» Articles » PMID: 37998071

Drivers and Consequences of ChatGPT Use in Higher Education: Key Stakeholder Perspectives

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into education has heralded a transformative era in the way students learn and faculties teach. Among the burgeoning array of AI tools, ChatGPT stands out as a versatile and powerful resource. Developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT is an AI-driven conversational model that generates human-like responses. This research draws on the Constructivism Learning Theory to uncover the key drivers pushing higher education students to use ChatGPT for academic purposes, and the multifaceted consequences it brings to the academic environment, by integrating the perspectives of key stakeholders: students, faculty, and education experts/leaders. The key findings of in-depth, face-to-face, interviews with key stakeholders revealed 12 main drivers that motivate students and their faculty to use ChatGPT mainly for learning purposes. However, the findings identified the multifaceted (six positive and another six negative) consequences of using ChatGPT for academic purposes. Recommendations for mitigating the negative consequences of ChatGPT were discussed with key stakeholders, particularly education experts/leaders, who were more concerned about using ChatGPT for academic reasons. The research reveals that higher education institutions should establish clear guidelines as a part of higher education policy, supplemented with training sessions for students and their faculty, about the responsible use of ChatGPT for academic purposes to mitigate any ethical concerns.

Citing Articles

The global landscape of academic guidelines for generative AI and LLMs.

Jiao J, Afroogh S, Chen K, Atkinson D, Dhurandhar A Nat Hum Behav. 2025; .

PMID: 40033135 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-025-02124-6.


Perceptions and Earliest Experiences of Medical Students and Faculty With ChatGPT in Medical Education: Qualitative Study.

Abouammoh N, Alhasan K, Aljamaan F, Raina R, Malki K, Altamimi I JMIR Med Educ. 2025; 11:e63400.

PMID: 39977012 PMC: 11888024. DOI: 10.2196/63400.


Unlocking Patient Resistance to AI in Healthcare: A Psychological Exploration.

Sobaih A, Chaibi A, Brini R, Abdelghani Ibrahim T Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2025; 15(1).

PMID: 39852189 PMC: 11765336. DOI: 10.3390/ejihpe15010006.


Exploring the Ethical Implications of ChatGPT in Medical Education: Privacy, Accuracy, and Professional Integrity in a Cross-Sectional Survey.

Abdullah H, Naeem N, Malkana G, Javed M, Shahzaib M Cureus. 2025; 16(12):e75895.

PMID: 39822443 PMC: 11737866. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.75895.


Knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of MENA researchers towards the use of ChatGPT in research: A cross-sectional study.

Jaber S, Hasan H, Alzoubi K, Khabour O Heliyon. 2025; 11(1):e41331.

PMID: 39811375 PMC: 11731567. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41331.


References
1.
van Dis E, Bollen J, Zuidema W, van Rooij R, Bockting C . ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature. 2023; 614(7947):224-226. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7. View

2.
Yu H . Reflection on whether Chat GPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education and teaching. Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1181712. PMC: 10267436. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712. View

3.
Putra F, Rangka I, Aminah S, Aditama M . ChatGPT in the higher education environment: perspectives from the theory of high order thinking skills. J Public Health (Oxf). 2023; 45(4):e840-e841. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdad120. View

4.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-57. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. View

5.
King M . A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education. Cell Mol Bioeng. 2023; 16(1):1-2. PMC: 9842816. DOI: 10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8. View