Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions
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 r
Record details
Published: 5 February 2025
Source: OpenAlex
Category: Research
Topics: Children & education
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination
OpenAlex · 8 February 2025
Examining Faculty and Student Perceptions of Generative AI in University Courses
OpenAlex · 23 January 2025
Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines
OpenAlex · 18 January 2025
Application of ChatGPT-assisted problem-based learning teaching method in clinical medical education
OpenAlex · 11 January 2025
The impact of generative <scp>AI</scp> on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context
OpenAlex · 31 March 2025
RETRACTED ARTICLE: The effect of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: insights from a meta-analysis
OpenAlex · 6 May 2025
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (5 February 2025), “Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions,” evidence record 9687, https://ethics.ai/record/9687 (originally published by OpenAlex).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.