The use of ChatGPT in
academic writing: A case study in Education
The use of ChatGPT in academic writing: A case study in
Education
D. Kevin Baldrich. Contratado predoctoral. Universidad de
Almería. España
Dra. Juana Celia Domínguez-Oller. Profesora sustituta interina. Universidad
de Almería. España
Recibido:
2023/12/21 Revisado 2024/01/08 Aceptado: :2024/07/04 Online First: 2024/07/12 Publicado: 2024/09/01
Cómo citar este artículo:
Baldrich
, K., &
Domínguez-Oller, J. C. (2024). El uso de ChatGPT
en la escritura académica: Un estudio de caso en educación [The
use of ChatGPT in academic writing: A case study in Education]. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios Y Educación, 71, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.103527
ABSTRACT
Academic Literacy faces new
challenges with the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, specifically in the
field of university academic writing. This study investigates the impact of
ChatGPT on the quality of academic work from 33 students (7 groups) in Early
Childhood Education. The project was developed in three phases, through a
descriptive case study with a qualitative approach, consisting of: 1) an
initial assessment using a closed ad hoc survey to understand experiences prior
to using ChatGPT, 2) a comparative analysis of academic work with and without
ChatGPT using a rubric and a comparative table, 3) an ad hoc open-ended survey
to understand project experiences, later categorized with Atlas.ti
software. The results reveal improvements in writing such as coherence,
cohesion, academic language, but also certain deficiencies. It is concluded
that ChatGPT can serve as a supplement to academic work, being more effective
when students already have a foundation in critical, ethical, and argumentative
skills.
RESUMEN
La Alfabetización académica enfrenta nuevos retos con
la emergencia de la Inteligencia Artificial, concretamente en el ámbito de la
escritura académica universitaria. Por ello, este estudio investiga el impacto
de ChatGPT en la calidad de los trabajos académicos
de 33 estudiantes (7 grupos) del Grado de Educación Infantil. El proyecto se
desarrolló en tres fases, mediante un estudio de caso descriptivo con enfoque
cualitativo, que consistió en: 1) una evaluación inicial mediante una encuesta
ad hoc cerrada para conocer las experiencias previas al uso de ChatGPT 2) un análisis comparativo de trabajos académicos
con y sin ChatGPT analizado mediante una rúbrica y
una tabla comparativa 3) una encuesta ad hoc de preguntas abiertas para conocer
las experiencias del proyecto que posteriormente se categorizaron con el
Software Atlas.ti. Los resultados revelan mejoras en
la escritura de los trabajos como en coherencia, cohesión, lenguaje
académico... pero también ciertas deficiencias. Se concluye que ChatGPT puede servir como complemento de trabajos
académicos, siendo más efectivo cuando los estudiantes ya poseen una base en
habilidades críticas, éticas y argumentativas
PALABRAS CLAVES· KEYWORDS
Artificial intelligence; academic literacy; case
study; ChatGPT; written argumentation
Inteligencia artificial; alfabetización académica;
estudio de caso; ChatGPT; argumentación escrita
1. Introduction
New challenges and
opportunities for academic contexts emerge as new technologies become embedded
in society. In this scenario, academic literacy represents an evolving concept
that encompasses critical competencies for effective student participation in
university communities (Guzmán-Simón & García-Jímenez, 2015). At its core,
academic literacy focuses on the ability to understand and produce disciplinary
texts, a process that goes beyond the simple decoding of information to
encompass participation in socially recognised knowledge practices (Carlino,
2013; Maldonado et al., 2023). This approach has undergone a notable shift from
teaching decontextualised reading and writing skills to more situated
approaches that promote immersion in the discourses specific to each field of
knowledge (Padilla & Carlino, 2010).
In this context, written
argumentation plays a crucial role, since, through its discursive strategies,
individuals can actively contribute to the construction of knowledge (Archila,
2015; Villarroel et al., 2019). Argumentation allows students not only to
present their ideas, but also to defend, refute and situate them within a
broader context, thus contributing to the advancement of knowledge (Bañales et al., 2015). In this sense, argumentation allows
for the development of critical thinking and the evaluation of assertions,
fundamental components in academia where enquiry and validation of information
are fundamental aspects (Kriscautzky & Ferreiro,
2018; Lara et al., 2022).
Teaching written
argumentation, as Villanueva et al. (2022) point out, is a complex process that
requires fostering both writing skills and logical and critical thinking in
students. Not being innate, this skill needs intentional learning and practice
(Bañales et al., 2015 and Molina & Carlino,
2013). Otherwise, students may face a significant disconnect between their
expectations and the practical skills required in their training, as suggested
by Toledo (2019). For that reason, the multiplicity and variability of
discursive genres in academia, according to the different disciplines, implies
a challenge for teachers to identify and explicitly teach the specific
characteristics of the texts required in each area (Moore & Mayer, 2016;
Navarro, 2019).
