Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents the most comprehensive and large-scale global study to date on how higher education students perceived the use of ChatGPT in early 2024. With a sample of 23,218 students from 109 countries and territories, the study reveals that students primarily used ChatGPT for brainstorming, summarizing texts, and finding research articles, with a few using it for professional and creative writing. They found it useful for simplifying complex information and summarizing content, but less reliable for providing information and supporting classroom learning, though some considered its information clearer than that from peers and teachers. Moreover, students agreed on the need for AI regulations at all levels due to concerns about ChatGPT promoting cheating, plagiarism, and social isolation. However, they believed ChatGPT could potentially enhance their access to knowledge and improve their learning experience, study efficiency, and chances of achieving good grades. While ChatGPT was perceived as effective in potentially improving AI literacy, digital communication, and content creation skills, it was less useful for interpersonal communication, decision-making, numeracy, native language proficiency, and the development of critical thinking skills. Students also felt that ChatGPT would boost demand for AI-related skills and facilitate remote work without significantly impacting unemployment. Emotionally, students mostly felt positive using ChatGPT, with curiosity and calmness being the most common emotions. Further examinations reveal variations in students' perceptions across different socio-demographic and geographic factors, with key factors influencing students' use of ChatGPT also being identified. Higher education institutions' managers and teachers may benefit from these findings while formulating the curricula and instructions/regulations for ChatGPT use, as well as when designing the teaching methods and assessment tools. Moreover, policymakers may also consider the findings when formulating strategies for secondary and higher education system development, especially in light of changing labor market needs and related digital skills development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".