGPT application. In building our ChatGPT argument, we acknowledge the existing literature on plagiarism and academic integrity, and consider leadership as a root support mechanism, character development as an antidote, and authentic assessment as an enabler. In doing so, we highlight that while ChatGPT – like papermills, and degree factories before it – can be used to cheat on university exams, it can also be used to support deeper learning and better learning outcomes for students. In doing so, we offer a commentary that offers opportunities for practitioners, and research potential for scholars.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This commentary argues that higher education should respond to ChatGPT not only with detection or bans, but with teacher leadership, character development, and authentic assessment to support ethical and deeper learning. It proposes that ChatGPT can support flow, basic psychological needs, and formative feedback, while acknowledging risks of plagiarism and overreliance.
Key findings
- The authors argue that effective teacher leadership and character development are needed so students use ChatGPT “for good, rather than for personal benefit,” rather than relying solely on detection or punishment.
- They propose ChatGPT can support positive learning outcomes by reducing cognitive load and enabling flow, supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and providing 24/7 formative feedback and confidence-building.
- They argue ChatGPT can enable authentic assessment—for example, applying theory to complex cases, storyboards, or podcasts—rather than assessments that ask students to regurgitate textbook content.
- The paper cites contextual numbers: ChatGPT reached 100 million users in less than 2 months; student cheating admissions rose from 3% in 1963 to 64% in 2015; human reviewers correctly identified 68% of ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 86% of genuine abstracts; and one professor reported 14 of 163 students caught using ChatGPT to cheat.
Methods
- Design: a commentary/position paper guided by the research question, “What are the opportunities of ChatGPT in higher education practice?”
- Data or sample: no empirical sample; the authors draw on existing literature and on ChatGPT-generated responses to prompts, which are quoted as indented italicised paragraphs.
- Main analysis: conceptual argument organised around four opportunities—character-based leadership, flow, basic psychological needs, and ChatGPT as student assistant—plus discussion of authentic assessment.
Limitations
- The paper states that it offers an “early view” and that peer-reviewed literature on ChatGPT is limited, with few quality studies in top-tier journals at the time.
- The paper acknowledges that ChatGPT outputs are not actually ChatGPT’s opinion but “a confluence of societal opinion from its last knowledge update,” and that the veracity of its output should always be questioned.
- Evident from the text: this is a commentary without empirical data, sample, or systematic analysis; its claims about benefits rely on author propositions and ChatGPT self-assessment rather than tested outcomes.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 23 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the tool is asked to apply a particular theory to a particular organisation (our test prompt was 'Does authentic leadership apply to Apple?' and ChatGPT provided a reasonable response that connected the theory to elements of Apple's CEO and business practices.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When asking ChatGPT to determine and defend the 'best' leadership style for Apple if it were post losses, the AI chatbot's response was less definitive.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“The future-focused promotion of good practice and character development does not forego the need for detection, as undetected cheating could lead to future character erosion, but rather offers a multipronged response that serves as more effective than only focusing on prevention or prescription”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LaMontagne et al., 2014
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“In these scenarios it was the leadership of teachers that influenced the extent to which students would engage in effective or ineffective (e.g., cheating) learning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Crawford, 2023
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates, from a practical perspective, that a doctoral candidate with minimal training in grading papers or integrity-detection may have considerable challenge in identifying when students use the AI tool to cheat.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: In blind studies, human reviewers correctly identified 68% of ChatGPT generated abstracts and 86% of genuine abstracts, but incorrectly identified the rest.
In the paper
“a fact that mental health scholars have known for some time”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LaMontagne et al., 2014
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“and it is helping them succeed (Chen et al., 2023)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2023
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“While students are presenting an acceptance of chatbots (Ragheb et al., 2021)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ragheb et al., 2021
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 66
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
In the paper
“Writing is already a complex activity but paired with deadlines, other academic pressures and stress, students undertake a substantial cognitive load when completing written-based assignments”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lea & Street, 1998
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, ChatGPT we argue, offers better student autonomy and wellbeing for learners.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Students who experience high stress are particularly susceptible to engaging in plagiarism or the misuse of AI technology.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that effective teacher leadership is needed to develop student character so they use ChatGPT for good, rather than for personal benefit.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we highlight that while ChatGPT -like papermills, and degree factories before it -can be used to cheat on university exams, it can also be used to support deeper learning and better learning outcomes for students.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible it could support facilitation of a flow state.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is our proposition therefore that to combat prospective cheating or misuse of the ChatGPT application, and future artificial intelligence chatbots and tools, by cultivating a sense of moral character in students as an imperative.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may be that students who feel academic pressure are prone to using AI to complete assignments and AI technology may be one way some students cope with stress.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, remove the noise from their studies to support deeper learning and flow states.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The future-focused promotion of good practice and character development does not forego the need for detection, as undetected cheating could lead to future character erosion, but rather offers a multipronged response that serves as more effective than only focusing on prevention or prescription”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, there are risks to overreliance, and it could provide useful opportunities for students to engage more deeply in learning practices.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identify in this commentary a position where educators can leverage AI like ChatGPT to build supportive learning environments for students who have cultivated good character.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we acknowledge the existing literature on plagiarism and academic integrity, and consider leadership as a root support mechanism, character development as an antidote, and authentic assessment as an enabler.