Academic literacy also
involves the development of digital reading and writing skills. In the
information age, intertextuality and networked reading have become
indispensable skills (Hernández et al., 2018; Martinez-Gamboa, 2016 and Caro et
al., 2023). The ability to adequately cite and argue on digital platforms
becomes an indicator of advanced academic literacy. The transition towards the
use of digital tools in writing represents a significant leap in this scenario.
For example, Mateo-Girona et al. (2021) highlight how digital tools and current
contexts can lead to an improvement in argumentative writing skills.
Therefore, educators face
the task of teaching writing in an ever-changing digital environment, where the
lines between formal and informal writing become increasingly ambiguous
(Cassany, 2019). There is a need to educate students on how to write for different
audiences and the use of different 'voices' and 'registers'. However, digital
tools can lead students to opt for quicker solutions and not to put enough
effort into their writing (García & Fernández, 2015 and Cisneros-Barahona
et al., 2023).
In this perspective,
artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a potential driver of change in
education, whereby the learning experience is personalised and enriched (Aler
et al. 2023). This technology not only transforms the way learners access and
use content, but also facilitates a more interactive approach tailored to their
individual needs (Gómez, 2023; Ruaro & Reis, 2020). The integration of AI
in educational processes transcends simple automation, in which a deeper and
more meaningful engagement of students with the study material is fostered
(Gómez, 2023; González & Romero, 2022 and Ocaña-Fernández et al., 2019;
Prieto-Andreu and Labisa-Palmeira, 2024; Leong et al., 2023).
This transformation goes
beyond conventional methodologies. Recent research, such as that conducted by
Limo et al. (2023), Dwivedi et al. (2023) and Akiba and Fraboni (2023), shows
how ChatGPT can provide personalised feedback to students and play a tutor-like
role in academic contexts. These studies highlight that more than 60% of
students use this tool for specific academic assignments. Moreover, the
functionality of ChatGPT is not limited to tutoring; it can also enhance the
learning process and foster the development of critical skills, such as
argumentative competences (Acevedo, 2023; Martínez-Comesaña,
2023; Vera, 2023). In addition, Woo et al. (2023) evaluate the effectiveness of
ChatGPT in supporting non-native learners of English, concluding that it has
enormous potential to facilitate the development of written communicative
skills. Consequently, the transformation of pedagogy and the educational
experience driven by this technology is a testament to the impact that AI has
and can have on the education sector (Calle & Mediavilla, 2021; Chicaíza et al., 2023).
As well as the benefits,
there are challenges associated with the use of AI in education (Selwyn et al.,
2022). It is essential to maintain a balance between technology and human
interaction, as education also involves the development of social and emotional
skills (Leão et al., 2022). Furthermore, Ruaro and Reis (2020), Degli-Esposti
(2021) and Barrios-Tao et al. (2021) warn about the need to address AI biases,
ethical use of data and privacy, as well as the implications of AI management
on human autonomy. In this sense, the integration of new literacies, including
digital and media literacies, becomes an imperative for an education that must
prepare students for a world where argumentation and effective communication
are more important than ever and students are shaped as participatory,
critical, creative and ethical citizens (Difabio de Anglat & Álvarez, 2017).
However, it should be noted
that this research is exploratory in nature since, due to the novelty of this
emerging technology, there are hardly any specific antecedents that accurately
contextualise the problem addressed in this study and dimension the real scope
of our findings. For that reason, the purpose of this research is to test
whether ChatGPT can be an effective tool for improving academic work already
produced by students. This general purpose is divided into the following
specific objectives:
·
To assess students' prior
ideas about the use of ChatGPT as a suitable tool for developing written
composition.
·
To compare the differences
between the texts produced by students before and after the incorporation of
ChatGPT.
·
To explore students'
perceptions of the use of ChatGPT in their process of developing the
theoretical framework.
2. Methodology
In order to achieve the objectives set out in this study, a qualitative approach was
adopted through a descriptive case study. This methodology was selected for its
ability to provide a detailed and contextualised analysis of students'
experiences and perceptions in relation to the development of a theoretical
framework and the use of ChatGPT. According to Yin (2009), descriptive case
studies are effective in analysing and understanding the 'what', 'who', 'where'
and 'how' of a specific phenomenon, which is ideally suited to meet the objectives
of this research. This approach allows for an in-depth understanding of
individual and group dynamics in the use of technological tools in education.
2.1.
Participants
Seven groups of 4 to 5
members each from the third year of the Degree in Early Childhood Education at
the University of Almeria, aged between 20 and 29 years (3 men and 29 women)
participated. They were selected from a subject on Development of oral
communication skills and their didactics. They were informed about the confidentiality
of their data and the objectives of the research, in accordance with the Code
of Good Research Practices of the University of Almeria (2011).
