education

sciences
Article
ChatGPT—A Challenging Tool for the University Professors in
Their Teaching Practice
Gabriela Kiryakova * and Nadezhda Angelova

Faculty of Economics, Trakia University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria; [email protected]

* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: ChatGPT has aroused the users’ interest and provoked educators, researchers, and edu-
cational institutions about its role in education. Its proper integration into education can support
teaching and learning activities and highlight the benefits of digital technologies. ChatGPT can be
an intelligent learning assistant for learners and educators, supporting personalized and adaptive
learning. At the same time, ChatGPT can be used unfairly and unethically, which causes severe
concerns among educators, educational institutions, and society. Educators’ attitudes regarding their
application, expectations, and concerns are very important in the emergence and introduction of new
technological tools in education. The current paper aims to explore the opinion of university profes-
sors at a Bulgarian university regarding the possibilities and challenges of ChatGPT in carrying out
teaching activities. The findings of the conducted survey show that university professors from Trakia
University in Bulgaria have an overall positive attitude regarding the implementation of ChatGPT
in their teaching practice (41.4%). They perceive ChatGPT as a means to support time-consuming
teaching activities (60.9%), provoke interest, activate and engage learners (59.8%), and stimulate their
critical thinking and creativity (47.1%). In parallel, the university professors are concerned about
possible risks of its unethical use that threaten the validity and fairness of assessment practices. The
most severe problem for them is the danger that learners will completely trust ChatGPT without
checking the authenticity of the generated texts (73.6%), which can negatively affect the acquisition of
knowledge and skills.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; higher education; teaching; university professors’

Citation: Kiryakova, G.; Angelova, N.
perceptions
ChatGPT—A Challenging Tool for
the University Professors in Their
Teaching Practice. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13,
1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci13101056
1. Introduction
In recent months, ChatGPT has become very popular, drawing public attention to
Academic Editors: Peter Tiernan,
the use of artificial intelligence applications in various areas of public life. The situation
Eamon Costello and Enda Donlon
resembles the popularity of the Pokemon Go game, which gave a strong impetus to the
Received: 24 August 2023 application of Augmented Reality technology in various spheres, including education.
Revised: 13 October 2023 Since the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022, there has been a lot of interest
Accepted: 16 October 2023 in its capabilities from both users and education experts. Discussions in scientific fields
Published: 20 October 2023 are related to the effective use of ChatGPT in education, the benefits that can be obtained,
how to overcome the challenges and risks, and what changes will occur when integrated
into education. At the moment, there is a lack of in-depth empirical research and results of
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
possible applications of ChatGPT in learning since it has been used by teachers and learners
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
for a short time.
This article is an open access article
The effect of the application of different technologies or pedagogical approaches in
distributed under the terms and learning is visible over time. The results of the integration of applications with artificial
conditions of the Creative Commons intelligence (AI) and, in particular, ChatGPT will be possible to analyze years from now.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// What is clear now is that increased interest and engagement are being reported, but we can
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ only guess what the results will be in terms of acquired knowledge, skills, and competencies
4.0/). by learners and readiness for professional development and career.

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101056 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 2 of 19

The topics of providing personalized and adaptive training and integrating activi-
ties that stimulate the critical and creative thinking of learners are increasingly relevant.
Applications that are based on AI, including ChatGPT, can be suitable tools to provide
personalized support and guidance to each learner based on his learning status, preferences,
and personal characteristics [1]. They can contribute to increasing learners’ engagement and
motivation to learn through appropriate integration into the learning process, tailored to
the learners’ educational needs, aimed at achieving specific learning goals. The self-serving
use of digital technology just because it is fashionable and supposed to attract learners’
attention and provoke their interest cannot lead to positive results.
The emergence of new tools, especially those based on AI, raises concerns that tech-
nology may replace the teacher in the classroom. ChatGPT can support and automate the
activities of educators, but their role as mentors who provide guidance and more profound
assessment of learner abilities and role models cannot be entirely replaced by technology [2].
ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence (GAI) representative, can create quizzes and
assignments that are automatically checked and graded, generate feedback, and provide
personalized learning content depending on the learners’ results. Such capabilities should
not be seen as a threat to the role of teachers but as an advantage that saves their time and
effort in performing routine actions.
The most severe concerns arise from the ability of GAI to generate academic texts,
which calls into question the validity and integrity of examination procedures. Overcoming
such challenges requires changes in learners’ knowledge and skills assessment. There is a
need to replace traditional assessment methods with more innovative techniques, where
AI applications cannot complete tasks with a high degree of correctness.
Dependence on digital technologies is among the severe risks in education. Overuse of
AI applications for task performance and problem-solving can lead to human unintelligence
and severe gaps in learners’ academic and professional development [3].
User acceptance of new technologies and tools is critical to the successful uptake of
technological innovation [4]. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of digital
technologies, their successful integration into learning depends on the attitudes of educators
and learners regarding their use for educational purposes.

Aims and Contributions

This study presents the benefits and possibilities of using ChatGPT for educational
purposes, considering the risks, threats, and challenges of unethical and incorrect use of
such tools.
Educators’ attitude to the application of ChatGPT in teaching is essential and deter-
mines how effective can be. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among the university
professors at Trakia University—Stara Zagora, Bulgaria, to find out whether they are fa-
miliar with ChatGPT, how frequently they use it in their daily life, and for what purposes.
The research focuses on the place and role university professors assign to ChatGPT in their
teaching activities and their concerns and fears about applying GAI.
The main research questions of the conducted study are
R1: How familiar are the university professors with the capabilities of ChatGPT?
R2: What are the potential benefits and challenges associated with using ChatGPT in
teaching and learning from the university professors’ perspective?
R3: Are university professors inclined to implement ChatGPT in teaching, and what do
they think they will achieve by using it?
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents related work in the
field of application of ChatGPT in education; Sections 3 and 4 present the organization,
methodology, and results of the conducted study; in Section 5, the results and their relevance
to other similar studies are discussed; Section 6 reports the limitations of the research and
future research directions; and Section 7 concludes the study.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 3 of 19

2. Related Literature Review

2.1. The Model ChatGPT
An artificial intelligence system is defined in a European Parliament report as “a
system that is either software-based or embedded in hardware devices, and that displays
behavior simulating intelligence by, inter alia, collecting and processing data, analyzing
and interpreting its environment, and by taking action, with some degree of autonomy, to
achieve specific goals” [5] (p. 6).
AI is the science that deals with programming a computer, computer-controlled robot,
or software to think intelligently as humans do. This requires understanding how the
human brain works, how people learn, decide or operate when solving a problem, and
then using the results to construct intelligent software [6].
AI-based machines can mimic or even exceed human cognitive abilities, including
sensing, language interaction, reasoning and analysis, problem-solving, and creativity [7].
Distinguishing the basic terms and concepts related to AI is necessary to better un-
derstand how they work and how they are applied. There are differences in algorithms
between machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing (NLP), of which
ChatGPT is the primary representative [8].
A chatbot is a software program that uses user input to simulate human-like
interaction [6]. It simulates natural conversations with users through text or voice messages [9].
ChatGPT is a language model created by OpenAI that allows people to interact with
a computer in a natural way. ChatGPT is a GAI as it has the ability to generate original
results [7]. The reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) method is used to
train ChatGPT, and the created reward models help in its improvement through Proximal
Policy Optimization. This process follows three main steps and goes through several
iterations. One of the innovations is the possibility to create add-ons (plugins) that provide
access to up-to-date information, perform calculations, and use third-party services [10].
It should be pointed out that ChatGPT is not the only natural language processing
(NLP) AI model that can understand and generate conversation in natural human language.
In February 2023, Google introduced Bard, which follows the LaMDA (Language Models
for Dialog Applications) model. Although ChatGPT and Bard have similar functionalities
and applications, they differ in the number of tokens, token limits, Conversation Retention,
human interaction, and response accuracy [11]. For the purpose of our research, we explore
in detail only ChatGPT.

