Unleashing ChatGPT's impact in higher education: Student and faculty perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) gains traction, its impact on post-secondary education is increasingly being debated. This qualitative study explores the perception of students and faculty members at a research university in Canada regarding ChatGPT's use in a post-secondary setting, focusing on how it could be incorporated and what ways instructors can respond to this technology. We present the summary of a discussion that took place in a 2-hour focus group session with 40 participants from the computer science and engineering departments, and highlight issues surrounding plagiarism, assessment methods, and the appropriate use of ChatGPT. Findings suggest that students are likely to use ChatGPT, but there is a need for specific guidelines, more classroom assessments, and mandatory reporting of ChatGPT use. The study contributes to the emergent research on ChatGPT in higher education and emphasizes the importance of proactively addressing challenges and opportunities associated with ChatGPT adoption and use. The novelty of the study involves capturing the perspectives of students and faculty members. This paper aims to provide a more refined understanding of the complex interplay between AI chatbots and higher education that will help educators navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI-driven education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".