2.2. Instruments
A variety of instruments
were used in the research to collect and analyse the data obtained, with each
one fulfilling a specific and complementary role. Initially, a participant
observation method was adopted, based on the principles established by Taylor
and Bodgan (1984). This allowed for a direct
immersion in the educational environment to closely observe the students' work
process. The observation focused on the construction of theoretical frameworks
related to the subject matter. After this, the academic material produced by
the students was analysed on the basis of the
dimensions established by Guadarrama (2008): historical-contextual, conceptual
and methodological. This process involved the review of academic works before
and after the introduction of ChatGPT to focus attention on changes in the
structure, coherence and quality of the theoretical frameworks (de la Peña
& Cortés, 2018).
To complement these methods,
questionnaires were used at two key stages of the study (de la Cuesta-Benjumea,
2008). It began with an ad hoc closed-ended questionnaire that provided
information on students' perceptions and prior experiences with academic writing
and artificial intelligence. This initial phase was necessary to establish a
baseline of students' attitudes and prior knowledge. Once ChatGPT was used in
the development of the proposed assignments, an ad hoc open-ended questionnaire
was administered with a qualitative and exploratory approach (Jansen, 2013) in
order to gain a more detailed understanding of the students' experiences after
using ChatGPT with questions adapted from (Sanchez, 2023) to find out about
challenges or limitations, experiences, effectiveness in reviewing group
assignments, specific examples about its usefulness in the work, among others.
The combination of
participant observation, analysis of academic papers and questionnaires at
different stages of the study aims to ensure that data collection and analysis
is complete and varied (Aranda and Araújo, 2009).
2.3. Investigation procedure
The study procedure was
structured in the following phases (Table 1):
Table 1
Phases of the study
|
Phase |
Description |
|
Phase
1: Observation and initial evaluation |
Observation
of the academic work process in the development of theoretical frameworks
related to the subject content (language components), followed by initial
data collection through questionnaires to assess students' perceptions and
prior experiences in academic writing and artificial intelligence, in order
to establish a benchmark for future comparisons. |
|
Phase
2: ChatGPT implementation |
Introduction
and explanation of ChatGPT to students as a complementary tool in their
academic work, accompanied by the collection of data on student interaction
with ChatGPT to monitor its impact on the development of theoretical
frameworks. |
|
Phase
3: Comparison and final evaluation |
Preliminary
comparative analysis of academic papers before and after the incorporation of
ChatGPT, followed by the use and adaptation of the de la Peña and Cortés
(2018) argumentative text evaluation rubric, and the analysis of the
post-ChatGPT questionnaire using Atlas.ti. |
2.4. Data analysis
In the data analysis of this
research, the closed-ended questionnaire collected through Google Forms was
examined to understand students' prior perceptions and skills in academic
writing and technology use. This was followed by a comparative table analysis
of the students' work, both before and after the use of ChatGPT. This analysis
focused on key variables developed from the contributions of Peña and Cortés
(2018) and the rubric (Figure 1) of Ramos (2018). These are focused on the use
of sources and citations, level of formality, critical analysis, discursive
structures, academic vocabulary and metalinguistic awareness. Therefore, the
papers were analysed independently of those that had been carried out with ChatGPT
to avoid bias in the evaluation and to ensure an objective assessment based on
the established criteria (Gerring, 2017). Finally, the final survey data
analysis was carried out using emergent coding through the method described by
de la Espriella and Gómez (2020). This approach involves a detailed examination
of student responses to identify meanings and patterns. Two researchers coded
the data independently and then merged their codes to solicit the opinion of a
third researcher in cases of discrepancies. This process was complemented by
the use of ATLAS.ti software (Version 23.1.0, ATLAS.ti Scientific Software
Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), which facilitated the organisation of
categories and the construction of a network of relationships between them.
3. Results
Prior to introducing ChatGPT
into the educational process, a survey was conducted to assess students'
perceptions and writing skills in relation to Artificial Intelligence. The
results showed that 35% of the students were familiar with the concept of ChatGPT,
while 31% were less familiar with this artificial intelligence tool, indicating
a significant difference. In terms of satisfaction with their writing and
argumentation skills, the majority (62%) are confident in their current
competences. However, when it comes to difficulties in writing academic texts,
almost half of the participants (48 %) did not encounter any obstacles, which
could be evidence of a solid foundation of writing skills among the
respondents. On the other hand, a considerable proportion of students (42%)
considered that AI could be a useful tool to improve their writing; this
suggests an openness towards incorporating new technologies in their learning.
After the initial survey,
the students produced their work without the use of the tool and subsequently
used it to improve the written product. For this reason, in order to assess the
impact of this tool, it was analysed through a rubric developed for this
research, whose variables are adapted to the dimensions addressed by de la Peña
and Cortés (2018), Guadarrama (2008) and Ramos (2018) (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Evaluation rubric
Note: Prepared by the authors and adapted from research by de la Peña and
Cortés (2018), Guadarrama (2008) and Ramos (2018).
In carrying out the
comparative analysis, the WG6 group, working with ChatGPT, presented a logical
sequence of ideas focused on the concept of "Syntax". This group
dealt with topics such as the definition of syntax, its importance in
communication, the relevance of syntax today and its influence on digitisation.