2.2. Benefits of Using ChatGPT in Education

The implementation of chatbots in education shows positive results and can help
create a supportive learning environment by providing timely and accurate information
and reducing the administrative burden [12].
ChatGPT can function as an intelligent assistant in the learning process and pro-
vide learners with interactive help at any time and from any place. ChatGPT can an-
swer questions, systematize information, assist learners in exam preparation, and provide
feedback [13]. Learners can discuss with ChatGPT emerging problems or ideas for solv-
ing tasks and problem situations [14]. This dialog can help them develop reading and
writing skills through discussions about the generated explanations, solutions, and sug-
gestions [15]. By taking on the functions of a mentor or tutor, ChatGPT can help increase
learners’ motivation and make the learning process more engaging [16].
Ref. [9] has explored the application of ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and
learning, considering the advantage of practicing the language through everyday conver-
sations 24/7 at any time and place. This study observed overcoming learners’ anxieties
through free conversations, stimulating their interest in language acquisition, and ensuring
more engaging learning. ChatGPT can generate realistic dialogues and provide learners
with authentic examples of language use [17].
The research results show that ChatGPT can generate easy-to-understand explana-
tions and code with a high degree of correctness that are useful in studying algorith-
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 4 of 19

mic concepts, identifying errors in the code, and helping with its optimization with
time-saving suggestions [15].
ChatGPT can also assist educators and save time and effort in generating learning
and assessment materials, allowing them to focus on more complex course design and
pedagogy [18]. Instructors can use ChatGPT as an ideation facilitator [19] to generate
ideas for lectures, presentations, plans for workshops, and practical lessons [20]. Lesson
planning can be a starting point for less experienced teachers [21]. ChatGPT supports
educators in generating quizzes and assignments, their assessment, and the provision of
personalized feedback [21,22].
ChatGPT can improve access to information and be helpful in collecting and providing
information on a given topic to users. Unlike search engines that provide a massive list
of links to Internet resources that sometimes lack relevance, ChatGPT provides answers
and gives enough information to users without the need to browse through a long list of
sources [3]. ChatGPT saves time and effort in searching, finding, and systematizing informa-
tion, and users can focus on assessing credibility and critically analyzing information [21].
Integration of ChatGPT in education can stimulate learners’ critical and creative think-
ing through discussions about texts that are generated by AI [3] and develop skills for
presenting and defending the creative ideas, finding evidence and references for them [23].
ChatGPT can help with personalized and adaptive learning. Based on the analysis
of learners’ behavior and dialogue, ChatGPT can generate personalized resources and
learning activities that meet their educational needs and individual learning styles [15,24].
Educators can monitor learners’ progress, clearly view their work and achievements, and
respond appropriately by offering timely support and implementing adaptive teaching
strategies [25]. Providing personalized feedback to learners [21] enables the identification
of problem areas and targeting of performance improvement efforts [24]. Timely feedback
allows learners to correct misconceptions, clarify unclear concepts in real time, learn at
their own pace, and not rely solely on the instructor, which is especially important for
large groups of learners [19]. Personalized and immediate feedback and individualized
learning paths lead to increased motivation and engagement, better outcomes, and learners’
satisfaction and are essential for those with special educational needs as well [25].
ChatGPT can reduce the administrative burden on educators by assessing learners’
assignments and providing feedback [25]. ChatGPT can be used as an assessment tool,
including for essays, to shorten the assessment time and provide immediate results and
feedback to learners [4].
ChatGPT enables learners to develop new digital skills that are very important in
today’s technological society. Learners need to formulate the correct questions and prompts,
operationalize the tasks, and give precise instructions to get satisfactory answers [26].

2.3. Drawbacks and Challenges of Using ChatGPT in Education

Like any new technology that rapidly is implemented in education, ChatGPT undoubt-
edly raises a number of concerns among educators.
ChatGPT is a GAI that can create texts whose authenticity cannot be guaranteed.
ChatGPT is not a search engine and does not provide factual information but is programmed
to generate plausible-sounding text [27]. It is possible for ChatGPT to provide incorrect or
misleading answers, which can lead to misinformation and learning the wrong things [14].
A significant risk is the generation of inappropriate content [17] with elements of bias and
discrimination [13,21] if a model is trained on a dataset that contains such items [4,17]. In
addition, ChatGPT has a knowledge limitation until 2021, which may also result in the
generation of incorrect information [13].
Dependence on technology and heavy reliance on generative tools such as ChatGPT
can negatively impact the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Obtaining answers easily
and quickly and generating completed texts can limit critical thinking and problem-solving
skills [15] and significantly reduce the learning experience that students gain [14]. They
may not learn basic concepts and have serious gaps that will not allow them to cope with
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 5 of 19

more challenging tasks due to a lack of background knowledge [14]. In addition, the lack of
human interaction may reduce the quality of the educational experience for students [25].
ChatGPT can compromise the validity of assessment practices, especially those involv-
ing written assignments, and become a serious threat to academic integrity [4]. One of the
most common concerns is that the use of ChatGPT threatens and will inevitably lead to
the end of writing texts (the essay) as an assessment method [28]. Many learners just copy
the generated text without any critical analysis and no citation [23]. ChatGPT skillfully
paraphrases generated responses in a way not detected by plagiarism software [3]. As a pre-
ventive measure, a number of universities are banning the use of ChatGPT. The response of
others is to change how students are assessed—without papers written at home [7]. Unfair
learning assessment is another consequence of using ChatGPT. It is possible learners who
use ChatGPT to generate academic texts to have higher results than those who do not
use it and rely on their own capabilities and efforts, and this is likely to negatively affect
students’ emotions [29].
ChatGPT and other generative models involve the collection and processing of per-
sonal data, which raises concerns related to privacy and data security and their misuse [15],
as well as ethical concerns due to the inability of the tool to determine the user’s age and
risk young learners being exposed to age-inappropriate responses [7].
Accessibility issues are also possible—the unavailability of the tool in some countries
due to government regulations, censorship, or other restrictions, and on the other side,
uneven distribution of availability, price, and speed of the Internet [7].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Participants
Participants for this study were selected from Trakia University—Stara Zagora, Bul-
garia. The total number of university professors who took part in the survey is 87. The
demographic information is organized in Table 1 and shows that 57 respondents are female
(65.52%) and 30 are male (34.48%). The predominant relative proportion of faculty members
is between 46 and 55 years old (41.38%), followed by faculty members between 36 and
45 years old (31.03%). The lowest percentage of 2.30% are the university professors aged
over 65 years. There are no respondents below 25 years of age.

Table 1. Summary of demographic information (N = 87).

Demographic Characteristics Options Frequency Relative Frequency (%)

Female 57 65.52%
Gender
Male 30 34.48%
Below 25 0 0%
25–35 11 12.64%
36–45 27 31.03%
Age
46–55 36 41.38%
56–65 11 12.64%
Over 65 2 2.30%
Pedagogical Sciences 12 13.79%
Humanities 9 10.34%
Social, Economic and Legal Sciences 10 11.49%
Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Informatics 23 26.44%
Professional Field Technical Sciences 15 17.24%
Agricultural Sciences 14 16.09%
Healthcare and Sports 19 21.84%
Arts 2 2.30%
Security 1 1.15%
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 6 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Demographic Characteristics Options Frequency Relative Frequency (%)

Up to 1 year 4 4.60%
1–5 16 18.39%
6–10 12 13.79%
11–15 16 18.39%
Professional experience
16–20 12 13.79%
21–25 16 18.39%
26–30 4 4.60%
Over 30 years 7 8.05%

The participants’ teaching experience distribution is relatively even, with the highest
percentage of university professors (18.39%) with 1–5 years, 11–15, and 21–25 years of
experience. The lowest percentage of university professors with teaching experience of up
to 1 year is 4.60%.
Professional fields correspond to those mentioned in Bulgaria’s Classification of Higher
Education Fields and Professional Areas. The distribution of data reveals that the highest
share is occupied by university professors in the field of Natural Sciences, Mathematics,
and Informatics at 26.44%, followed by university professors in the field of Healthcare and
Sports at 21.84%, and Technical Sciences at 17.24%. The lowest relative frequency is Arts
(2.30%) and Security (1.15%). The percentages are more than 100%, as respondents can
choose more than one professional field. Most of the university professors work in different
professional fields and teach courses in different specialties and in different departments.