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this, effective leadership opportunities embedded into core curriculum may pose a possible antidote to whatever future convenience that students might be afforded by difficult-todetect cheating practices.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we argue that it is character-based leadership development that will support a response to the fear of cheating, not purely detection.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The future-focused promotion of good practice and character development does not forego the need for detection, as undetected cheating could lead to future character erosion, but rather offers a multipronged response that serves as more effective than only focusing on prevention or prescription”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, there are risks to overreliance, and it could provide useful opportunities for students to engage more deeply in learning practices.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT offers students the opportunity to simplify the learning process to create less distraction, and more flow.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of the tool requires a change in the way students are assessed, however.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And, for many universities, a fear-based ban response is an example of this.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Real-time, 24/7 support is available for feedback, help, and suggestions.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Such a focus may enable students to inquire about their content and material more deeply, and indeed engage in deeper forms of learning (e.g., Archer-Kuhn, 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Archer-Kuhn, 2020
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does, however, provide an alternative pathway to learning.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The way that ChatGPT works means that whilst it will produce output, the veracity of this output should always be questioned”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intriguingly, this means that ChatGPT does not actually understand what it's saying”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In 1963, for instance, only 3 percent of students admitted to cheating on exams, while in 2015, that number had risen to 64 percent and some studies identify higher rates”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McCabe et al., 2016
- Not checked yetcites Wright, 2015
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The issue of students cheating on their assignments is not new practice.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In a context where increasing numbers of university students feel lonely and isolated (Thomas et al., 2020), ChatGPT-3 could fill a part of this void.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thomas et al., 2020
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the students can still have ChatGPT supplement their language, or provide tips on making a podcast, it does not purely replace the student creating the podcast; an assessment-for-learning activity.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, there is also opportunity to consider assessment that is less traditional, such as drawing a storyboard for a process-related assessment, or making a podcast about a core topic.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“That is, while the data may generally be correct, and it can support higher volume scholarly work (Liebrenz et al., 2023), it still needs a critical reader in its work.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liebrenz et al., 2023
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, using ChatGPT to produce a summative result is rife with risk.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the progression of artificial intelligence has grown and accelerated in the past years, with the LLM AIslike ChatGPTcreating radical change in the way people do, be, and learn.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Such development is critical if moral disengagement and patterns of motivated forgetting of bad decisions is to be avoided, two key mechanisms by which students can feel comfortable with cheating”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shu et al., 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT-3 places autonomy in the hands of the student.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This opportunity, with the right assessment and curriculum design, could enable students to be more critical in their learning, rather than anxious that they have a lack of references, or that commas are in the wrong place (Gravett & Kinchin, 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gravett & Kinchin, 2020
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, ChatGPT itself suggests a mechanism that the tool might be used to improve quality of submission for students.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT generates its output based on the prompt, using a pre-trained model that has been built from a large corpus of data (big data) that ChatGPT has scraped the internet for.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assuming they build capacity to evaluate the value of the text and ensure that the final output is correct, this has the potential to produce a more useful result, reflecting the students' ideas and approach, but allowing them to express themselves as a form of 'transition pedagogy'.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Students will build the capacity to evaluate the value of the text and ensure that the final output is correct.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can help students to identify areas they have missed, provide light guidance on where they might read more, and foster a sense of connection (albeit human-robot connection) to supplement existing peer and teacher connections.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is likely in these sorts of authentic assessment questionswhere the answers are multiplethat will enable students to learn with the aid of ChatGPT, but not exclusively with it.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this bullish answer would perhaps be expected from a machine being asked to evaluate itself, it is worthwhile remembering that this is not actually ChatGPT's opinion, but a confluence of societal opinion from its last knowledge update.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, these systems and practice have still plagued higher education.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may be through effective teacher role modelling, through leadership development opportunities, or through continuous self-awareness, ethics, and decision-making training to build critical thinkers with a firm moral compass.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT-3 may also support students by bolstering their feelings of competence by equipping them with the skills and resources needed for a set writing task.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There may be space for ChatGPT-3 to foster relatedness for university students.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Early assessment could receive feedback from ChatGPT, with the quality of the student prompts assessable.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This activity may support elevated self-awareness and more critical thinking (see Figure 1).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Instead, and perhaps unlike papermills, ChatGPT can be encouraged in the same way software tools like Grammarly can be used to support learning (Thi & Nikolov, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thi & Nikolov, 2022
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is likely many students are still developing their capacity for critical thinking.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is likely to entrench existing views of the world rather than what the world ought to be.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, by embedding AI like ChatGPT into subjects and courses, we might be able to teach students ethical use of such devices.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“with an oft-quoted statistic that ChatGPT was able to reach 100 million users in less than 2 months”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hu, 2023