Despite some areas for improvement, their sequence was coherent and stable as
reflected in the rubric. In contrast, the WG5 group, when dealing with
Phonetics, focused on defining what phonetics is and its importance in the
educational context. Regarding cohesion, the WG5 group went from not using
discourse markers to their use as "However, on the other hand..." but
the composition and abuse of these detracts from the linear writing in which
they make use of 1 marker every 2 lines. In the use of academic language, WG6
evolved from colloquial terms to more technical language, such as "social
phenomena" instead of "things". In terms of grammar, WG2 showed
a notable improvement in the variety of syntactic structures with ChatGPT,
although concordance errors and the abuse of gerunds persisted, a structure
that does not correspond to Spanish linguistic norms, such as "narrating,
telling, developing and collaborating" appearing in the same 4-line
paragraph. In spelling, WG3 corrected errors such as "valla/vaya",
but still had lapses in punctuation, an aspect repeated in all groups in
different ranks. Furthermore, with regard to references, WG4 included some that
corresponded to APA 7 guidelines, while WG7 still showed errors in textual
citations such as "Morris in (1985), defined the pragmatic dimension of
semiology with the following words:...". It should be underlined that all
groups used an average of 2 to 5 authors. In quality of reasoning, WG4 and WG3
improved in the substantiation of arguments with the tool, although it did not
completely eliminate speculation. On the contrary, WG1 detailed its contents in
sections with the constant use of hyphens and the abuse of copying direct
sentences from ChatGPT.
Once the papers had been
analysed, a post-evaluation was carried out to find out the students'
perspectives on their experience with the tool, during and after the
development of the paper. Below is a table (table 2) with the categories and
subcategories, which includes examples of the groups for each subcategory:
Table 2
Codificación y categorización de organización en Atlas.ti
|
Category |
Subcategory |
examples
of responses |
|
Perspectives
on using ChatGPT |
Structuring
content |
WG1:
"In our case, we used it to structure the script of the podcast, as we
are quite inexperienced in this field and it helped us a lot by proposing
greetings, catchphrases that engage the receiver and farewells". |
|
|
Textual
improvements |
WG3: "Once the theoretical framework was
laid out, we asked him what we could do better to complete it and make the
most of the information we had". WG6:
"It was effective in the sense that it transcribed some text better than
what we already had, but I am not a big fan of using Artificial Intelligence". |
|
|
Research
and extension |
WG2: "We used chatGpt to find out more
about the topic we were working on, we asked him and he told us what he knew
about it, some things seemed interesting to us and we attached them to the
work, but merely as a complement to the work we had already done
beforehand". WG3: "We used it by directly consulting
those sections of our work that we thought could be expanded and/or
perfected, that is, we wanted to extract more information from some specific
points of our work [...]" |
|
|
Challenges |
WG2: "At the beginning we didn't really
know how to use it or the possibilities that the platform offered". WG6: Quite a lot, because some of the more
specific AIs are only designed for English and other languages, but not for
Spanish. |
|
|
Advantages |
WG2: "It was quite effective in terms of
broadening my knowledge". |
|
General
evaluations on the use of ChatGPT |
Perception
of positive utility |
WG1: "I think it would be interesting to
incorporate ChatGPT as another tool when working in the classroom". WG4: "In our opinion, we think that using
ChatGPT as another resource is good for learning to contrast information
and/or detect reliable sources from unreliable ones [...]" WG7: "That it is a good tool to rely on in
certain grammatical, structural and discursive aspects". |
|
|
Negative
utility perception |
WG6: "I have only used Chat GPT twice and I
still don't think it's a very good idea to use this tool because I think it
takes away a lot of work and from my point of view we can't let that happen
because the creativity and originality of a lot of content [...]". |
|
|
User
satisfaction |
WG5: "It should be just a support, the
professionals should be dedicated to squeeze their ideas", WG2: "In our case we have nothing to add in
terms of improvements, but for those who use it to copy and paste, it would
be interesting to be able to make an initial delivery without using chatGpt
and then give the possibility to extend it [...]", WG4: "We were a
bit more lost when it came to cross-checking information [...]", WG5:
"We were a bit more lost [...]". WG4: "When it came to cross-checking the
information we were a bit more lost.... We would like to know how or what
steps to follow to detect the veracity of information given by ChatGPT". |
Figure 2
Network of relationships between categories
Note. Own elaboration
One of the most valued
applications of ChatGPT has been its ability to assist in structuring and
improving texts. Groups such as WG3 and WG7 recognise its usefulness in
enhancing theoretical frameworks and completing sections of papers. However,
there is also a concern about over-reliance on technology, as WG6 put it:
"It was effective in the sense that it transcribed some text better than
what we already had, but I'm not a big fan of using AI". In terms of
research, several groups have used ChatGPT to expand their knowledge on
specific topics. WG2 comments on how they used the tool to gain additional
information on their topic of study: "We used chatGPT to further inform
ourselves about the topic at hand". However, the integration of ChatGPT
into academic research is not without challenges, such as the language barriers
mentioned by WG4. Perceptions of the usefulness of ChatGPT vary considerably
between the groups. WG1 and WG7 highlight its value in grammatical, structural
and discourse aspects. On the other hand, WG6 offers a more critical
perspective, warning about the risks of over-dependence on technology: "I
have only used Chat GPT twice and I still think that I don't think it is a very
good idea to use this tool". In the face of these diverse experiences and
perceptions, subjective evaluations emerge from the participants on the
usefulness and ease of use of ChatGPT tools. WG5 suggests that ChatGPT should
be a support and not a substitute for critical thinking and creativity. In
addition, the need to verify the information provided by ChatGPT is a recurring
theme. WG4 stresses the importance of learning how to cross-check information
and identify reliable sources.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The analysis of the results
of this study reveals a notable influence of ChatGPT on the quality of written
argumentation in academic contexts. It is observed that some groups experienced
a significant improvement in terms of textual coherence and cohesion, while
others continued to experience certain difficulties associated with discursive
organisation. This disparity makes explicit the need to reinforce the teaching
of critical argumentation skills, as reflected by Sánchez (2023), given that
reliance on technological tools such as ChatGPT could mask basic deficiencies
in essential writing skills. Given this circumstance, it would be advisable to
provide specific training for teachers in the didactic use of artificial
intelligence tools and thus minimise the risks of superficial use that is alien
to the specific competences that students should attain (Simó et al., 2020).
