Generative AI and higher education

A review of claims from the first months of ChatGPT

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21324672
AutoresLasse X Jensen (0000-0002-0458-6534, University of Copenhagen, autor de correspondencia), Alexandra Buhl (0000-0001-6408-6585, University of Copenhagen), Anjali Sharma (0000-0001-6297-3113), A V N L Sharma (0000-0002-5751-0357, Public Health Foundation of India), Margaret Bearman (0000-0002-6862-9871, Deakin University)
Año2025
Volumen89
Número4
Páginas1145-1161
Fecha de publicación2025-04-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaHigher Education (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0018-1560 • E-ISSN: 1573-174X
EditorialSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s10734-024-01265-3
OpenAlexW4400659622
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas36
Referencias citadas15

The release of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT renewed discussions about how AI would upend higher education. This paper presents a critical analysis of “grey literature” claims made in the first months after ChatGPT was made public, exploring what these discussions might mobilise in practice. We identified articles for inclusion through a systematic search of five prominent higher education sector outlets. The included articles were thematically coded for claims about generative AI and higher education. We identified ten claims: Three about the nature of ChatGPT, four about changing practices of institutions and teachers, and three about new independent practices of students. Overall, the claims present a positive perspective on AI in higher education. While being perceived as a disruption of the status quo, the authors generally frame AI as a catalyst for existing agendas, e.g. assessment reform, personalisation, or inclusion. This suggests a focus on embracing the affordances offered by AI and primarily addressing risks by including AI in curricula. Furthermore, the claims mainly portray students as either plagiarists or victims of a failing educational system. The paper proposes that a more critical interrogation of generative AI, and the involvement of students in the conversation, may be beneficial

Affordance · Curriculum · Generative grammar · Higher education · Inclusion (mineral) · Pedagogy · Political science · Scholarship · Social science · Sociology · Status quo · Artificial Intelligence · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Computer Science · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Online Learning and Analytics · Psychology