A global triangulation approach to ChatGPT integration in education

Mehmet Fırat

doi:10.55056/etq.897

Authors

Mehmet Fırat Anadolu University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8707-5918

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.897

Keywords:

ChatGPT, AI in education, integration strategies

Abstract

This study investigated the utilization of ChatGPT in education through a data triangulation methodology that analyzed the perspectives of artificial intelligence experts, researchers, educators, and students. The objective was to construct a comprehensive understanding of the role of emerging AI technology in the educational context. A total of 16 artificial intelligence experts, 5 researchers, 9 educators, and 14 students from 13 countries were consulted for this study, and the analysis yielded both consensus points and divergent insights among the different groups. This study revealed a shared recognition of ChatGPT's potential benefits in enhancing productivity, providing resources, and facilitating homework and research tasks. However, the analysis also identified common concerns, including issues related to academic dishonesty, accuracy, and the impact on learning motivation and traditional pedagogy. Additionally, a consensus emerged on the necessity of adapting the education system for responsible AI integration with an emphasis on preparing students and educators for the future by addressing AI's limitations and ethical implications. Significant insights emerged from each group: AI experts emphasized the necessity for responsibility and guidance in the utilization of AI tools, highlighting limitations in understanding and response accuracy, stressing the need for educational strategies to regulate ChatGPT usage; educators expressed concerns about AI replacing humans in education, emphasizing adapting pedagogical methods, and students raised ethical concerns, particularly about academic dishonesty and the impact of AI on creativity and ethics. These findings support the development of targeted integration strategies for ChatGPT in educational contexts, underscoring the importance of considering both shared and individual stakeholder perspectives in this regard.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Abstract views: 572 / PDF views: 299

References

Adeshola, I. and Adepoju, A.P., 2024. The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), pp.6159–6172. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858

Bitzenbauer, P., 2023. ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), p.ep430. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176

Cardona, M., Rodríguez, R. and Ishmael, K., 2023. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations. Office of Educational Technology. Available from: https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/rh21zz.

Costello, E., 2024. ChatGPT and the Educational AI Chatter: Full of Bullshit or Trying to Tell Us Something? Postdigital Science and Education, 6(2), pp.425–430. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00398-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00398-5

Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L., 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), pp.124–130. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N., 2024. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Approaches. 5th ed. Sage Publications.

Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp.319–340. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Duarte, F., 2025. Number of ChatGPT Users (March 2025). Available from: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/chatgpt-users.

Erfina, A. and Ramdani Alamsyah, M.R.N., 2023. Implementation of Naive Bayes classification algorithm for Twitter user sentiment analysis on ChatGPT using Python programming language. Data and Metadata, 2, p.45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202345

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, 2022. Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2766/153756.

Firat, M., 2023. What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), pp.57–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22

Flick, U., 2018. Triangulation in Data Collection. In: U. Flick, ed. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. SAGE Publications, chap. 34, pp.527–544. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n34

Flores Limo, F.A., Hurtado Tiza, D.R., Mamani Roque, M., Espinoza Herrera, E., Muñoz Murillo, J.P., Jinchuña Huallpa, J., Ariza Flores, V.A., Rincón Castillo, A.G., Puga Peña, P.F., Martel Carranza, C.P. and Arias Gonzáles, J.L., 2023. Personalized tutoring: ChatGPT as a virtual tutor for personalized learning experiences. Przestrzeń Społeczna (Social Space), 23(1), pp.293–312. Available from: https://socialspacejournal.eu/menu-script/index.php/ssj/article/view/176.

Foong, Y.P., Pidani, R., Sithira Vadivel, V. and Dongyue, Y., 2024. Singapore Smart Nation: Journey into a New Digital Landscape for Higher Education. In: A.O.J. Kwok and P.L. Teh, eds. Emerging Technologies in Business: Innovation Strategies for Competitive Advantage. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp.281–304. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2211-2_13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2211-2_13

Giorgi, A., 2009. The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Heaven, W.D., 2023. ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it. MIT Technology Review, (May/June). Available from: https://www.technologyreview. com/2023/04/06/1071059/chatgpt-change-not-destroy-education-openai/.