In addition to this,
deficits were observed in the control and validation of the information
obtained through ChatGPT. Our findings are in line with those obtained by Zhu
et al. (2023) for whom students often do not know how to contrast or verify the
information provided by these tools. Ortiz (2023) suggests that, although
ChatGPT 3.5 is useful for reviewing material and producing constructive
writing, it is not suitable for creating original projects from scratch. This
is evidence of the need for human intellectual input into knowledge generation
and for policies to regulate the veracity of data produced by artificial
intelligence systems.
However, additional
research, such as that of Bishop (2023), Gutierrez et al. (2023) and Wang and
Xu (2023), presents a more positive picture of ChatGPT's potential for writing
improvement. These studies show remarkable improvements in written argumentation.
As observed in some of the groups analysed in our research, the use of ChatGPT
has facilitated greater fluency and cohesion in the use of discourse
connectors, argumentative structures and clarification of ideas, thus
demonstrating its value as a complementary tool. Nevertheless, the results
corroborate the findings of Carrera et al. (2019), which confirm a discrepancy
between university students' self-perception of their writing skills and the
quality of their first papers. Despite the fact that more than half of them
claim to possess the necessary skills for effective written argumentation,
their initial submissions reflect the opposite.
The study also highlights
ethical concerns related to the use of ChatGPT, particularly with
regard to academic integrity and originality. The variability in the
perception of its usefulness and ethics, observed in the different groups
studied, highlights the need to focus on issues such as authorship and academic
honesty. Atencio-González et al. (2023) and Vera et al. (2023) emphasise that
most groups chose to copy directly from ChatGPT without making significant
modifications or with the intention of simply transcribing the contents. This
highlights the problem of plagiarism and the lack of motivation to explore new
possibilities that could enrich the educational process. Similarly, it is
important to recognise that the use of tools such as ChatGPT should not replace
the author's original work, but serve as a support.
Vicente-Yagüe-Jara et al. (2023) highlight
that students understood that their role is to complement and not to replace
the intellectual effort in the creation of original work and also that instead
of prohibiting the use of these tools, the focus should be on adequate control
of them.
Therefore, this study shows
the need to analyse and guide students in the incorporation of tools such as
ChatGPT in academic contexts. It highlights the importance of finding a balance
between the adoption of new technologies and the preservation of fundamental
educational objectives. The observed variability in the quality of students'
written argumentation points to the need to emphasise the development of these
skills from the early years of university, as suggested by Malinka et al.
(2023). Furthermore, Perkins' (2014) analysis stresses the need to cultivate
fundamental skills before introducing advanced tools such as ChatGPT. This
perspective, aligned with Melo-Solarte & Díaz (2018), indicates that
engagement and entertainment should not be confused with effective learning as
ignorance and inadequate implementation of methodologies and tools in the
classroom, if not addressed correctly, can have unsuccessful results.
Therefore, the integration of technology must be careful, adapting to the
specific needs of students and promoting a balanced approach that fosters both
student engagement and the development of critical skills, as
Vicente-Yagüe-Jara (2023) points out.
In view of this, it should
be noted that, although tools such as ChatGPT have the potential to improve the
quality of written argumentation, it is essential that they are properly
integrated into the planning of the educational curriculum. This implies designing
specific teacher training programmes that train educators in the didactic use
of these tools and promote their reflective and critical use among students.
Consequently, future research should focus on exploring effective methods for
the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in education,
assessing not only their impact on academic performance, but also on the
development of competency skills such as critical thinking and the ability to
contrast information. In this way, it can be ensured that artificial
intelligence tools complement, rather than replace or rely on, the necessary
competences that students need to perform successfully in their academic and
professional futures (Ortiz, 2023).
