Students report negative experiences with ChatGPT including inaccurate outputs, lack of emotional connection, and risk of overreliance, which constrain competence¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Participants encountered inappropriate responses, inaccurate references, incorrect results, and illogical answers, reducing confidence in the tool and requiring extra verification effort. → Annamalai N 2026 q2 i? Participants cited lack of emotional connection and dependence on technology as drawbacks, concluding responsibility for using ChatGPT information rests with the learner. → Annamalai N 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Annamalai N 2026¶

Annamalai N, Nasor M, Din Eak A and Ayoub Alkubaisy AA (2026) Students’ experiences of using ChatGPT for English language learning: a qualitative study in a Malaysian higher education institution. Front. Psychol. 17:1875727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1875727

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Inductively coded negative themes from the same 25-student interview corpus: participants reported "inaccurate or misleading feedback reduces their confidence in the tool and requires extra effort to verify information". Qualitative; no effect size printed.

"G11 emphasized that “ChatGPT produces incorrect results” (G11), which frequently led to misunderstandings and miscommunication."

Annamalai N 2026 (2)¶

Annamalai N, Nasor M, Din Eak A and Ayoub Alkubaisy AA (2026) Students’ experiences of using ChatGPT for English language learning: a qualitative study in a Malaysian higher education institution. Front. Psychol. 17:1875727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1875727

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Participants also reported "the lack of emotional connection and dependence on technology for language learning" and that there is "no human interaction". The authors state ChatGPT "serves as an AI that scaffolds, not a substitute for, an instructor."

"In addition, users have observed that the drawbacks of engaging with ChatGPT include the “absence of emotional response and depending on technology for learning” (G5)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Belonging — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
• Reviewed studies consistently raise concerns about AI accuracy, overreliance, academic integrity, and reduced critical engagement in Arab EL2 contexts — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students identified weaknesses in the AI feedback model: lack of real-time feedback, software/economic access barriers, and occasional incorrect or inconsistent outputs — related
• Teachers raise big-picture concerns about GenAI including surveillance, over-reliance, reduced teacher collaboration, job replacement, and training needs — related
• Students experience a perceived sense of support and connectedness through conversational ChatGPT interaction, though this is not genuine human relatedness — related
• LLMs expressed unjustified confidence in recommendations based on visual inputs, asserting incorrect pin-connection diagnoses with high stated certainty — related
• Teachers report concerns about infrastructure, reliability, age appropriateness, teacher competence, and student over-reliance on AI — related
• Unstructured ChatGPT use in programming education is linked to overreliance, reduced persistence, unreliable outputs, and academic integrity risks — related
• Persistent challenges include feedback inaccuracy, learner overreliance, and limited transparency — related
• The most frequently cited ethical concerns about GenAI in research were hallucinated facts, fabricated references, and misleading content — related
• Limited output accuracy and over-reliance are the most pressing challenges Chinese HSS students report in GenAI use, alongside strong ethical concern — related
• Qualities metaphors depicted GenAI as unknowable, unreliable and unbounded, with participants unsettled by its opacity — related
• Poorly grounded GenAI self-study risks fabricated content and inferior learning relative to curated resources — related
• Warning labels alone did not improve performance or reduce reliance on GenAI advice, and students sometimes adopted incorrect AI answers — related
• Design students report low trust in GenAI outputs and systematically modify and verify them, with inaccuracy the main deterrent — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The most frequent limitation of AI in instructional design is content reliability and transparency (16 of 28 studies, 57.14%) — related
• Learner-level challenges of ChatGPT in STEAM IBL include over-reliance, inaccurate or irrelevant feedback, conceptual confusion, and diminished creativity — related
• Gen-AI hallucinates sources and values and produces convincing but incorrect explanations, risking student misinformation — related
• Experimental-group students detected AI errors and enacted verification and ethical self-regulation as routine practices — related
• Students perceive LLM chatbots as useful for learning but requiring critical use, reporting hallucinations, overconfidence, and dependency risks — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Over-reliance on AI in chemical experimentation carries ethical considerations and pitfalls as AI automates routine tasks and alters how experiments are conceptualized — a broader claim this one bears on
• AI use in training carries risks of uncritical acceptance and overreliance, including undetected conceptual errors and increased delegation of problem solving — related
• Academics and students experienced both positive and negative emotions in relation to GenAI. — related
• Before instruction, physics students show skepticism about LLM learning impacts, agreeing that over-reliance risks dependence, false confidence, and reduced conceptual understanding — related
• Emotion was the rarest essay theme, raised ambivalently by a minority of students — related
• Most participants articulated technical and contextual limitations of AI evaluation, including handwriting misreading and unawareness of the instructor's rating system — related
• AI-assisted scientific writing assignments risk fabricated references and altered chemical meaning — related
• Institutional approval processes, privacy regulations, technology access, and limited classroom time constrained chatbot adoption beyond instructional value — related
• AI use also carries negative outcomes: technical instability, negative emotional impacts, over-reliance, and contextual contingency — related
• In first-year GenAI adoption in business higher education, curriculum-integrated modules reported enhanced student engagement, performance and employability, while fragmented approaches were more susceptible to ethical concerns, overreliance and inequality — related
• AI connectedness is psychologically real but ethically asymmetric, carrying conditional rather than inherent risks — related
• Students perceive AI scoring as accurate for grammar, mechanics, and organization but skeptical of its ability to evaluate diverse styles, complex writing, tone, and emotion — related
• Curiosity is the primary driver and mistrust of accuracy the primary barrier to LLM adoption for learning — related
• GenAI feedback limitations require students to exercise evaluative judgement — related
• General-purpose LLMs show accuracy and reliability limits, including hallucinations and task-specific accuracy below perfect, making them risky as expert advice sources — related
• Undergraduate students’ genAI knowledge contains specific confident misconceptions, most prevalently that AI chatbots perform web searches — related
• Scholars raise three main concerns about AI chatbots in education: reliability and accuracy, fair assessment, and ethical issues — a broader claim this one bears on
• ChatGPT-generated text shows inaccuracy, weak logical flow, lack of critical elaboration and non-originality in an author's first-hand test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Students reported ChatGPT limitations in Quantum Theory learning: insufficient in-depth explanations, inability to interpret graphs or graphic equations, and occasional unexplainable mathematical errors — related
• AI was found lacking in diagnosing student misconceptions because models do not understand lack of logic or sense making — related
• Pilot students reported structural limitations of AI-SEE: AI-tool entry barriers, limited hands-on time, and partial disconnection between ethics instruction and routine engineering decisions — related
• Comparing their own analyses with LLM outputs empowered students' sense of competence and reduced concerns about LLMs replacing human expertise — related
• Low-proficiency EFL undergraduates report feeling more competent in English tasks through ChatGPT-assisted writing feedback, conversational practice, and translation support — related
• Large language models can produce fluent but factually inaccurate or fabricated outputs (AI hallucination), posing risks for uncritical users in science education — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students' primary concerns about AI videos are inaccurate information, reduced interaction with educators, and diminished educational value — related
• AWE feedback has limited depth and questionable accuracy for evaluating complex writing aspects — related
• ChatGPT fabricates references: the authors caught it inventing a non-existent 'Ribeiro and Vala, 2020' article with full bibliographic details — related
• AI over-reliance can produce inversion effects, reducing cognitive processing depth and learning outcomes — related