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT quite rightly acknowledges that without an evaluation step conducted by somebody with expertise, the output of the tool remains underutilised.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To support students to be more immersed in their learning, it is possible that the use of an AI toollike ChatGPTcould free students from the demand for cognitive resources to reach a state of flow and become fully immersed in the task.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is in producing this that ChatGPT has created a significant level of concern in the higher education sector.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While AI can help students learn, it does not substitute learning.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By requiring students to carefully construct their prompts and evaluate their results, potentially in the presence of a tutor in the form of formative feedback, ChatGPT can be used to support students and build their confidence.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such development is critical if moral disengagement and patterns of motivated forgetting of bad decisions is to be avoided”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ChatGPT software tool has raised significant questions for the future of higher education.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the realm of assessment ChatGPT, and similar AI chatbots, provide an opportunity for students to seek feedback on their assignments, and to have their beliefs questioned and challenged.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And in dissecting the ChatGPT output, students can begin to leverage the tool to support and improve quality of submission, in line with the original ideals of AI first espoused back in the 1950s.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is an implied assumption in the emergent literature that students will use ChatGPT-3 to write assignments for them (e.g., Pavlik, 2023;Perkins, 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pavlik, 2023
- Not checked yetcites Perkins, 2023
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More recently, papermills and contract cheating firms have challenged the sector to detect the authenticity of work.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suspect that over time, these will continue to grow alongside the challenges of embedding a tool that provides much of the conventional answers to some instructional models of teaching theory.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research has found that academic stress is positively linked with cheating behaviour (Ma et al., 2013) and students who are more likely to engage in plagiarism (Ehrich et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ma et al., 2013
- Not checked yetcites Ehrich et al., 2016
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“And for some, effective measures of detection, and prescription of significant punishment has been the proposed solution”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Amigud & Dawson, 2019
- Not checked yetcites Dawson et al., 2020
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a set of brief ideas, students can generate text in which they have more confidence, and check that text with their institutional tutor as a form of 'soft help'.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the contemporary learning context, opportunities arise that may enable ChatGPT-3 to be used for creating essay plans, completing grammar checking, or generating suggestions for key content curation, and missing information.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT has the potential to provide students with a sense of control and psychological autonomy needs by providing them with a sense of control over their writing.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“ChatGPT-3, we posit, also has the propensity to support students meeting their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness to facilitate self-determination and bolster academic motivation and performance (Geary et al., 2023Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geary et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Ryan & Deci, 2000
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
ChatGPT can create new and innovative authentic assessment in higher education.
“ChatGPT can create new and innovative authentic assessment in higher education.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In blind studies, human reviewers correctly identified 68% of ChatGPT generated abstracts and 86% of genuine abstracts, but incorrectly identified the rest.
“Although, in the context of blind studies, human reviewers correctly identified 68 percent of ChatGPT generated abstracts and 86 percent of genuine abstracts, but incorrectly identified the rest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ChatGPT was introduced publicly from November 2022, with a stable release from February 2023.
“the ChatGPT AI being introduced publicly from November 2022, and a stable release from February 2023.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ChatGPT-3 was released in November 2022 without significant warning and has taken higher education by storm.
“The OpenAI's ChatGPT-3, or Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer was released in November 2022 without significant warning, and has taken higher education by storm since.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Students will build the capacity to evaluate the value of the text and ensure that the final output is correct.
“Assuming they build capacity to evaluate the value of the text and ensure that the final output is correct”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many scholars have presented arguments against ChatGPT's utility in classrooms, citing plagiarism, authentication, and academic integrity as key concerns.
“Many scholars to date have presented arguments against the tool's utility in classrooms, citing plagiarism, authentication, and academic integrity as key concerns.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The recommendations for embedding AI in educational frameworks underscore the critical balance between leveraging technological advances and safeguarding academic integrity, creativity, and ethical standards (Crawford et al., 2023a;Gimpel et al., 2023;Mills, 2023).”
From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Crawford et al., 2023a
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“foster students’ performance, engagement and motivation [14, 44, 58], and enhance teaching practices [17, 18, 64, 74].”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“fostering students' performance, engagement, and motivation, leading to increase students' academic success [14, 44, 58]”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“The findings from previous studies indicate the importance of rethinking, improving, and redesigning innovative assessment methods in the era of chatbots [14, 20, 64, 75]”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Same article listed with different first authors
MinorReferences 10 and 65 give the same title, journal, volume, issue, year, and pages, but disagree about the article's first author and author order.
“10. Bockting, C. L., van Dis, E. A., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W. & van Rooij, R. (2023). ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224-226.”
“65. van Dis, E. A., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224-226.”
Citations
Cites
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
State-of-the-art in artificial neural network applications: A survey
Abiodun, O. I., Jantan, A., Omolara, A. E., Dada, K. V., Mohamed, N. A., & Arshad, H. (2018) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00938 · Cited by 3,227
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1998) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079812331380364 · Cited by 2,608 · cited 1×
“Writing is already a complex activity but paired with deadlines, other academic pressures and stress, students undertake a substantial cognitive load when completing written-based assignments (Lea & Street, 1998).”