It is important to note that
this study has several limitations. First, the small number of participants
makes it difficult to generalise the results. In addition, the surveys used
have not been validated, largely due to the lack of previous research in this
new area yet to be explored in depth. It is therefore essential for future
research to carry out empirical research in real educational settings. These
studies should focus on assessing students' reading and writing skills in order
to determine their ability to handle and benefit from the use of tools such as
ChatGPT. This practical analysis will allow us to adapt the teaching of these
technologies and ensure that they correspond to the current competencies of the
student body (Meana, 2018).
In conclusion, this research
shows that tools such as ChatGPT can be effective as complements to the work
already produced by students and thus bring an additional dimension to the
educational process. It is essential, however, to stress the importance of
developing critical academic writing skills beforehand. The integration of
these technologies should be done in an approach that does not replace, but
rather complements and enriches students' analytical and creative skills in a
variety of academic and professional settings.
Authors’ Contribution
Conceptualization,
K. B., J. C. D.-O.; Data curation, K. B., J. C. D.-O.; Formal Analysis, K. B.,
J. C. D.-O.; Investigation, K. B., J. C. D.-O.; Methodology, K. B.; Project
administration, K. B., J. C. D.-O.; Resources, K. B., J. C. D.-O.; software, K.
B.; Supervision, K. B., J. C. D.-O.; Validation, K. B., J. C. D.-O.;
Visualization, K. B., J. C. D.-O.; Writing – original draft: K. B., J. C.
D.-O.; Writing – review & editing, J. C. D.-O.
References
Acevedo,
E. N. (2023). La inteligencia artificial en la educación: una herramienta
valiosa para los tutores virtuales universitarios y profesores universitarios. Panorama, 17(32), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.15765/pnrm.v17i32.3681
Akiba, D., & Fraboni, M. C. (2023). AI-supported academic advising: Exploring ChatGPT’s current state and
future potential toward student empowerment. Education Sciences, 13(9), 885. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090885
Aler T. A., Mora-Cantallops, M. & Nieves, J.C. (2024) How to teach responsible
AI in Higher Education: challenges and opportunities. Ethics Inf Technol 26, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09733-7
Archila, P. A. (2015). Uso de
conectores y vocabulario espontaneo en la argumentación escrita: aportes a la
alfabetización científica. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de
las Ciencias, 12(3), 402-418. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090885
Bañales F. G., Vega L. N. A., Araujo A. N., Reyna V. A.,
& Rodríguez Z. B. S. (2015). La enseñanza de la argumentación escrita en la
universidad: una experiencia de intervención con estudiantes de lingüística
aplicada. Revista mexicana de investigación educativa, 20(66), 879-910.
Barrios-Tao,
H., Díaz, V., & Guerra, Y. M. (2021). Propósitos de la educación frente a
desarrollos de inteligencia artificial. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 51. Artículo e07767. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053147767
Bishop, L. (2023). A Computer Wrote This Paper: What ChatGPT Means for Education, Research,
and Writing. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4338981
Calle, K. M. Z., &
Mediavilla, C. M. Á. (2021). Tecnologías emergentes aplicadas a la práctica
educativa en pandemia covid-19. Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria
Koinonía, 6(3), 32-59. https://doi.org/10.35381/r.k.v6i3.1303
Caro
Valverde, M. T., Amo Sánchez Fortún, J. M. de y Landow,
G. P. (2023). La educación del wreader en The Victorian Web: lecturas
dinámicas, comentarios argumentativos, curaduría infinita. Revista de
Educación a Distancia (RED), 23(75). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.544801
Carrera, F., Culque, W., Barbon, O.G., Herrera, L., Fernandez, E., &
Lozada, E. F. (2019). Autopercepción del desempeño en lectura y escritura
de estudiantes universitarios. Revista Espacios, 40(5).
Cassany,
D. (2019). Escritura digital fuera del aula: prácticas, retos y posibilidades
en Fuente F. A. (Ed.), Neuroaprendizaje e
inclusión educativa (pp.111-153). RIL Editores.
Chicaíza, R. M., Castillo, L. A. C., Ghose, G., Magayanes, I. E. C., & Fonseca, V. T. G. (2023).
Aplicaciones de Chat GPT como inteligencia artificial para el aprendizaje de
idioma inglés: avances, desafíos y perspectivas futuras. LATAM Revista
Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 4(2), 2610-2628. https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v4i2.781
Cisneros-Barahona,
A.S., Marqués Molías, L., Samaniego Erazo, N., & Mejía Granizo, C.M.