3.2. Data Collection

For the purposes of this research, a questionnaire was developed using Google Forms.
The survey is anonymous and was distributed by email to a group of university professors
from Trakia University—Stara Zagora, Bulgaria.
The survey questions can be grouped thematically as follows: demographic character-
istics and work experience; degree of familiarity and use of AI applications and ChatGPT in
particular; potential benefits and challenges associated with using ChatGPT in teaching and
learning; what is the purpose of using ChatGPT in their teaching activities and what they
expect as results. Part of the questions include “Other” as an option, and university profes-
sors can type a short answer. Others are on a five-point Likert scale, and an open-ended
association question is also available.

4. Results
Statistical data processing was performed using the software package SPSS Statistics
version 26.

4.1. Results Related to Research Question One

The first research question relates to the level of familiarity and use of AI applications,
particularly ChatGPT. Respondents could choose more than one answer, including the
option to add another answer; hence, the overall percentages exceed 100%. The summarized
responses to this question are presented in Table 2. “Tools for translation” were the most
widely used (90.8%), followed by “Applications for navigation” (81.6%), which can be
explained by the fact that these applications have been used for many years, they are free
of charge, and are related to the teaching and research work of the respondents as well as
to their daily activities and needs. Chatbots are in third place, with 52.9%, a representative
of which is ChatGPT. This shows that these relatively new applications are also gaining
much popularity in the academic sphere. The apps with the lowest percentage of usage are
“Fitness Assistant” and “Health Assistant” with 5.75% and “Financial Advisor” (2.30%).
Only 3.45% are participants who have not used such AI applications.
 usage are “Fitness Assistant” and “Health Assistant” with 5.75% and “Financial Advisor”
(2.30%). Only 3.45% are participants who have not used such AI applications.

Table 2. Types of AI applications respondents use.

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 7 of 19
What Type of AI Applications Have You Used? Frequency Relative Frequency
Chatbots 46 52.87%
Appsof
Table 2. Types for
AIlearning
applications respondents use. 30 34.48%
Virtual assistant 21 24.14%
What Type of AIassistants
Fitness Applications Have You Used? Frequency
5 Relative
5.75%Frequency
Health assistants
Chatbots 5 46 5.75%
52.87%
Apps
Financial for learning
advisor 2 30 34.48%
2.30%
Image creation Virtual assistant
and editing apps 11 21 24.14%
12.64%
Fitness assistants 5 5.75%
Navigation
Healthapps
assistants 71 5 81.61%
5.75%
Transcription apps
Financial advisor 19 2 21.84%
2.30%
Image correction
Grammar creation andapps
editing apps 36 11 12.64%
41.38%
Tools forNavigation
translationapps 79 71 81.61%
90.80%
Transcription apps 19 21.84%
I have not used 3 3.45%
Grammar correction apps 36 41.38%
Banking and Tools
company chatbots
for translation 1 79 1.15%
90.80%
I have not used 3 3.45%
It is evident from Banking and
the company
study thatchatbots
university professors 1are familiar with1.15% AI applica-
tions and use them, especially those that are related to teaching and academic activities,
such as tools forIt islearning,
evident from the study
grammar that university
corrections, professors
translation, are familiar with
transcription, andAIimage
applications
cre-
ation. Participants had to assess the functionality of AI applications and the accuracy such
and use them, especially those that are related to teaching and academic activities, of
as tools for learning, grammar corrections, translation, transcription,
the answers. According to more than half of the university professors (58.6%), these ap- and image creation.
Participants had to assess the functionality of AI applications and the accuracy of the an-
plications “Provide partially correct information”, and 26.4% evaluated them positively
swers. According to more than half of the university professors (58.6%), these applications
and point“Provide
out that they “Respond correctly and adequately” (Figure 1). Only 3.4% thought
partially correct information”, and 26.4% evaluated them positively and point
they “Do not respond correctly
out that they “Respond correctlyand adequately”. In the(Figure
and adequately” option1).
“Other”, several
Only 3.4% thoughtrespond-
they “Do
ents writenotanswers
respond according to their
correctly and personalInexperience
adequately”. with these
the option “Other”, applications.
several respondents They
write
shared their opinion
answers that the
according responses
to their received
personal from
experience these
with tools
these depended
applications. Theyonshared
how thetheir
opinion
search was set up. that the responses received from these tools depended on how the search was
set up.

Figure 1. Respondents’ assessment of AI application functionality.

Figure 1. Respondents’ assessment of AI application functionality.
For the purpose of the study, it was necessary to focus attention and explore the
For the purpose
opinion of university
of the the study,professors
it was necessary to focus attention
about ChatGPT. The questionandallows
explore
morethethan
opin-
one
ion of the answer selection,
university so the total
professors aboutsum of percentages
ChatGPT. is more than
The question 100%more
allows (Tablethan
3). one an-
swer selection,Asolarge
the group of university
total sum professors
of percentages is used
moreChatGPT “Out
than 100% of curiosity”
(Table 3). (43.68%), and
42.53% chose “I have not used it”. These two responses have the highest
A large group of university professors used ChatGPT “Out of curiosity” (43.68%), frequency and
could be explained by the fact that this is a new application that some university professors
and 42.53% chose “I have not used it”. These two responses have the highest frequency
have not used yet. Those familiar with are provoked by curiosity and are exploring its
and couldpotential
be explained by the fact that this is a new application that some university pro-
possibilities. The primary purposes for using ChatGPT include “Searching for
fessors have not used yet.
information” Those “Generating
(28.74%), familiar with are provoked
ideas” (20.69%), by
andcuriosity
“Writingand are
text” exploring
(16.09%). It is
evident that university professors are still cautious about using ChatGPT for creating
learning and exam materials.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 8 of 19

Table 3. Purpose of using ChatGPT.

For What Purpose Have You Used ChatGPT? Frequency Relative Frequency
Writing a text/article/speech/presentation 14 16.09%
Problem-solving 2 2.30%
Writing programming code 8 9.20%
Dialogue for foreign language practice 6 6.90%
Creating learning materials 8 9.20%
Creating exam materials 4 4.60%
Search for information 25 28.74%
Generating ideas 18 20.69%
Out of curiosity 38 43.68%
I have not used it 37 42.53%

4.2. Results Related to Research Question Two

The second research question is related to university professors’ identification of the
potential benefits and challenges associated with using ChatGPT in teaching and learning.
A rating system consisting of a 5-point Likert scale is used. It allows respondents
to express their level of disagreement or agreement with the statements ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The frequencies (F), relative frequencies (%), means (M), and standard deviations (SD)
of the question responses are given in Tables 4 and 5. The descriptive statistics analysis
(Table 4) shows that the university professors identify possible advantages and benefits
and have relatively positive perceptions about using ChatGPT in teaching (average values
are above 3).

Table 4. Possible benefits of using ChatGPT in the teaching.

