ChatGPT in higher education: A semiotics investigation between cultural explosion and encyclopedic knowledge
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/dasc.25.8.11Keywords:
GenAI, Cultural Explosion, Encyclopedic Knowledge, ChatGPT in Higher Education, Semiotic TranslationAbstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence, and particularly ChatGPT, today represents a crucial moment in the evolution of knowledge production and dissemination in education, echoing what Juri Lotman describes as a “cultural explosion.” As AI-generated texts flood academic and creative spaces, the question arises today is: how does this affect research methodologies and pedagogical frameworks? This paper explores the transformative role of ChatGPT in higher education, positioning it as both a disruptive force and an innovative collaborator in the knowledge-making process. Through the perspective of semiotics and Umberto Eco’s “encyclopedic model”, ChatGPT’s functioning mirrors human interpretative processes – drawing upon a vast corpora of texts, identifying patterns, and generating plausible continuations within cultural discourse. However, unlike human scholars, ChatGPT lacks intentionality, challenging traditional epistemological models which rely on authorial agency and context-dependent inference. This research investigates how ChatGPT’s generative capacities align with the rhizomatic structure of knowledge, where meaning is not linear but formed through a dynamic network of associations. However, today in higher education ChatGPT is redefining the role of teachers and learners, transforming classrooms into dialogic spaces where GenAI acts as a semiotic mediator rather than a mere tool. By facilitating inferential learning – where students engage critically with AI-generated outputs – teachers can cultivate deeper meta-cognitive awareness. In order to investigate how students engage with ChatGPT as a semiotic mediator in education, this study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative analysis with a quantitative survey. The qualitative phase explores the perceptions of students regarding the role of AI in learning through a semiotic investigation, examining its impact on meaning- making, epistemological challenges, and pedagogical transformation. The quantitative phase consists of a survey conducted among university students across different departments (N=20). It assesses ChatGPT usage patterns, trust levels, critical evaluation behaviors, and concerns regarding misinformation and institutional regulation. The survey findings reveal that while students frequently use ChatGPT for learning and academic purposes, they exhibit a balanced approach of trust and skepticism – engaging in critical cross-checking of AI-generated content. Despite recognizing ChatGPT’s efficacy in simplifying complex topics, students do not widely use it for deep cognitive engagement or reflective academic discussions. Concerns over bias and misinformation remain significant, and while many acknowledge the need for institutional guidelines, there is also a prevailing optimism about GenAI’s future role in education. These findings suggest that ChatGPT is perceived not as a replacement for traditional learning structures, but as a tool requiring critical literacy and careful mediation. This paper argues that rather than replacing human intellectual labor, ChatGPT nowadays amplifies the cultural explosion by accelerating the translation of knowledge, making higher education both more accessible and more complex than ever before.
References
Alkaissi, H., S. I. McFarlane. 2023. “Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing”. Cureus, Vol. 15, No. 2, e35179. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179.
Ambrosio, L., J. Schol, V. A. La Pietra, F. Russo, G. Vadalà and D. Sakai. 2023. “Threats and Opportunities of Using ChatGPT in Scientific Writing-The Risk of Getting Spineless”. JOR Spine, Vol. 7, No. 1, e1296. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1296.
Bender, E. M., T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, S. Shmitchell. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models be too Big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623.
Byrne, T. 2023. The Phenomenology of ChatGPT: A Semiotics. ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375666264_The_Phenomenology_of_ChatGPT_A_Semiotics.
Chandler, D. 2017. Semiotics: The Basics (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Chen, Z., J. Wang, M. Xia, K. Shigyo, D. Liu, R. Zhang and H. Qu. 2024. “StuGPTViz: A Visual Analytics Approach to Understand Student-ChatGPT Interactions”. ArXiv, arXiv:2407.12423. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12423.
Chen, C., Gong, Y. 2025. “The Role of AI-Assisted Learning in Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese as a Second Language Students”. Education Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 2, 141. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020141.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Danesi, M. 2007. The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice. University of Toronto Press.
Desogus, P. 2012. “The Encyclopedia in Umberto Eco’s Semiotics”. Semiotica, No. 192, 501–521. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0068.
Eco, U. 1979. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1984. “Metaphor, Dictionary, and Encyclopedia”. New Literary History, Vol. 15, No. 2, 255–271. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/468855.
Emdad, F. B., B. Ravuri, L. Ayinde, M. I. Rahman. 2023. “ChatGPT, a Friend or Foe for Education?” Analyzing the User’s Perspectives on the Latest AI Chatbot via Reddit”. ArXiv, arXiv:2311.06264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.06264.
Floridi, L., M. Chiriatti. 2020. “GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences”. Minds and Machines, Vol. 30, No. 4, 681–694. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1.
Gee, J. P. 2008. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Haim, E., L. Bergh, C. S. Q. Siew and Y. N. Kenett. 2025. “Cognitive Networks Highlight Differences and Similarities in the STEM Mindsets of Human and LLM-simulated Trainees, Experts and Academics”. ArXiv, arXiv:2502.19529. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.19529.
Henriksen, D., P. Mishra, L. Woo and N. Oster. 2025. “The Education Doctorate in the Context of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Epistemic Shifts and Challenges to Practical Wisdom”. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, Vol. 10, No. 1, 73–79. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2025.485.
Hofeditz, L., A. K. Jung, M. Mirbabaie and S. Stieglitz. 2025. “Ethical Guidelines for the Application of Generative AI in German Journalism”. Digital Society, Vol. 4, No. 4. Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00151-w.
Holmes, W., M. Bialik and C. Fadel. 2022. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Independently Published.
Kirstein, F., J. P. Wahle, B. Gipp and T. Ruas. 2025. “CADS: A Systematic Literature Review on the Challenges of Abstractive Dialogue Summarization”. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.16674.
Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. (1st ed.). Routledge.
Kress, G., T. van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Hodder Arnold Publication.
Lotman, J. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. I. B. Tauris.
Lotman, J. 2009. Culture and Explosion. De Gruyter Mouton.
Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.
Petrassi, D. 2024. “Integrating ChatGPT as a Learning Tool: Potential Benefits and Critical Considerations”. Formazione & Insegnamento, Vol. 22, No. 2, 83–93. Available at:https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XXII-02-24_09.
Piaget, J. 1954. The Construction of Reality in the Child. Basic Books.
Ren, X. 2023. “Investigating the Experiences of Online Instructors while Engaging and Empowering Non-traditional Learners in eCampus”. Educ Inf Technol, Vol. 28, 237–253. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11153-x.
Rezai, A., E. Namaziandost and G. J. Hwang. 2024. “How Can ChatGPT Open Promising Avenues for L2 Development? A Phenomenological Study Involving EFL University Students in Iran”. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100510
Roll, I., R. Wylie. 2016. “Evolution and Revolution in Artificial Intelligence in Education”. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, 582–599. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3.
Saussure, F. de. 1916. Course in General Linguistics. McGraw-Hill.
Sloan, K. 2025. So Meta: AI-written Paper Says AI is the Future of Legal Scholarship. Reuters, 2 January 2025. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/so-meta-ai-written-paper-says-ai-is-future-legalscholarship-2025-01-02.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Weng, W. H., T. Tu and A. Palepu et al. 2025. “Towards an AI Co-scientist”. ArXiv, arXiv:2502.18864. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.18864.
Wertsch, J. V. 1991. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Harvard University Press.
Zawacki-Richter, O., V. I. Marín, M. Bond and F. Gouverneur. 2019. “Systematic Review of Research on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education”. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, 39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0.