(2023). La Competencia Digital Docente. Diseño y validación de una propuesta
formativa. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y
Educación, 68, 7-41. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.100524
de
la Cuesta-Benjumea, C. (2008) ¿Por dónde empezar?: la pregunta en investigación
cualitativa. Enfermería Clínica, 18(4),
205-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1130-8621(08)72197-1
de
la Espriella, R. y Gómez, R., C. (2020). Teoría fundamentada. Revista
Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 49(2),
127-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcp.2018.08.002
Degli-Esposti, S. (2021). El rol del análisis de género en la
reducción de los sesgos algorítmicos. ICE, Revista de Economía, (921). https://doi.org/10.32796/ice.2021.921.7265
Difabio de Anglat, H., &
Álvarez, G. (2017). Alfabetización académica en entornos virtuales: estrategias
para la promoción de la escritura de la tesis de posgrado. Traslaciones.
Revista Latinoamericana de Lectura y Escritura, 4(8), 97-120. https://revistas.uncu.edu.ar/ojs3/index.php/traslaciones/article/view/1066
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N.,
Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj,
A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah,
A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan,
V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H.,
Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi,
A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette,
Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., & Carter, L. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary
perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative
conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal
of Information Management, 71(102642)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
García,
J. A. C., & Fernández, A. O. J. (2015). ¿Se está transformando la lectura y
la escritura en la era digital?. Revista interamericana de bibliotecología, 38(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v38n2a05
Gerring, J. (2017). Qualitative Methods.
Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 15-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158
Gómez,
W. O. A. (2023). La Inteligencia Artificial y su Incidencia en la Educación:
Transformando el Aprendizaje para el Siglo XXI. Revista Internacional De
Pedagogía E Innovación Educativa, 3(2),
217–229. https://doi.org/10.51660/ripie.v3i2.133
González
V. M., & Romero R. R. (2022). Inteligencia artificial en educación: De
usuarios pasivos a creadores críticos. Figuras, revista académica de
investigación, 4(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.22201/fesa.26832917e.2022.4.1.243
Guzmán-Simón,
F. & García-Jiménez, E. (2015). La evaluación de la alfabetización
académica. RELIEVE, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.21.1.5147
Hernández,
D., Cassany, D., & López, R. (2018). Prácticas
de lectura y escritura en la era digital. Editorial Brujas.
Jansen,
H. (2013). La lógica de la investigación por encuesta cualitativa y su posición
en el campo de los métodos de investigación social. Paradigmas: Una revista
disciplinar de investigación, 5(1),
39-72.
Kriscautzky, M., & Ferreiro, E. (2018). Evaluar la
confiabilidad de la información en Internet: cómo enfrentan el reto los nuevos
lectores de 9 a 12 años. Perfiles educativos, 40(159), 16-34. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2018.159.58306
Lara
V. R. S., Moreno O. T., & De Fuentes M. A. (2022). La argumentación escrita
y la estrategia de escritura colaborativa en el currículum de educación
superior. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 14(4), 521-530.
Leão, H. M. C., Gallo, J. H. da S., & Nunes, R.
(2022). La bioética se enfrenta hoy a enormes desafíos. Revista Bioética,
30(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422022304000es
Leong,
K., Sung, A., & Jones, L. (2023). La tecnología central detrás y más allá
de ChatGPT: Una revisión exhaustiva de los modelos de
lenguaje en la investigación educativa. International Journal
of Educational Research and Innovation, (20),
1-22.
Limo,
F. A. F., Tiza, D. R. H., Roque, M. M., Herrera, E. E., Murillo, J. P. M., Huallpa, J. J. & Gonzáles, J. L. A. (2023). Personalized tutoring: ChatGPT as a virtual tutor for personalized
learning experiences. Social Space, 23(1), 293-312.
Maldonado
Alegre, F., Ulloa Córdova, V., Príncipe, Concha, B. y Trujillo-Solis, B. (2023). Comprensión lectora de textos argumentativos:
una revisión sistemática desde el nivel básico hasta el universitario. ReHuSo, 8(1),
132-145. https://doi.org/10.33936/rehuso.v8i1.4980
Malinka, K., Peresíni, M., Firc, A., Hujnák, O., & Janus, F. (2023). On the educational
impact of ChatGPT: Is Artificial Intelligence ready to obtain a university
degree? En Proceedings of the 2023
Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 1,
47-53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588827
Martínez-Comesaña, M., Rigueira-Díaz, X.,
Larrañaga-Janeiro, A., Martínez-Torres, J., Ocarranza-Prado,
I., & Kreibel, D. (2023). Impacto de la
inteligencia artificial en los métodos de evaluación en la educación primaria y
secundaria: revisión sistemática de la literatura. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 28,
93-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2023.06.002
Mateo-Girona,
M. T., Agudelo-Ortega, J. A., & Caro-Lopera, M. Á. (2021). El uso de
herramientas TIC para la enseñanza de la escritura argumentativa. Revista
Electrónica en Educación y Pedagogía, 5(8),
80-98. https://doi.org/10.15658/rev.electron.educ.pedagog21.04050806
Meana,
E. (2018). Lectura y escritura académicas en entornos digitales. Obstáculos
epistemológicos. Extensionismo, Innovación y Transferencia Tecnológica, 4, 129-135. https://doi.org/10.30972/eitt.402881
Melo-Solarte,
D. S., & Díaz, P. A. (2018). El aprendizaje afectivo y la gamificación en
escenarios de educación virtual. Información
tecnológica, 29(3), 237-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642018000300237
Molina,
M. E., & Carlino, P. (2013). Escribir y
argumentar para aprender: las potencialidades epistémicas de las prácticas de
argumentación escrita. Texturas, 13(1),
16-32.