What Do You Think is Possible Neither

Strongly Strongly
When Using ChatGPT in Teaching Disagree Agree nor Agree Total Mean SD
Disagree Agree
and Learning? Disagree
Systematization of information
sources found on the Internet on a F 3 6 20 43 15 87
3.7 0.954
given topic and saving time and effort. % 3.4 6.9 23 49.4 17.2 100
Creation of learning scenarios,
learning materials and presentations F 4 7 33 34 9 87
3.43 0.948
for lectures and practical lessons. % 4.6 8 37.9 39.1 10.3 100
Creating exam questions, quizzes and F 4 9 33 33 8 87
3.37 0.954
assignments for students’ assessment. % 4.6 10.3 37.9 37.9 9.2 100
Provide personalized feedback and F 7 16 35 26 3 87
3.02 0.976
assistance to students. % 8 18.4 40.2 29.9 3.4 100

Table 5. Possible risks of using ChatGPT in the teaching.

What Do You Think Is Possible Neither

Strongly Strongly
When Using ChatGPT in Teaching Disagree Agree nor Agree Total Mean SD
Disagree Agree
and Learning? Disagree
Cheating by students in the F 1 3 24 26 33 87
4 0.952
preparation of academic texts. % 1.1 3.4 27.6 29.9 37.9 100
Students can learn false, malicious or
biased information if they rely
F 1 3 19 34 30 87
entirely on ChatGPT without 4.02 0.902
verifying the authenticity of what
is written. % 1.1 3.4 21.8 39.1 34.5 100
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 9 of 19

Table 5. Cont.

What Do You Think Is Possible Neither

Strongly Strongly
When Using ChatGPT in Teaching Disagree Agree nor Agree Total Mean SD
Disagree Agree
and Learning? Disagree
Collection of personal data and
F 2 8 33 26 18 87
sensitive information that can 3.57 0.996
be misused. % 2.3 9.2 37.9 29.9 20.7 100
F 1 10 24 33 19 87
Plagiarism 3.68 0.982
% 1.1 11.5 27.6 37.9 21.8 100

The highest agreement item corresponds to “Systematization of information sources

found on the Internet on a given topic, which saves time and effort”, which was positively
reported by 66.6% of respondents (M = 3.7, SD = 0.954). According to 49.4% (M = 3.43,
SD = 0.948) “Creating learning scenarios, learning materials and presentations for lectures
and exercises” and 47.1% (M = 3.43, SD = 0.948) “Creating exam questions, quizzes to assess
students” are good possibilities. Only 33.3% (M = 3.02, SD = 0.976) agreed that “Providing
personalized feedback and assistance to students” is possible. A high percentage of those
unable to assess the applicability of these ChatGPT capabilities in training is reported.
The university professors also report possible negative results of using ChatGPT in
teaching (Table 5).
The most severe problem for university professors is “Students can learn false, mali-
cious or biased information if they rely entirely on ChatGPT without verifying the authen-
ticity of what is written”—73.6% (M = 4.02, SD = 0.902). For 67.8% of respondents (M = 4,
SD = 0.952) “Cheating by students in the preparation of academic texts” is a likely outcome,
as well as “Plagiarism” (59.7%, M = 3.68, SD = 0.982). “Collection of personal data and
sensitive information that can be misused” was a problem for 50.6% (M = 3.57, SD = 0.996)
of respondents.
The statistical hypotheses for the presence or absence of a relationship/association
between the variables were tested. No association was observed between university
professors’ responses and their gender, age, professional field, or work experience.

4.3. Results Related to Research Question Three

The third research question is related to university professors’ attitudes about the
application of ChatGPT in their teaching practice and the possible results they can achieve.
The university professors have a relatively positive attitude regarding the implementa-
tion of ChatGPT in their teaching practice (M = 3.14, SD = 0.954), with 41.4% of respondents
answering agree or strongly agree (Figure 2). The share of university professors who cannot
decide whether to apply this new technological tool in their teaching activity is relatively
high (35.63%).
The research is also interested in what kind of teaching activities the university profes-
sors would use ChatGPT.
The frequencies (F), relative frequencies (%), means (M), and standard deviations (SD)
of the responses to the questions are given in Tables 6 and 7.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 10 of 19

Figure
Figure 2. University
2. University professors’
professors’ attitudes
attitudes regarding
regarding the the application
application of ChatGPT
of ChatGPT in their
in their teaching
teaching
activities. activities.

The6.research
Table Purpose ofisusing
alsoChatGPT
interested in what
in teaching kind of
activities. teaching activities the university pro-
fessors would use ChatGPT.
The frequencies Neither (%), means (M), and standard deviations
(F), relative frequencies
For what Would You Use ChatGPT Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree nor Agree
(SD) of the responses
in Your Teaching Activities? 6 and 7.Total Mean SD
to the questions are given in TablesAgree
Disagree
Disagree
To generate learning materials F 5 26 20 30 6 87
Table 6. Purpose of using ChatGPT in teaching activities. 3.07 1.076
and presentations % 5.7 29.9 23 34.5 6.9 100
For what Would
To create You Use
questions and quizzes to F 6 19 Neither 23 34 5 87
Strongly Strongly 3.15 1.051
ChatGPT in assess
Yourstudent knowledge
Teaching Ac- % 6.9 Disagree
21.8 Agree nor
26.4 39.1
Agree 5.7 100
Total Mean SD
Disagree Agree
tivities?
To create practical exercises and tasks F 6 19 Disagree22 34 6 87
3.17 1.07
To generatefor students to complete F
learning materials % 5 6.9 26 21.8 20 25.3 3039.1 6.9
6 10087
To create exercises for students to F 5
3.07 1.076
and presentations % 5.7 29.9 15 23 23 34.537 7
6.9 87
100 3.3 1.036
correct and improve them % 5.7 17.2 26.4 42.5 8 100
To createTo
questions and provideF
and quizzes
assess students F 6 11 19 29 23 31 34 12 54 8787
2.64 3.151.023 1.051
personalized feedback
to assess student knowledge % 12.6 33.3 35.6 13.8 4.6 100
% 6.9 21.8 26.4 39.1 5.7 100
F
To create practical exercises and Table 6 19 22 34 6 87
7. The desired outcome of using ChatGPT in teaching activities. 3.17 1.07
tasks for students to complete % 6.9 21.8 25.3 39.1 6.9 100
For What Purpose Would You Neither
F 5 Strongly 15 23 37 Strongly
7 87 Mean
To create exercises for students
Use ChatGPT in Your Disagree Agree nor Agree Total SD
Disagree Agree 3.3 1.036
Teaching Activities?
to correct and improve them Disagree
% 5.7 17.2 26.4 42.5 8 100
To provoke interest, activate and F 5 11 19 40 12 87
F 3.49 1.066
engage
To assess students andstudents
provide % 11 5.7 29 12.6 31 21.8 12 46 4
13.8 10087
2.64 1.023
personalized
To supportfeedback
activities that take % F 12.6 3 33.3 11 35.6 20 13.839 14
4.6 87100
3.57 1.019
more time % 3.4 12.6 23 44.8 16.1 100
F 5 14 20 35 13 87
To keep up with new technologies
The highest percentage of 3.43 that
1.106
% 5.7 16.1agreement 23 was observed
40.2 for the statement
14.9 100 ChatGPT
is a good
To provoke students’ critical thinking tool
F “To create
7 exercises
12 for students
27 to correct
28 and13 improve 87 them” in the process
3.32 1.136
and creativity of practical % lessons—50.5%
8 (M13.8= 3.3, SD31= 1.036).32.2A total 14.9
of 46% of 100university professors
would use it “To create practical exercises and tasks for students to complete” (M = 3.17,
SD = 1.070), 44.8%—“To
The highest create
percentage of questions
agreement and was quizzes
observedto forassess students’
the statement knowledge”
that ChatGPT (M
= 3.15,
is a good tool “To create exercises for students to correct and improve them” in the pro-(M =
SD = 1.051) and 41.4%—“To generate learning materials and presentations”
3.07, SDof=practical
cess 1.076). The lowest level(M
lessons—50.5% of =agreement (18.4%)
3.3, SD = 1.036). A corresponds
total of 46% of touniversity
the statementpro- “To
assess students
fessors wouldanduse provide personalized
it “To create feedback”
practical exercises and(Mtasks
= 2.64,
for SD = 1.023).
students to complete”
(MThe
= 3.17, SD = 1.070),
university 44.8%—“To
professors alsocreate questions
expressed and quizzes
opinions aboutto their
assessmotivation
students’ knowl-
for using
ChatGPT in their teaching activities (Table 7).
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 11 of 19