Holmes, W. and Miao, F., 2023. Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535

Jones, J.E., Jones, L.L., Calvert, M.J., Damery, S.L. and Mathers, J.M., 2022. A Literature Review of Studies that Have Compared the Use of Face-To-Face and Online Focus Groups. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, p.16094069221142406. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221142406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221142406

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J. and Kasneci, G., 2023. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, p.102274. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kılınç, H. and Fırat, M., 2017. Opinions of Expert Academicians on Online Data Collection and Voluntary Participation in Social Sciences Research. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(5), pp.1461–1486. Available from: https://jestp.com/article-detail/?id=421.

Kim, H.K., Roknaldin, A., Nayak, S.P., Zhang, X., Twyman, M., Hwang, A.H.C. and Lu, S., 2024. Empowering computer-supported collaborative learning with ChatGPT: investigating effects on student interactions. 2024 ASEE PSW Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada: ASEE Conferences. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--46032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--46032

Kim, S., Shim, J. and Shim, J., 2023. A Study on the Utilization of OpenAI ChatGPT as a Second Language Learning Tool. Journal of Multimedia Information System, 10(1), pp.79–88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.33851/JMIS.2023.10.1.79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33851/JMIS.2023.10.1.79

Kung, T.H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J. and Tseng, V., 2023. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health, 2(2), pp.1–12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198

Kutlucan, E. and Seferoğlu, S.S., 2024. Eğitimde Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı: ChatGPT’nin KEFE ve PEST Analizi [Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education: SWOT and PEST Analysis of ChatGPT]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(2), p.1059–1083. Available from: https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1368821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1368821

Lee, S.W. and Choi, W.J., 2023. Utilizing ChatGPT in clinical research related to anesthesiology: a comprehensive review of opportunities and limitations. Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 18(3), pp.244–251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23056

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Lindgren, B.M., Lundman, B. and Graneheim, U.H., 2020. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108, p.103632. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632

Lo, C.K., 2023. What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature. Education sciences, 13(4), p.410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410

Mao, J., Chen, B. and Liu, J.C., 2024. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education and Its Implications for Assessment. TechTrends, 68(1), pp.58–66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00911-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00911-4

Mayring, P., 2022. Qualitative Content Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11031-0

Mhlanga, D., 2023. ChatGPT in Education: Exploring Opportunities for Emerging Economies to Improve Education with ChatGPT. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4355758. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4355758

Ministry of Education, 2023. “Transforming Education through Technology” Masterplan 2030. Available from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/educational-technology-journey/edtech-masterplan.

Munawar, H.B. and Misirlis, N., 2024. ChatGPT in Classrooms: Transforming Challenges into Opportunities in Education. The Future of Education - 14th Edition International Conference. Available from: https://conference.pixel-online.net/files/foe/ed0014/FP/7813-ICT6299-FP-FOE14.pdf.

Newton, D.P. and Newton, L.D., 2019. Humanoid Robots as Teachers and a Proposed Code of Practice. Frontiers in Education, 4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00125

Park, S., 2024. Theodor W. Adorno, Artificial Intelligence, and Democracy in the Postdigital Era. Postdigital Science and Education, 6(4), pp.1287–1303. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00424-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00424-6

Popovici, M.D., 2024. ChatGPT in the Classroom. Exploring Its Potential and Limitations in a Functional Programming Course. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(22), pp.7743–7754. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2269006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2269006

Rahm, L. and Rahm-Skågeby, J., 2023. Imaginaries and problematisations: A heuristic lens in the age of artificial intelligence in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), pp.1147–1159. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13319

Snee, H., 2008. Web 2.0 as a Social Science Research Tool. (ESRC Government Placement Scheme). The British Library. Available from: https://www.restore.ac.uk/orm/futures/Web_2.0_final__v3.pdf.

Su, J. and Yang, W., 2023. Unlocking the Power of ChatGPT: A Framework for Applying Generative AI in Education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), pp.355–366. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423

Williams, H., 2021. The Meaning of “Phenomenology”: Qualitative and Philosophical Phenomenological Research Methods. The Qualitative Report, 26(2), pp.366–385. Available from: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4587

Wollowski, M., 2023. Using ChatGPT to produce code for a typical college-level assignment. AI Magazine, 44(1), pp.129–130. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12086