AI evidence extraction

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

Ahmed M. Hasanein, Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih · European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education · 2023

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

8/10

Relevance

2/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

202

Citations

7.22

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110181

Methodology & findings

Study design

Qualitative methodology using in-depth, face-to-face interviews with three key stakeholder groups (85 students, 32 faculty members, and 21 education leaders/experts) from public universities in Saudi Arabia.

Main result

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." Additionally, "the findings identified the multifaceted (six positive and another six negative) consequences of using ChatGPT for academic purposes." The research shows that "there are both positive and negative consequences attached to the use of ChatGPT in education, as explained by stakeholders. There are six positive and six negative consequences of using ChatGPT in education. The positive consequences include the greater saving of time, reduced anxiety, improved language skills, self-confidence, punctual submissions and non-academic support."

Research paradigm

Interpretivist/Constructivist

Author conclusions

"ChatGPT is a transformative and multifaceted AI tool that serves as an adaptable resource for both students and faculty in dynamic learning environments." The authors conclude 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." They further state "ChatGPT could be used as a supporting tool to enhance students' learning and their understanding of specific topics and concepts."

Risk of bias

Selection bias: Purposive sampling may not represent all student and faculty perspectives in higher education; Geographic bias: Sample restricted to public universities in Saudi Arabia only; Gender bias: Significantly skewed gender distribution (82% male students, limited female leadership participation); Context bias: Participants from Business Administration major may have different perspectives than other disciplines; Selection bias: Purposive sampling through researchers' networks may introduce selection bias; Gender bias: Significant gender imbalance (82% male students, limited female leaders); Geographic limitation: Study limited to Saudi Arabia public universities, reducing generalizability; Potential interviewer bias: Both researchers present during interviews, research supervisor led interviews; Social desirability bias: Participants may provide socially acceptable responses regarding ChatGPT use; Selection bias: Purposive sampling through researchers' networks at specific universities may not represent diverse perspectives; Gender imbalance: 82% male students and limited female leadership participation; Geographic limitation: Study conducted only in Saudi Arabia (KSA) public universities; Department-specific sampling: Participants primarily from Business Administration, Management, Accounting, Finance, Economics, and Quantitative Methods; Self-selection bias: Volunteers may have stronger opinions about ChatGPT than non-participants; Single-country context: Results specific to Saudi Arabian higher education system

Limitations

The authors state: "This research used a qualitative approach with a sample of students, faculty and education experts/leaders in public KSA universities
Therefore, the results could not be generalized to other contexts without further testing." Additionally, the participant demographics showed "more male participants (82%) than female (18%), due to the limited accessibility of female students to KSA" and "limited participation of female leaders."

Open questions raised

Future research avenues could include quantitatively testing the key drivers or factors that shape students' usage of ChatGPT for learning and other related academic purposes in higher education
Students misusing this tool could have an impact on the educational process, which should also be addressed in future research
A comparison between male and female students in terms of their use of AI, and its relationship with their academic performance
Future studies could examine the factors from the faculty's perspective
Other theoretical frameworks, such as TAM or TPB, could be adopted for interpreting the key drivers of academic-related use in higher education
Future research avenues identified include: (1) quantitatively testing the key drivers/factors shaping ChatGPT usage for academic purposes; (2) examining long-term positive and negative consequences; (3) investigating the impact of student misuse on the educational process; (4) comparing male and female students' use of AI and relationship with academic performance; (5) examining factors from faculty perspective; (6) adopting other theoretical frameworks such as TAM or TPB to interpret drivers of academic-related use in higher education.

Data: The data from interviews could be shared with researchers who meet eligibility criteria after consent is given by the KFU Ethical Committee (as stated in Data Availability section), but specific dataset URL or repository not provided.; The authors state: "The data from interviews could be shared with researchers who meet eligibility criteria after consent is given by the KFU Ethical Committee." However, no direct URL or persistent identifier is provided.; "The data from interviews could be shared with researchers who meet eligibility criteria after consent is given by the KFU Ethical Committee."Code: None mentionedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 73%

Explore related topics

AI Literacy Training Doctoral Training Qualitative