edge” (M = 3.15, SD = 1.051) and 41.4%—“To generate learning materials and presentations”
(M = 3.07, SD = 1.076). The lowest level of agreement (18.4%) corresponds to the statement
“To assess students and provide personalized feedback” (M = 2.64, SD = 1.023).
The university professors also expressed opinions about their motivation for using
ChatGPT in their teaching activities (Table 7).
The favorable agreement is observed on all statements, as the highest level of agreement
corresponds to “To support activities that take more time”—60.9% (M = 3.57, SD = 1.019).
A total of 59.8% of respondents agreed that ChatGPT can be used “To provoke interest,
activate and engage students” (M = 3.49, SD = 1.066) and 47.1% (M = 3.32, SD = 1.136)
“To provoke students’ critical thinking and creativity”. For 55.1% of university professors
(M = 3.43, SD = 1.106) it is important “To keep up with new technologies”.
The statistical hypotheses for the presence or absence of a relationship/association
between university professors’ responses and their gender, age, professional field, or work
experience were tested.
As an alternative to the chi-square test, whose requirements were not considered to be
valid, Fisher’s exact test was preferred. For datasets that require more computation time for
the exact p-value to be calculated, the Monte Carlo method provided an unbiased estimate
of the exact p-value that is reliable [30].
The Monte Carlo method revealed the existence of an association between the variable
teaching experience and the university professors’ answers to the question “For what
purpose would you use ChatGPT in your teaching activities?”
• “To keep up with new technologies”—the Monte Carlo estimate of the p-value is 0.010
with 99% confidence interval (lower bound—0.009 and upper bound—0.011). This
estimate was based on 100,000 samples (Table 8).
• “To provoke the critical thinking and creativity of students”—the Monte Carlo estimate
of the p-value is 0.001 with 99% confidence interval [0.001, 0.002]. This estimate was
based on 100,000 samples (Table 9).
A more significant percentage of university professors with 21–25 years and 6–10 years
of work experience agree that they should use AI applications (especially ChatGPT) in their
teaching activities to keep up with new technologies, while those with 11–15 years of work
experience do not express agreement or disagreement with this motivating force.
There is a difference in the degree of agreement between university professors with
21–25 years and over 30 years of work experience, who express agreement about the motive
for using ChatGPT in their teaching activity to provoke students’ critical thinking and cre-
ativity, and those with 1–5 years and 16–20 years of work experience, where disagreement
is more pronounced.

Table 8. An association between teaching experience and the statement “To keep up with
new technologies”.

Chi-Square Tests
Monte Carlo Sig. (Two-Sided)
Asymptotic Significance
Value df 99% Confidence Interval
(Two-Sided) Significance
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pearson Chi-Square 45.884a 28 0.018 b 0.015 0.017
0.016
Likelihood Ratio 47.974 28 0.011 0.022 b 0.021 0.024
Fisher’s Exact Test 38.849 0.010 b 0.009 0.011
N of Valid Cases 87
a 37 cells (92.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.23. b Based on
100,000 sampled tables with starting seed 2000000.
 Asymptotic
df Significance Monte Carlo Sig. (2-Sided)
(2-Sided)
99% Confidence Inter
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 Significance 12 of 19
Lower Bound Upper B
Pearson Chi-Square 47.905 a 28 0.011 0.010 b 0.009 0.011
Likelihood Ratio
Table 9. An association 60.497 28experience 0.000
between teaching 0.001
and the statement
b 0.001 critical 0.001
“To provoke students’
Fisher’s Exact Test 44.153
thinking and creativity”. 0.001 b 0.001 0.002
N of Valid Cases 87
Chi-Square
a 37 cells (92.5%) have expected Tests less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.32. b Base
count
100,000 sampled Asymptotic
tables withSignificance
starting seed 1314643744.
df Monte Carlo Sig. (2-Sided)
(2-Sided)

There is a difference in the degree of agreement 99%

Significance
Confidence Interval
between university professors
Lower Bound Upper Bound
21–25 years and over 30 years of work experience, who express agreement about the
Pearson Chi-Square 47.905 a 28 0.011 b 0.009 0.011
tive for using ChatGPT in their teaching activity 0.010 to provoke students’ critical thinking
Likelihood Ratio 60.497 28 0.000 0.001 b 0.001 0.001
Fisher’s Exact Test creativity, and those with 1–5 years and0.001
44.153 16–20
b years of0.001
work experience, 0.002 where disag
N of Valid Cases ment
87 is more pronounced.
The
a 37 cellsrespondents werecount
(92.5%) have expected asked to 5.give
less than The their opinion
minimum expected about
count is AI
0.32. chatbots—are
b Based on th
100,000 sampled tables with starting seed 1314643744.
threat or opportunity for educational institutions?
The results (Figure 3) show that 21.8% of university professors think that AI cha
The respondents were asked to give their opinion about AI chatbots—are they a threat
areora opportunity
favorable opportunity
for educationalwhile only 12.6% believe them to be a threat. With the hig
institutions?
relativeThe proportion (37.9%),
results (Figure 3) showrespondents considered
that 21.8% of university them think
professors boththata threat and a favo
AI chatbots
are a favorable opportunity while only 12.6% believe them to be a
opportunity. The respondents are aware of their positive and negative aspects. AI chathreat. With the highest
canrelative
become proportion (37.9%), respondents considered them both a threat and a favorable
a threat or an opportunity depending on how they are applied in trainin
opportunity. The respondents are aware of their positive and negative aspects. AI chatbots
summary,
can become theauniversity
threat or an professors
opportunity have a positive
depending on how attitude
they arebut are still
applied cautious in u
in training.
them.
In summary, the university professors have a positive attitude but are still cautious in
using them.

Figure 3. University professors’ opinion about ChatGPT as a threat or opportunity.

Figure 3. University professors’ opinion about ChatGPT as a threat or opportunity.
The question “Do you think ChatGPT should be studied for its proper use in educa-
Thefollows
tion?” questionthe “Do you
logic of thethink ChatGPT
previous one. It isshould betostudied
necessary for
reveal the itspractices
best proper of use in ed
the application of ChatGPT in education in order to avoid fraud, plagiarism, and
tion?” follows the logic of the previous one. It is necessary to reveal the best practic all the
risks and threats and to turn it into a valuable and applicable tool. ChatGPT should be
thestudied
application of ChatGPT in education in order to avoid fraud, plagiarism, and al
to gain more experience and discover the most effective ways of its integration in
risks and threats
training. and is
This opinion tosupported
turn it into a valuable
by most and applicable
of the university professorstool.
(56.3%ChatGPT
“Agree” shoul
studied to gain Agree”—Figure
and “Strongly more experience 4). and discover the most effective ways of its integratio
training. This opinion is supported by most of the university professors (56.3% “Ag
and “Strongly Agree”—Figure 4).
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 13 of 19

Figure 4. University professors’ opinion about the need to study ChatGPT.