BackgroundThe prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students
Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., & Sammut, S. (2015) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054 · Cited by 2,030 · cited 2×
“Research shows that social and peer pressure (Beiter et al., 2015), academic work (Alghamdi et al., 2019), financial concerns (Beiter et al., 2015), academic pressure (Reddy et al., 2018), and balancing other responsibilities like work and family (von Keyserlingk et al., 2022) are significant…”
BackgroundThe forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms
Makridakis, S. (2017) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006 · Cited by 1,866 · cited 2×
“, 2021), building targeted marketing campaigns and using their understanding of both individuals and groups to tailor their content (Makridakis, 2017).”
BackgroundChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842 · cited 1×
“And these four proposed below also go beyond technology- and authentication-centric strategies proposed by van Dis et al. (2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · cited 2×
“These studies, with considerable brevity, highlight a position on ChatGPT, including Editor-inChief of Science, Holden Thorp (2023), which indicates “Machines play an important role, but as tools for the people posing the hypotheses... and making sense of the results”, or put more simply, it is not an author on a pape…”
BackgroundA Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2021/8812542 · Cited by 1,364
The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education
Pascoe, M. C., Hetrick, S. E., & Parker, A. G. (2020) · International Journal of Adolescence and Youth · doi:10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823 · Cited by 1,359 · cited 1×
“Stress has substantial implications resulting in often adverse effects on students' academic performance, a concern given that it is also widely reported that University students face significant psychosocial challenges during their studies (Deng et al., 2022; Pascoe et al., 2020).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
4 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- van Dis, E. A., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224-226.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463
Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review
Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1 · Cited by 1,043
“It can assist with homework questions, offering step-by-step solutions and guiding students through complex problems (Crawford et al., 2023; Fauzi et al., 2023; Lo, 2023; Qadir, 2023 Shidiq, 2023).”
BackgroundStrzelecki, A. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881 · Cited by 807
“…in higher education, di ff erent areas can be discussed as software is producing fake citations (Cooper, 2023), developing assignments (Sullivan et al., 2023), supporting essay writing (Crawford et al., 2023), and encouraging critical re fl ection on AI ’ s use in society (van Dis et al., 2023).”
BackgroundBahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784
The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 · Cited by 561
“Assessment designs should engage students with tasks that require critical thinking and cannot be easily replicated by LLMs (Crawford et al., 2023; Kuhn, 2019; Iordanou et al., 2019).”
BackgroundA Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z · Cited by 493
“Moreover, ChatGPT offers opportunities for authentic assessment by challenging students’ beliefs and critical thinking (Crawford et al., 2023; Currie et al., 2023; Geerling et al., 2023).”
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1 · Cited by 477
“Naumowa (2023) stresses critical thinking in using AI, whereas Hsu (2023), Ivanov and Soliman (2023), Lim et al. (2023), Crawford et al. (2023), Sullivan et al. (2023), and Cooper (2023), explore the ethical and practical implications, calling for ethical guidelines and theoretical frameworks.”
Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 · Cited by 461
What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22 · Cited by 431
“Finally, Crawford et al. (2023) argued that leadership is needed to ensure the ethical use of ChatGPT in education, with a particular focus on character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence.”
Background(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23 · Cited by 421
Lee, D., Arnold, M., Srivastava, A., Plastow, K., Strelan, P., Ploeckl, F., Lekkas, D., & Palmer, E. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100221 · Cited by 402
Elkhatat, A. M., Elsaid, K., & Almeer, S. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5 · Cited by 392
AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies
Knoth, N., Tolzin, A., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225 · Cited by 368
“…improves student performance and motivation, and refines teaching practices, as evidenced in various recent publications (Alves de Castro, 2023; Crawford, Cowling, & Allen, 2023; Day, 2023; Farrokhnia, Banihashem, Noroozi, & Wals, 2023; Lee, 2023; Rudolph, Tan, & Tan, 2023; Su & Yang, 2023).”
Prompting Higher Education Towards AI-Augmented Teaching and Learning Practice
Eager, B., & Brunton, R. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.5.02 · Cited by 287
Use of ChatGPT at University as a Tool for Complex Thinking: Students’ Perceived Usefulness
Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Buenestado-Fernández, M., & Lara-Lara, F. (2023) · Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research · doi:10.7821/naer.2023.7.1458 · Cited by 277
“However, most studies so far argue in favor of AI’s responsible use (Anderson et al., 2023; Carrasco et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2023; Kung et al., 2023; O’Connor, 2022; Sallam, 2023).”
BackgroundAl-Zahrani, A. M., & Alasmari, T. M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03432-4 · Cited by 292
“Robust privacy measures in AI applications are emphasized, aligning with previous research fi ndings (André Renz, 2021; Crawford et al. 2023; Doncieux et al. 2022; Dignum, 2017; Seo et al. 2021; Zhang and Aslan, 2021).”
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461 · Cited by 262
“ChatGPT has the potential to improve students’ learning outcomes by providing them with an interactive learning experience, where they can ask follow-up questions on a subject and gain in-depth knowledge (Crawford et al., 2023).”
BackgroundPerkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/q3azde36 · Cited by 291
ChatGPT in education: Methods, potentials, and limitations
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100022 · Cited by 266
Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions
Ravšelj, D., Keržič, D., Tomaževič, N., Umek, L., Brezovar, N., A. Iahad, N., Abdulla, A. A., Akopyan, A., Aldana Segura, M. W., AlHumaid, J., et al. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315011 · Cited by 376
Strzelecki, A., & ElArabawy, S. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13425 · Cited by 260
A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Teaching and Learning Practice
Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., & Sharma, H. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060636 · Cited by 251
Raghu Raman, R., Mandal, S., Das, P., Kaur, T., Sanjanasri, J. P., & Nedungadi, P. (2024) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/2024/3085910 · Cited by 288
Karataş, F., Abedi, F. Y., Ozek Gunyel, F., Karadeniz, D., & Kuzgun, Y. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6 · Cited by 252
“This finding is supported by the previous studies high-lighting technical drawbacks of using chatbots (Crawford et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2022).”
Student Interaction with ChatGPT Can Promote Complex Critical Thinking Skills
Suriano, R., Plebe, A., Acciai, A., & Fabio, R. A. (2025) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102011 · Cited by 208
ChatGPT in the higher education: A systematic literature review and research challenges
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102411 · Cited by 208
La nueva realidad de la educación ante los avances de la inteligencia artificial generativa
García Peñalvo, F. J., Llorens-Largo, F., & Vidal, J. (2023) · RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia · doi:10.5944/ried.27.1.37716 · Cited by 238
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6 · Cited by 234
“Comprehensive guidelines should outline the appropriate use of AI-generated content, citation requirements, and limitations (Crawford et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Montesinos, L. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14010083 · Cited by 193
“This proposition can provide a dynamic and interactive platform to foster knowledge acquisition and acknowledge the existing concerns on plagiarism and academic integrity [8,16].”
BackgroundKurtz, G., Amzalag, M., Shaked, N., Zaguri, Y., Kohen-Vacs, D., Gal, E., Zailer, G., & Barak-Medina, E. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14050503 · Cited by 181
A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education
Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2 · Cited by 191
“Ultimately, fostering students’ performance, engagement, and motivation, leading to increase students’ academic success [14, 44, 58].”
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education: From Deceptive to Disruptive.
Alier, M., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., & Camba, J. D. (2024) · International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.9781/ijimai.2024.02.011 · Cited by 267
“ChatGPT can offer feedback on writing, provide suggestions on organization, and help make arguments more compelling [71].”
BackgroundOpportunities, challenges and school strategies for integrating generative AI in education
Ng, D. T. K., Chan, E. K. C., & Lo, C. K. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100373 · Cited by 326
Kelly, A., Sullivan, M., & Strampel, K. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.6.12 · Cited by 177
“Studies to date reflect the need to rethink the typical types of university assessment tasks which could now easily be completed by GenAI tools (Cotton et al, 2023, Crawford et al 2023; Farrokhnia et al, 2023; Perkins 2023; Rudolph et al, 2023).”
Νικολοπούλου, Κ. (2024) · International Journal of Changes in Education · doi:10.47852/bonviewijce42022489 · Cited by 208
“Concerns associated with academic integrity, cheating, and plagiarism have also been reported [6, 39].”
BackgroundDahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Vighio, M. S., Alblehai, F., Soomro, R. B., & Shutaleva, A. V. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12599-x · Cited by 205
“ChatGPT is gaining prominence in higher education, assisting students in tasks like generating citations and assignments (Crawford et al., 2023).”
Peláez‐Sánchez, I. C., Velarde-Camaqui, D., & Glasserman‐Morales, L. D. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1392091 · Cited by 219
Nguyen, A., Kremantzis, M., Essien, A., Petrounias, I., & Hosseini, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/caraaq92 · Cited by 146
“…integration of AI, particularly Generative AI, into education brings substantial benefits but also raises significant ethical issues and challenges to academic integrity that need to be thoughtfully examined and managed (Crawford, Cowling, & Allen, 2023; Holmes et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialAssessing AI adoption in developing country academia: A trust and privacy-augmented UTAUT framework
Rana, M. M., Siddiqee, M. S., Sakib, M. N., & Ahamed, M. R. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37569 · Cited by 143
“AI encourages more significant real-time learning, revised outcomes, and an appropriate knowledge setting when educational assessment progresses more swiftly than ever before [66,87].”
BackgroundAlneyadi, S., & Wardat, Y. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13417 · Cited by 142
ChatGPT in higher education - a synthesis of the literature and a future research agenda
Bhullar, P. S., Joshi, M., & Chugh, R. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12723-x · Cited by 139
“However, the most influential studies in terms of citations have been produced by the United States, Ger - many, Australia, and the United Kingdom.”
InfluentialBalalle, H., & Pannilage, S. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101299 · Cited by 137
Velasquez, J. D., Franco, C. J., & Cadavid, L. (2023) · DYNA · doi:10.15446/dyna.v90n230.111700 · Cited by 171
The Educational Affordances and Challenges of ChatGPT: State of the Field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2024) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-024-00939-0 · Cited by 141
“Crawford et al. (2023) maintain that ChatGPT can provide students with a sense of control and psychological autonomy by providing them with more control over their learning.”
