Examining the opinions of university students and faculty members on the use of ChatGPT in homework

Generative artificial intelligence is a technology that has demonstrated significant impacts in many areas of human life, including educational sciences. ChatGPT is a high-capacity natural language processing model developed by OpenAI at the beginning of 2022. Due to its potential to profoundly influence teaching and learning methods, ChatGPT draws attention to the importance of being prepared for a future in which artificial intelligence dominates learning environments. This study examines the perspectives of students and academic staff on the use of ChatGPT at the higher education level. In this context, the research focuses on the use of ChatGPT for assignment-related purposes—one of its most common applications—which is expected to shed light on the uncertainties surrounding the use of generative AI technologies in education. Descriptive analyses of the data collected through a questionnaire were conducted using the Jamovi 2.3.28 software. Descriptive analysis refers to an analytical approach that aims to understand the current state of the phenomenon under investigation by organizing the data and summarizing its key characteristics. In general, students were found to have a positive attitude toward using ChatGPT in assignments (e.g., providing different perspectives, making life easier, saving time, enhancing efficiency), although some hesitations regarding its use were also observed. In the qualitative part of the study, a semi-structured interview form was administered to academic staff. Preliminary coding was performed based on their responses, and classification and validation efforts were conducted in collaboration with educational assessment and evaluation experts to simplify and organize the data. Overall, the views of academic staff regarding the use of ChatGPT in assignments tended to be predominantly negative. From the students' perspective, both positive (offering alternative viewpoints, saving time, facilitating access to information) and negative (encouraging passivity, promoting superficial learning) contributions were identified. For academic staff, the contributions were also mixed, with negative aspects (increasing workload, complicating assessment) and positive aspects (promoting self-improvement, enhancing motivation) being noted.