Figure
The 4. University
Monte professors’
Carlo method revealedopinion about
the existence theassociation
of an need to study ChatGPT.
teaching experience
and the university professors’ responses to the question: Do you think ChatGPT should be
studied for its proper use in education? The Monte Carlo estimate of the p-value is 0.007
The Monte Carlo method revealed the existence of an association teach
with 99% confidence interval [0.006, 0.007]. This estimate was based on 100,000 samples
and the
(Table 10). university professors’ responses to the question: Do you think Ch
be studied for its proper use in education? The Monte Carlo estimate of the p
Table 10. Association between the teaching experience and university professors’ responses to the
with 99% confidence interval [0.006, 0.007]. This estimate was based on 10
question: “Do you think ChatGPT should be studied for its proper use in education?”.
(Table 10).
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Table 10. Association between the teaching experience and university professors’
df Significance Monte Carlo Sig. (2-Sided)
question: “Do you think ChatGPT should be studied for its proper use in education
(2-Sided)

Chi-Square99%
Significance
Confidence Interval
Tests
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Asymptotic
Pearson Chi-Square 48.727 a 28 0.009 b 0.013 0.015
Likelihood Ratio 48.699 28 0.009
df0.014 b Significance
0.005
Monte
0.006
Carlo Sig. (
0.005
Fisher’s Exact Test 42.750 0.007 b (2-Sided)
0.006 0.007
N of Valid Cases 87 99% Confid
a Significance
b Based on 100,000
37 cells (92.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.05.
sampled tables with starting seed 1502173562.
Lower Boun
Pearson Chi-Square 48.727 a 28 0.009 0.014 b 0.013
Likelihood Ratio
The university 48.699
professors 28 5 years of0.009
between 1 and 0.005
experience think there is no need0.005
b

forFisher’s
ChatGPT to be studied,
Exact Test 42.750 in contrast with those with experience between
0.007 b16–20 and0.006
21–25 years who have an opposite opinion (Figure 5).
N of Valid Cases 87
a 37 cells (92.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is

100,000 sampled tables with starting seed 1502173562.

The university professors between 1 and 5 years of experience think th

for ChatGPT to be studied, in contrast with those with experience between
25 years who have an opposite opinion (Figure 5).
 Educ.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19 14

Figure 5. The necessity

Figure 5.to study
The ChatGPT
necessity according
to study to teaching
ChatGPT experience.
according to teaching experience.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
The study aimed to investigate university professors’ attitudes toward the application
The study aimed to investigate university professors’ attitudes toward the app
of ChatGPT in education. The results are comparable to those of other studies on attitudes
tion of ChatGPT in education. The results are comparable to those of other studie
toward AI technologies.
attitudes toward AI technologies.
A large proportion of university professors are familiar with AI applications and
ChatGPT in particular, A large butproportion
there is stillof auniversity professors
large percentage who aredofamiliar
not usewith it orAIuseapplications
it
infrequently andChatGPT
only whenin particular,
necessary.but there is still a large percentage who do not use it or u
From theinfrequently
current survey and results,
only when necessary.
curiosity stands out as a leading motive for using
From the current
ChatGPT, indicating that university professors survey results, curiosity
are still exploringstands
and out as a leading
investigating motive for u
its pos-
ChatGPT, indicating that university professors are still
sibilities. Idea generation and text writing were also presented as the primary motivations exploring and investigating its
sibilities. Idea generation and text writing were also
for its use and application in teaching, which is consistent with the finding of [29]. presented as the primary motiva
for itsopinion
The principal use andrelatedapplication in teaching,
to evaluating which is consistent
AI applications with the
functionality finding
is that theyof [29].
give partially correct or incorrect information, which coincides with the studies of [29] is that
The principal opinion related to evaluating AI applications functionality
and [31] whogive partially on
commented correct or incorrect
the reliability andinformation,
correctnesswhich of thecoincides
information withprovided
the studies of [29
by ChatGPT. [31] who commented on the reliability and correctness of the information provide
ChatGPT.
The current research findings are consistent with the existing studies, highlighting the
potential benefits and The challenges
current research findingsAI,
of integrating aresuch
consistent
as ChatGPT,with theintoexisting
education. studies, highligh
A positivetheattitude
potential benefits and
is observed challenges
toward of integrating
the possibilities AI, such
of ChatGPT forasthe
ChatGPT,
creationintoof educat
learning scenarios,Alearning
positivematerials,
attitude isand observed towardfor
presentations thelectures
possibilities of ChatGPT
and practical lessons,for the cre
as well as exam of learning
questions, scenarios,
quizzes, learning materials,This
and assignments. andfinding
presentations for lectures
is supported and practica
by [15,32],
who found that sons, as well as
ChatGPT canexam questions,
be used quizzes,
to create lesson and assignments.
plans for specific This findingand
subjects is supporte
[15,32], who
generate topic-specific found tailored
questions that ChatGPT can be used
to the subject to create
and level lesson plans for specific sub
of difficulty.
and generate
In the present study, atopic-specific
relatively low questions
degree oftailored
agreement to theissubject
reported and level of difficulty.
regarding the
In the present
possibilities of ChatGPT to provide study, a relativelyfeedback
personalized low degree andof agreement
assistance to is reportedasregardin
students,
possibilities
well as a significant of ChatGPT
percentage to provide
of university personalized
professors who cannotfeedbacktakeand assistance to studen
an unequivocal
attitude. Thiswell
is inascontrast to other studies that report high levels
a significant percentage of university professors who cannot of agreement with
takethis
an unequiv
statement. Immediate
attitude. andThispersonalized
is in contrastfeedback has helped
to other studies thatincrease
report high student
levelsengagement
of agreement with
and motivation, leadingImmediate
statement. to better academic performance
and personalized [31,33].
feedback hasIn these increase
helped studies, the student eng
authors note thement role
andof motivation,
ChatGPT inleading reducing to the workload
better academic of teachers
performance and enabling
[31,33]. Inthem these studies
to focus on more complex
authors note problems. One possible
the role of ChatGPT reason for
in reducing thethis difference
workload in opinions
of teachers andisenabling t
that the respondents in the present study do not know the possibilities
to focus on more complex problems. One possible reason for this difference and do not use GAIin opinio
tools to a sufficient extent.
that the respondents in the present study do not know the possibilities and do no
The mostGAI severe
toolsconcerns of university
to a sufficient extent. professors are related to the risk of Students
learning false, malicious,
The most or severe
biased concerns
information if they rely
of university entirely on
professors areChatGPT
related towithoutthe risk of Stud
verifying the learning
authenticityfalse,ofmalicious,
what is written,
or biasedwhich is consistent
information with
if they rely[31], who found
entirely on ChatGPTa wit
 verifying the authenticity of what is written, which is consistent with [31], who found a
challenge related to reliability and accuracy of information that is generated by ChatGPT.
Furthermore, they consider the risk of potential harm to student learning outcomes and
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056
the possible loss of personal interaction between teachers and students. 15 of 19
Another concern for university professors is related to assessment processes and the
potential for fraud and plagiarism when using generative tools. This is consistent with the
findings
challengeof [34], to
related who found and
reliability a danger that
accuracy of using ChatGPT
information that istogenerated
completebyassignments
ChatGPT. will
make learners “lazy” and may prevent the development of valuable skills
Furthermore, they consider the risk of potential harm to student learning outcomes and the such as critical
thinking.
possible lossTheof result
personal is interaction
supportedbetween
by [33], who have
teachers pointed out that students’ use of
and students.
ChatGPTAnother concern for
for cheating mayuniversity
lead to professors is relatedoftobad
the development assessment processes
habits such and the Sim-
as plagiarism.
potential for fraud and plagiarism when using generative tools. This
ilar concerns about the negative impact of ChatGPT on education are also reported is consistent with by
the
[35]. findings of [34], who found a danger that using ChatGPT to complete assignments
will make learners “lazy” and may prevent the development of valuable skills such as
The issue of privacy and data protection also comes to the fore. This aligns with con-
critical thinking. The result is supported by [33], who have pointed out that students’ use of
cerns that unauthorized persons may gain access to sensitive information or use it for
ChatGPT for cheating may lead to the development of bad habits such as plagiarism. Similar
purposes otherthe
concerns about than the academic
negative impact ofones highlighted
ChatGPT by [31].
on education are also reported by [35].
In
Thesummary, the results
issue of privacy of the
and data second research
protection also comes question can be
to the fore. Thissystematized
aligns with in the
following
concerns thatway, ranked according
unauthorized personstomay
thegain
degree of satisfaction
access of the respondents
to sensitive information or use it (Table
for 11):
purposes other than the academic ones highlighted by [31].
TableIn 11.summary,
Benefits and the challenges
results of the second
of using research
ChatGPT inquestion
teaching.can be systematized in the
following way, ranked according to the degree of satisfaction of the respondents (Table 11):
Benefits Challenges
Students
Table 11. Benefits and challenges of using ChatGPT in teaching. can learn false, malicious or biased
Systematization of information sources found
information if they rely entirely on ChatGPT
on the Internet on a given topic and saving
Benefits Challenges
without verifying the authenticity of what is
time and effort.
Students can learn false, written.
malicious or biased
Systematization of information sources found
Creating learning information if they rely entirely on ChatGPT
on the Internet onscenarios,
a given topiclearning materials
and saving
Cheating
without in the
verifying preparation
the authenticityof
of academic
what texts
for lessons andtime exam quizzes
and effort. and assignments
is written.
and Plagiarism.
for students’
Creating learning assessment.
scenarios, learning materials
Cheating in the preparation of academic texts
Providing
for personalized
lessons and exam quizzes feedback and assis-
and assignments Collection of personal data and sensitive infor-
and Plagiarism.
for students’
tance to assessment.
students. mation that can be misused.
Providing personalized feedback and Collection of personal data and sensitive
assistance to students. information that can be misused.
The participants were asked to describe ChatGPT in one word or phrase (Figure 6).
It is evident that the primary phrase associated with ChatGPT is artificial intelligence. The
The participants were asked to describe ChatGPT in one word or phrase (Figure 6). It
university professors are curious and think this robot is a part of the new technological
is evident that the primary phrase associated with ChatGPT is artificial intelligence. The
revolution. According
university professors aretocurious
them,andit could be arobot
think this good is aassistant, providing
part of the valuable infor-
new technological
mation and answers in the form of natural personal conversation. A positive
revolution. According to them, it could be a good assistant, providing valuable information attitude is
related to opportunity,
and answers in the formfacilitation, and challenge.
of natural personal On theAother
conversation. side
positive are those
attitude that describe
is related
ittoasopportunity,
a threat and a fraud, aand
facilitation, poison that makes
challenge. On the students
other sidelazy. The that
are those negative opinion
describe it as could
a threat and a fraud, a poison that makes students lazy. The negative
be explained by the fact that ChatGPT is still unknown, and university professors opinion could be need
explained by the fact that ChatGPT is still unknown, and university professors
time to explore its functionality to implement it effectively in their teaching activities. need time
to explore its functionality to implement it effectively in their teaching activities.

