Can ChatGPT as a generative AI tool enhance university student academic achievement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is one of the most representative generative AI (GenAI) that has been used widely in higher education. However, ChatGPT’s usage has raised some concerns about its effectiveness in improving academic performance. This study uses a meta-analysis to examine the impact of ChatGPT on university student academic achievement. The results suggest that ChatGPT has a large positive effect on university students’ academic achievement (SMD = 0.961, 95% CI=[0.706, 1.216], p < 0.001). Moreover, class size, learning length, ChatGPT role, and region significantly moderate ChatGPT’s effects. Overall, ChatGPT shows better effect (a) with a class size of <50; (b) over 1–3 months; (c) for non-STEM subjects; (d) when acting as a learning assistant or virtual tutor; and (e) when targeting Asian university students.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".