Will artificial intelligence drive the advancements in higher education? A tri-phased exploration
Kumar, S., Rao, P., Singhania, S., Verma, S., & Kheterpal, M. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123258 · Cited by 131
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 189
“The recommendations for embedding AI in educational frameworks underscore the critical balance between leveraging technological advances and safeguarding academic integrity, creativity, and ethical standards (Crawford et al., 2023a; Gimpel et al., 2023; Mills, 2023).”
BackgroundUnderstanding University Students’ Acceptance of ChatGPT: Insights from the UTAUT2 Model
Grassini, S., Aasen, M. L., & Møgelvang, A. (2024) · Applied Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/08839514.2024.2371168 · Cited by 165
“These encompass aiding in essay writing (Crawford, Cowling, and Allen 2023) and offering personalized feed-back on student assignments and acting as coaches and teaching assistants to the students (Møgelvang et al. 2023), and facilitating critical conversations about AIs societal impact (Van Dis et…”
Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Using ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Literature Review
Sok, S., & Heng, K. (2024) · Journal of Digital Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/jdet/14027 · Cited by 120
“As Crawford et al. (2023) noted, by giving students a sense of mastery over their writing assignments, ChatGPT has the ability to fulfill students ’ basic needs for psychological autonomy.”
BackgroundInfluentialStudents’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT as a learning tool: the case of the University of Jordan.
O. Ajlouni, A., Abd-Alkareem Wahba, F., & Salem Almahaireh, A. (2023) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41753 · Cited by 116
(2023) · doi:10.1057/s41307-023-00323-2 · Cited by 115
“Therefore, it is crucial for educational institutions to establish comprehensive guidelines outlining the acceptable use of AI-generated content, and to emphasize the importance of attribution and academic integrity (Crawford et al. 2023; Sullivan et al. 2023).”
Exploring the Role of Generative AI in Enhancing Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
Creely, E. (2024) · International Journal of Changes in Education · doi:10.47852/bonviewijce42022495 · Cited by 113
“Furthermore, the establishment of a transparent evaluation system could substantiate the authenticity of work for assessment, effectively differentiating between creativity from students and AI-assisted production (Crawford et al., 2023).”
BackgroundHow understanding large language models can inform the use of ChatGPT in physics education
Polverini, G., & Gregorcic, B. (2023) · European Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6404/ad1420 · Cited by 159
“Some recurring ideas in this literature include the impact of LLMs on assessment practices on one side [52,82,83], as well as LLMs’ potential to enable interactive and personalised learning assistance for students [84,85], and lesson planning and assessment assistance for teachers [84–88].”
BackgroundWriting with AI: University Students’ Use of ChatGPT
Črček, N., & Patekar, J. (2023) · Journal of Language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2023.17379 · Cited by 109
“Indeed, universities and instructors must lead the change (e.g., Cotton et al. 2023; Crawford et al., 2023; Currie, 2023; Sweeney, 2023; Vaccino-Salvadore, 2023) if they want to turn chaos into growth.”
BackgroundBobula, M. (2024) · Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education · doi:10.47408/jldhe.vi30.1137 · Cited by 113
Development and validation of ChatGPT literacy scale
Lee, S., & Park, G. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-05723-0 · Cited by 100
“In the context of ChatGPT, experts have raised various ethical considerations, such as morality concerns, information bias, misinformation issues, academic integrity concerns, and privacy concerns (Chan, 2022; Crawford et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022).”
Mastering knowledge: the impact of generative AI on student learning outcomes
Pallant, J. L., Blijlevens, J., Campbell, A., & Jopp, R. (2026) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2025.2487570 · Cited by 141
“…implications of GenAI on academic integrity such as cheating and plagiarism (Cotton, Cotton, and Shipway 2023), and impacts on data privacy and security, such as personal identifiable information (Adiguzel, Kaya, and Cansu 2023; Crawford, Cowling, and Allen 2023; Lodge, Thompson, and Corrin 2023).”
AI in higher education: a systematic literature review
Castillo-Martínez, I. M., Flores-Bueno, D., Gómez-Puente, S. M., & Vite-León, V. O. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1391485 · Cited by 96
Mohammadkarimi, E. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.10 · Cited by 90
“Some of the AI-powered tools that have made academic misconduct simpler than ever for today's students include essay generators, online essay mills, and custom writing services (Crawford et al., 2023).”
BackgroundLi, B., Bonk, C. J., Wang, C., & Kou, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3386098 · Cited by 109
“In addition, concerns have [28]andthepotentialimpactoneducational assessmentpractices[29].”