Figure 6.
Figure Word cloud
6. Word cloudwith
withuniversity professors’
university description
professors’ of ChatGPT.
description of ChatGPT.
The study results show university professors’ positive attitudes toward integrating
ChatGPT and similar generative tools in their teaching activities. These results coin-
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 16 of 19

cide with those found in [31]. In contrast, [33] report a rather negative attitude toward
ChatGPT—most participants in their study express no intention to use ChatGPT in the
foreseeable future.
The university professors believe that ChatGPT can support activities that take more
time by generating learning materials and presentations and creating quizzes to assess
student knowledge and would integrate it into the learning process in these aspects. The
respondents think that ChatGPT can provoke interest, activate and engage students, and
stimulate students’ critical thinking and creativity to achieve better results in learning.
Ref. [36] highlighted that the area most negatively impacted by ChatGPT is the critical
thinking of learners and problem-solving. This is in line with the university professors’
desire to use ChatGPT for creating exercises and asking students to correct and improve
them to provoke their critical thinking and creativity.
ChatGPT is a new tool, and its capabilities and impact on education are still being
explored. The university professors are not yet familiar with it and cannot decide whether
it would be a threat or a beneficial opportunity. There are concerns that AI will replace
educators [37], but depending on how it is applied, it is possible to turn any threat into
an opportunity. The majority of respondents of the current study consider ChatGPT as an
opportunity, and its application in education would support their teaching activities, both
in preparing materials and generating new ideas to make learners more active.
Findings of [34] show that the more educators are aware of GAI, the more they use it.
Learning ChatGPT is critical to its proper use in education, and an association with years
of working experience is apparent from the results obtained in our study. The university
professors with more pedagogical experience felt that it is necessary to be familiar with
this tool to keep up with new technologies and to implement them effectively in their
professional field.
ChatGPT is already part of learners’ daily lives. Educational institutions should accept
it as a significant factor in learning and scientific research [25]. AI applications and ChatGPT
should not be ignored or prohibited in educational institutions since it will backfire and
increase learners’ interest in their misuse. The correct approach is to regulate their use in
the right way [23].
Inadequate knowledge of technology is at the root of the risks and fears of its intro-
duction and integration in educational institutions [25]. For ethically and pedagogically
effective use of these tools and their integration into learning in an appropriate and effective
way, specific digital competencies are needed, both for students and educators [2,9].

6. Limitations of the Study and Future Research Direction

The present study has several limitations. First, there are limitations in terms of the
sample, as the study was conducted in a single educational institution. Second, it should be
taken into account that despite the introduction of ChatGPT and its use by users in Bulgaria,
a wide range of discussions and research in the academic community is still limited. This is
one of the reasons why some university professors cannot take a stand on the issues related
to its use in education.
In order to fully understand the benefits and risks of implementing ChatGPT in
education, learners’ attitudes toward GAI should also be explored. Such a study would
make it possible to compare students’ and educators’ attitudes toward ChatGPT and find
intersections as well as differences.
Similar studies can support educational institutions in fulfilling their new role in the
technological society. The institutional policy should be aimed at developing strategies for
the ethical and professional use of GAI and organizing training programs for the formation
of new digital competencies.

7. Conclusions
AI applications, including ChatGPT, are already part of society’s daily life and are
intensively used by learners in learning activities.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 17 of 19