Moore,
P., & Andrade Mayer, H. A. (2016). Estudio contrastivo del género
discursivo del ensayo argumentativo. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(2), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.9204
Navarro, F. (2019). Aportes para una
didáctica de la escritura académica basada en géneros discursivos. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística
Teórica e Aplicada, 35. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460X2019350201
Ocaña-Fernández,
Y., Valenzuela-Fernández, L. A., & Garro-Aburto, L. L. (2019). Inteligencia
artificial y sus implicaciones en la educación superior. Propósitos y
representaciones, 7(2), 536-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2019.v7n2.274
Ortiz,
A. C. E. (2023). Uso de ChatGPT en los manuscritos
científicos. Cirujano General, 45(2),
65-66. https://dx.doi.org/10.35366/111506
Padilla,
C. y Carlino, P. (2010). Alfabetización académica e
investigación-acción: enseñar a elaborar ponencias en la clase universitaria.
En G. Parodi Sweis (Ed.). Alfabetización académica
y profesional en el siglo XXI: leer y escribir desde las disciplinas
(pp.153-182). Ariel.
Perkins,
D. (2014). Future Wise: Educando a Nuestros Hijos
para un Mundo Cambiante. Jossey-Bass.
Prieto-Andreu, J. M., & Labisa-Palmeira, A. (2024). Quick Review of Pedagogical
Experiences Using GPT-3 in Education. Journal of Technology and Science
Education, 14(2), 633-647.
Ramos, J. R. G. (2018). Cómo se
construye el marco teórico de la investigación. Cadernos de pesquisa, 48, 830-854. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053145177
Ros-Arlanzón,
P., & Pérez-Sempere, Á. (2023). ChatGPT: una novedosa
herramienta de escritura para artículos científicos, pero no un autor (por el
momento). Revista de Neurología, 76(8),
277. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.7608.2023066
Ruaro, R. L., & Reis, L. C. C. G. (2020). Los retos
del emprendimiento en la era de la inteligencia artificial. Veritas, 65(3). https://doi.org/10.51660/ripie.v3i2.133
Sánchez, O. V. G. (2023). Uso y Percepción
de ChatGPT en la Educación Superior. Revista de Investigación
en Tecnologías de la Información, 11(23),
98-107. https://doi.org/10.36825/RITI.11.23.009
Selwyn, N., Rivera-Vargas, P., Passeron, E., & Puigcercos, R. M. (2022). ¿Por qué no todo es (ni debe ser)
digital? Interrogantes para pensar sobre digitalización, datificación
e inteligencia artificial en educación. Octaedro, 137-147. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vx4zr
Simó,
V. L., Lagarón, D. C., & Rodríguez, C. S. (2020).
Educación STEM en y para el mundo digital: El papel de las herramientas
digitales en el desempeño de prácticas científicas, ingenieriles y matemáticas.
Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 20(62).
Taylor,
S. J., & Bodgan, R. (1984). La observación
participante en el campo. Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de
investigación. La búsqueda de significados. Paidós Ibérica.
Vera,
F. (2023). Integración de la Inteligencia Artificial en la Educación superior:
Desafíos y oportunidades. Transformar, 4(1), 17-34.
Vera, J. P. D., Hojas, D. S. P., Sarmiento, Z. J. F., Ramírez, A. K. R.,
& Mora, D. V. M. (2023). Estudio comparativo experimental del uso de chatGPT y su influencia en el aprendizaje de los
estudiantes de la carrera Tecnologías de la información de la universidad de
Guayaquil. Revista Universidad de Guayaquil, 137(2), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.53591/rug.v137i2.2107
Vicente-Yagüe-Jara,
M.I., López-Martínez, O., Navarro-Navarro, V., & Cuéllar-Santiago, F.
(2023). Writing, creativity, and artificial
intelligence. ChatGPT in the university context. Comunicar, 77, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.3916/C77-2023-04
Villarroel,
C., García-Milà, M., Felton, M., & Banda, A. M.
(2019). Efecto de la consigna argumentativa en la calidad del diálogo
argumentativo y de la argumentación escrita. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, Infancia
y Aprendizaje, 42(1), 37-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1550162
Woo, L. J., Henriksen, D.,
& Mishra, P. (2023). Literacy as a Technology: a Conversation with Kyle
Jensen about AI, Writing and More. TechTrends, 67(5), 767-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00888-0
Zhu, J.-J., Jiang, J., Yang,
M., y Ren, Z. J. (2023). ChatGPT and Environmental
Research. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(56), 17667-17670. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c01818421