BackgroundUniversity students’ self-reported reliance on ChatGPT for learning: A latent profile analysis
Stojanov, A., Liu, Q., & Koh, J. H. L. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100243 · Cited by 117
Race with the machines: assessing the capability of generative AI in solving authentic assessments
Nguyen Thanh, B., Vo, D. T. H., Nguyen Nhat, M., Pham, T. T. T., Thai Trung, H., & Ha Xuan, S. (2023) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.8902 · Cited by 87
“Moreover, educators are faced with the formidable task of designing assessment tasks that not only leverage the benefits of generative AI but also ensure student learning outcomes are met (Crawford et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSaúde, S., Barros, J. P., & Almeida, I. A. T. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13080410 · Cited by 158
Jauhiainen, J. S., & Garagorry Guerra, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1288723 · Cited by 87
Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Montesinos, L. (2024) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-12-2023-0236 · Cited by 84
ChatGPT, Üretken Yapay Zeka ve Algoritmik Paradigma Değişikliği
BOZKURT, A. (2023) · Alanyazın · doi:10.59320/alanyazin.1283282 · Cited by 95
Exploring student perspectives on generative artificial intelligence in higher education learning
Baidoo-Anu, D., Asamoah, D., Amoako, I., & Mahama, I. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00173-z · Cited by 151
“The relevant application of ChatGPT in higher education focuses on several areas, including developing assignments [4], supporting essay writing [5], and encouraging critical reflection on AI’s use in society [6].”
Adams, D., Chuah, K.-M., Devadason, E., & Azzis, M. S. A. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12427-8 · Cited by 101
“In addition, students also found it to be useful in elevating their stress, and assisting them in comprehending complex concepts in their studies (Crawford et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2023 ).”
Chatbots and AI in Education (AIEd) tools: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Ifelebuegu, A. O., Kulume, P., & Cherukut, P. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.29 · Cited by 109
Bender, S. M. (2024) · Changing English · doi:10.1080/1358684x.2024.2309995 · Cited by 136
“…forecasts about AI’s application across multiple sectors, including medical, legal, and educational (Ahuja 2019; Grassini 2023), though it also very quickly provoked complaints that school and university students would be able to plagiarise essays (Crawford, Cowling, and Allen 2023; Oravec 2023).”
BackgroundLearning with Generative Artificial Intelligence Within a Network of Co-Regulation
Lodge, J. M., De Barba, P., & Broadbent, J. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.7.02 · Cited by 73
Li, Y., Sadiq, G., Qambar, G., & Zheng, P. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12981-9 · Cited by 92
“One potential explanation for this is ChatGPT’s ability to expedite learning by providing swift solutions to challenging tasks, also highlighted by Crawford et al. ( 2023 ).”
Kong, S. C., Lee, J. C., & Tsang, O. (2024) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.58459/rptel.2024.19030 · Cited by 115
“Critical thinking has been suggested as a fundamental skill for citizens in the age of AI and especially with the widespread use of generative AI (Crawford et al., 2023; Rampersad, 2020).”
BackgroundBozkurt, A. (2023) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.15.3.579 · Cited by 91
Creative Use of OpenAI in Education: Case Studies from Game Development
French, F., Levi, D., Maczo, C., Simonaityte, A., Triantafyllidis, S., & Varda, G. (2023) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti7080081 · Cited by 64
“[1] acknowledge that ChatGPT can support learning outcomes, while simultaneously calling for new leadership in higher education that will ensure that AI is used ethically.”
BackgroundGulati, A., Saini, H., Singh, S., & Kumar, V. (2024) · Marketing Education Review · doi:10.1080/10528008.2023.2300139 · Cited by 82
“Besides, universities also possess the ability to modify assessment tasks in a manner that renders them less susceptible to facile completion by AI tools (Crawford, Cowling, & Allen, 2023).”
Li, Y., Song, Y., Sun, Y., & Zeng, M. (2024) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102518 · Cited by 67
Inteligencia artificial generativa y educación
García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2024) · Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) · doi:10.14201/eks.31942 · Cited by 179
Rethinking online assessment strategies: Authenticity versus AI chatbot intervention
Ifelebuegu, A. O. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.2 · Cited by 74
“This method equips students with vital skills for interacting with systems like ChatGPT in future professional environments.”
BackgroundInfluentialChatGPT and higher education assessments: More opportunities than concerns?
Gamage, K. A. A., Dehideniya, S. C. P., Xu, Z., & Tang, X. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.32 · Cited by 84
Emerging Research and Policy Themes on Academic Integrity in the Age of Chat GPT and Generative AI
Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A., & Quesada, A. (2023) · Asian Journal of University Education · doi:10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24697 · Cited by 65
Generative AI as source of change of knowledge management paradigm
Kaczorowska–Spychalska, D., Kotula, N., Mazurek, G., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2024) · Human Technology · doi:10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-1.7 · Cited by 78
“Based on this, it combines words to form sentences and paragraphs based on what others have said on the topic, and its output takes on an innovative character, often also considered creative (Crawford et al., 2023).”
BackgroundPani, B., Crawford, J., & Allen, K.-A. (2024) · Applications of Generative AI · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46238-2_13 · Cited by 57
Self-citationFaruk, L. I. D., Rohan, R., Ninrutsirikun, U., & Pal, D. (2023) · doi:10.1145/3628454.3629552 · Cited by 69
Empowering learners with ChatGPT: insights from a systematic literature exploration
Mohebi, L. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00120-y · Cited by 56
“Crawford et al. [3] emphasized the ethical implications of ChatGPT.”