The results of the current study show that ChatGPT has the potential to support
teaching and learning. As a GAI, ChatGPT can facilitate university professors’ activities
and reduce their burden by systematizing information sources, generating ideas and
creating learning scenarios and plans, and learning and exam materials, tailored to the
learners’ level of knowledge. At the same time, the possible risks of its unbalanced and
unethical use by users cannot be ignored. The most severe problems are guaranteeing the
credibility of the generated texts, which can negatively affect the assimilation of knowledge
and skills, the validity of assessment practices, and risks to data confidentiality and security.
The benefits of tools such as ChatGPT highlight the potential capabilities of artificial
intelligence for learning, and challenges indicate the need to explore ways to effectively
integrate them into teaching and learning [4].
The current research results show that university professors use artificial intelligence
applications in their daily activities, including ChatGPT, and have a positive attitude to its
application in their teaching activities. They perceive ChatGPT as a means to support time-
consuming teaching activities, provoke interest, activate and engage students, and stimulate
their critical thinking and creativity. The university professors considered GAI applications
as both—a threat and a favorable opportunity. A significant proportion of university
professors cannot yet assess the possibilities and risks of its use. One of the reasons is
the insufficient knowledge of the principles of functioning of such generative tools and
university professors, who are adamant that it must be studied to be used properly.
In order to implement an effective learning process and overcome the challenges, it is
necessary to form new digital competencies for using artificial intelligence applications in
both students and university professors. Educational institutions should develop strate-
gies and training programs for the productive and effective use of generative tools for
educational purposes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.K.; methodology, G.K. and N.A.; validation, G.K. and
N.A.; formal analysis, G.K. and N.A.; investigation, G.K. and N.A.; resources, G.K. and N.A.; data
curation, G.K. and N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.K. and N.A.; writing—review and
editing, G.K.; visualization, N.A.; supervision, G.K.; project administration, G.K.; funding acquisition,
N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of education and science under the National
science program Intelligent Animal Husbandry, grant agreement No. D01-62/18.03.2021.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hwang, G.J.; Xie, H.; Wah, B.W.; Gašević, D. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2020, 1, 100001. [CrossRef]
2. Ausat AM, A.; Massang, B.; Efendi, M.; Nofirman, N.; Riady, Y. Can chatGPT replace the role of the teacher in the classroom: A
fundamental analysis. J. Educ. 2023, 5, 16100–16106.
3. AlAfnan, M.A.; Dishari, S.; Jovic, M.; Lomidze, K. Chatgpt as an educational tool: Opportunities, challenges, and recommenda-
tions for communication, business writing, and composition courses. J. Artif. Intell. Technol. 2023, 3, 60–68. [CrossRef]
4. Chan CK, Y.; Hu, W. Students’ Voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges in Higher Education. arXiv 2023,
arXiv:2305.00290. [CrossRef]
5. European Parliament. Report-A9-0001/2021, Report on Artificial Intelligence: Questions of Interpretation and Application of
International Law in so Far as the EU is Affected in the Areas of Civil and Military Uses and of State Authority Outside the Scope
of Criminal Justice. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0001_EN.html (accessed on
23 August 2023).
6. Opara, E.; Mfon-Ette Theresa, A.; Aduke, T.C. ChatGPT for teaching, learning and research: Prospects and challenges. Glob. Acad.
J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023, 5, 33–40.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 18 of 19

7. Sabzalieva, E.; Valentini, A. ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Quick Start Guide. Available online:
https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/38828 (accessed on 23 August 2023).
8. Deng, J.; Lin, Y. The Benefits and Challenges of ChatGPT: An Overview. Front. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2023, 2, 81–83. [CrossRef]
9. Kohnke, L.; Moorhouse, B.L.; Zou, D. ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC J. 2023, 54, 00336882231162868.
[CrossRef]
10. OpenAI. Introducing ChatGPT. Available online: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt (accessed on 23 August 2023).
11. Imtiaz, A.; Mashrafi, K.; Uzma, H.; Partha Protim, D.; Ayon, R.; Rokonuzzaman, R.M. ChatGPT vs. Bard: A Comparative Study.
TechRxiv 2023. [CrossRef]
12. Rasul, T.; Nair, S.; Kalendra, D.; Robin, M.; de Oliveira Santini, F.; Ladeira, W.J.; Sun, M.; Day, I.; Rather, R.A.; Heathcote, L. The
role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2023, 6, 41–56.
13. Lo, C.K. What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 410. [CrossRef]
14. Malinka, K.; Peresíni, M.; Firc, A.; Hujnák, O.; Janus, F. On the educational impact of chatgpt: Is artificial intelligence ready to
obtain a university degree? In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
V. 1, Turku, Finland, 10–12 June 2023; pp. 47–53.
15. Rahman, M.M.; Watanobe, Y. ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5783.
[CrossRef]
16. Firat, M. How Chat GPT Can Transform Autodidactic Experiences and Open Education? Available online: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/367613715_How_Chat_GPT_Can_Transform_Autodidactic_Experiences_and_Open_Education (ac-
cessed on 23 August 2023).
17. Baskara, F.R.; Mukarto, F.X. Exploring the Implications of ChatGPT for Language Learning in Higher Education. IJELTAL Indones.
J. Engl. Lang. Teach. Appl. Linguist. 2023, 7, 343–358.
18. Chan, C.K.Y.; Lee, K.K. The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT
in teaching and learning than their Gen X and Millennial Generation teachers? arXiv 2023, arXiv:2305.02878.
19. Dai, Y.; Liu, A.; Lim, C.P. Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven innovation in higher education,
Procedia CIRP 00 (2023) 000–000. In Proceedings of the 33rd CIRP Design Conference, Sydney, Australia, 17–19 May 2023 2023.
20. Gimpel, H.; Hall, K.; Decker, S.; Eymann, T.; Lämmermann, L.; Mädche, A.; Röglinger, M.; Ruiner, C.; Schoch, M.; Schoop, M.;
et al. Unlocking the Power of Generative AI Models and Systems such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT for Higher Education: A Guide for Students
and Lecturers; No. 02-2023; Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences; Universität Hohenheim:
Stuttgart, Germany, 2023.
21. Farrokhnia, M.; Banihashem, S.K.; Noroozi, O.; Wals, A. A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and
research. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2023, 1–15. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, L.; Chen, P.; Lin, Z. Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 75264–75278. [CrossRef]
23. Halaweh, M. ChatGPT in Education: Strategies for Responsible Implementation. 2023. Available online: https://digitallibrary.
aau.ac.ae/handle/123456789/980 (accessed on 23 August 2023).
24. Zhai, X. Chatgpt and AI: The Game Changer for Education. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4389098 (accessed on 23
August 2023).
25. Adiguzel, T.; Kaya, M.H.; Cansu, F.K. Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT.
Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2023, 15, ep429. [CrossRef]
26. Ivanov, S.; Soliman, M. Game of algorithms: ChatGPT implications for the future of tourism education and research. J. Tour.
Futures 2023, 9, 214–221. [CrossRef]
27. Trust, T. ChatGPT & Education. Available online: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Vo9w4ftPx-rizdWyaYoB-pQ3DzK1
n325OgDgXsnt0X0/edit#slide=id.p (accessed on 23 August 2023).
28. Rudolph, J.; Tan, S.; Tan, S. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? J. Appl. Learn.
Teach. 2023, 6, 342–363.
29. Sok, S.; Heng, K. ChatGPT for Education and Research: A Review of Benefits and Risks. Available online: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=4378735 (accessed on 23 August 2023).
30. Mehta, C.R.; Patel, N.R. Exact Tests; SPSS Incorporated: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996; p. 3.
31. Limna, P.; Kraiwanit, T.; Jangjarat, K.; Klayklung, P.; Chocksathaporn, P. The use of ChatGPT in the digital era: Perspectives on
chatbot implementation. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2023, 6, 64–74.
32. Firat, M. What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2023, 6, 57–63.
33. Iqbal, N.; Ahmed, H.; Azhar, K.A. Exploring teachers’ attitudes towards using chatgpt. Glob. J. Manag. Adm. Sci. 2022, 3, 97–111.
[CrossRef]
34. Kaplan-Rakowski, R.; Grotewold, K.; Hartwick, P.; Papin, K. Generative AI and Teachers’ Perspectives on Its Implementation in
Education. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 2023, 34, 313–338.
35. Waltzer, T.; Cox, R.L.; Heyman, G.D. Testing the Ability of Teachers and Students to Differentiate between Essays Generated by
ChatGPT and High School Students. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2023, 2023, 1923981. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056 19 of 19

36. Amani, S.; White, L.; Balart, T.; Arora, L.; Shryock, D.K.J.; Brumbelow, D.K.; Watson, D.K.L. Generative AI Perceptions: A Survey
to Measure the Perceptions of Faculty, Staff, and Students on Generative AI Tools in Academia. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2304.14415.
37. Tao, B.; Díaz, V.; Guerra, Y. Artificial intelligence and education, challenges and disadvantages for the teacher. Arct. J. 2019,
72, 30–50.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.