Generative AI Usage and Academic PerformancePreprint
Wecks, J. O., Voshaar, J., Plate, B. J., & Zimmermann, J. (2024) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4812513 · Cited by 38
Watters, C., & Lemański, M. K. (2023) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2023.1224976 · Cited by 64
Effectiveness of Using ChatGPT as a Tool to Strengthen Benefits of the Flipped Learning Strategy
Huesca, G., Martínez-Treviño, Y., Espinosa, J. M. M., Sanromán-Calleros, A. R., Martínez-Román, R., Cendejas-Castro, E. A., & Bustos, R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060660 · Cited by 77
Zlotnikova, I., Hlomani, H., Mokgetse, T. L., & Bagai, K. (2025) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-07-2024-0104 · Cited by 72
Cowling, M., Crawford, J., Allen, K.-A., & Wehmeyer, M. (2023) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.8598 · Cited by 55
“Each author has published dozens of papers prior to the benchmark period, and ChatGPT recognised only one of the authors, with the remaining two (both of whom have public research profiles, Google Scholar, Scopus, ORCiD and Web of Science profiles) unidentifiable: I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, my training da…”
BackgroundSelf-citationCheating and plagiarism in higher education institutions (HEIs): A literature review
Sozon, M., Alkharabsheh, O. H. M., Fong, P. W., & Chuan, S. B. (2024) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.147140.2 · Cited by 69
Generative artificial intelligence and sustainable higher education: Mapping the potential
Νικολοπούλου, Κ. (2025) · Journal of Digital Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/jdet/15860 · Cited by 76
“Concerns associated with academic integrity (Bearman et al., 2023), cheating, plagiarism, and potential misuse have been reported (Crawford et al., 2023; Grassini, 2023; Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
Waiting for the revolution: how higher education institutions initially responded to ChatGPT
Korseberg, L., & Elken, M. (2024) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-024-01256-4 · Cited by 58
“…experiences with and reflections on Chat-GPT (see e.g. Iskender, 2023; Stojanov, 2023), or they focus on the impacts of ChatGPT on academic integrity and the assessments of students (see e.g. Cotton et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2023; Currie et al., 2023; Perkins, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023).”
A Systematic Review of Generative AI and (English Medium Instruction) Higher Education
Bannister, P., Urbieta, A. S., & Peñalver, E. A. (2023) · Aula Abierta · doi:10.17811/rifie.52.4.2023.401-409 · Cited by 84
“The established terms used were “EMI”, “English as a Medium of Instruction”, “HE”, “Higher Ed-ucation”, “GenAI”, “Generative Artificial Intelligence”, “AI”, and “Artificial Intelligence”.”
BackgroundInfluentialBlahopoulou, J., & Ortiz-Bonnin, S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13575-9 · Cited by 50
“…offer valuable insights into the role of ChatGPT in academic settings, there remains a scarcity of empirical, peer-reviewed, and quantitative research comparing the perceptions of AI integration between users and non-users (Abbasi et al., 2024; Crawford et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2024a , b ).”
Ethical Aspects of ChatGPT in Software Engineering Research
Akbar, M. A., Khan, A. A., & Liang, P. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2023.3318183 · Cited by 65
Development and validation of generative artificial intelligence attitude scale for students
Marengo, A., Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G., Yılmaz, R., & Ceylan, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1528455 · Cited by 54
Heine, S., & König, J. (2025) · European Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/02619768.2025.2540791 · Cited by 59
“While some advocate treating AI as a study partner or peer, others threaten exmatriculation for its use (Crawford, Cowling, and Allen 2023).”
Pasupuleti, R. S., & Thiyyagura, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12573-7 · Cited by 56
“Previous studies has demonstrated the usefulness of ChatGPT in activities such as assignment creation (Sullivan et al., 2023), essay writing (Su et al., 2023), English as a foreign language (EFL) learning (Strzelecki, 2023) and general proofreading (Crawford et al., 2023).”
Swindell, A., Greeley, L., Farag, A., & Verdone, B. (2024) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v28i2.4438 · Cited by 45
Kumar, S., Gunn, A., Rose, R., Pollard, R., Johnson, M. C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2024) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v28i3.4501 · Cited by 70
“…related to privacy, ethics, academic integrity, and profiling accompany AI-generated content, AI-based assessment, and similar technologies, leading to uncertainty among faculty and administrators about how to appropriately address those challenges (Bozkurt et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2023).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K.-A.
- Affiliations
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Central Queensland University (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2023-04-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1449-9789 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4323536358
- Semantic Scholar
- 370a9fff56ff5b9a54c96b818cff34b9c59e1b67
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 74 · 2025: 157 · 2024: 214 · 2023: 102
- FWCI
- 128.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (publishedVersion)
- Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in higher education, academic integrity, plagiarism, character development, educational leadership, authentic assessment, student learning, AI chatbots, deep learning
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
