CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Generative AI in Higher Education: Demographic Differences in Student Perceived Readiness, Benefits, and Challenges

Open access
Maxwell, Daniel, Oyarzun, Beth, Kim, Stella, Bong, Ji Yae·2025·TechTrends
DOI 10.1007/s11528-025-01109-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the rapid evolution and widespread adoption of Generative AI (GenAI), there has been a recent surge in research on students’ perceptions and usage of these tools for learning. However, a critical need remains to understand how students from various demographic groups perceive and utilize GenAI for educational purposes. This research aims to fill this gap by evaluating students’ use of GenAI, comfort level, perception of readiness, benefits and challenges, and demographic differences in their perceptions. Through an online survey of 482 students across diverse institutions of higher education primarily within the United States, the findings indicate a significant majority of students feel comfortable using GenAI tools and recognize their potential to enhance productivity and academic success. However, students also reported concerns related to GenAI use, including concerns about academic integrity, overreliance on AI, and data privacy and security. The analysis highlights differences in the subscales of perceived readiness (GenAI Comprehension; GenAI Utilization and Proficiency), benefits (Impact of GenAI; GenAI Empowerment), and challenges (Negative Impact of GenAI; GenAI Limitation) across demographic groups, including student classification, enrollment status, and institution types. Findings suggest a critical need for the integration of AI literacy into curricula to address opportunities and challenges posed by GenAI in higher education, and this study calls for additional research to explore evolving perceptions of GenAI use over time and its long-term impact on higher education.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11528-025-01109-6

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Al-Emran, M., Al-Qudah, A. A., Abbasi, G. A., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Iranmanesh, M. (2023). Determinants of using AI-based chat- bots for knowledge sharing: Evidence from PLS-SEM and Fuzzy Sets(fsQCA). IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1-15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TEM. 2023. 32377 89 · DOI
  2. Alshammari, S., & Alshammari, M. (2024). Factors affecting the adop- tion and use of ChatGPT in higher education. International Jour- nal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 20(1), 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ IJICTE. 339557 · DOI
  3. Amani, S., White, L., Balart, T., Arora, L., Shryock, D. K. J., Brumbe- low, D. K., & Watson, D. K. L. (2023). Generative AI perceptions: A survey to measure the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students on generative AI tools in academia (arXiv: 2304. 14415). arXiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ arXiv. 2304. 14415 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Dahlkemper, M. N., Lahme, S. Z., & Klein, P. (2023). How do physics students evaluate ChatGPT responses on comprehension ques- tions? A study on the perceived scientific accuracy and linguistic quality. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2304. 05906.
  5. Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2023). Deter- minants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1-20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10447 318. 2023. 22264 95 · DOI
  6. Gnambs, T., & Appel, M. (2019). Are robots becoming unpopular? Changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 53-61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2018. 11. 045 · DOI
  7. Haensch, A. C., Ball, S., Herklotz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2023). Seeing ChatGPT through students' eyes: An analysis of TikTok data. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2303. 05349.
  8. Hennessy, S., Cukurova, M., Lewin, C., Mavrikis, M., & Major, L. (2024). BJET Editorial 2024: A call for research rigour. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 5-9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 13426 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Ho, S. M., Ocasio-Velázquez, M., & Booth, C. (2017). Trust or conse- quences? Causal effects of perceived risk and subjective norms on cloud technology adoption. Computers & Security, 70, 581-595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cose. 2017. 08. 004 · DOI
  10. Holmström, J. (2022). From AI to digital transformation: The AI readi- ness framework. Business Horizons, 65(3), 329-339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bushor. 2021. 03. 006 · DOI
  11. Imran, M., Shahid, A. R., Hou, M., & Imteaj, A. (2023). From early adoption to ethical adoption: A diffusion of innovation perspec- tive on ChatGPT and large language models in the classroom. TechRxiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 36227/ techr xiv. 17063 0660. 06963 201/ v1 · DOI
  12. Jo, H. (2023). Decoding the ChatGPT mystery: A comprehensive exploration of factors driving AI language model adoption. Infor- mation Development, 1-21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02666 66923 12027 64 · DOI
  13. Khanal, J., & Gaulee, U. (2019). Challenges of international students from pre-departure to poststudy: A literature review. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 560-581. https:// doi. org/ 10. 32674/ jis. v9i2. 673 · DOI
  14. Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., et al. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health, 2(2), e0000198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pdig. 00001 98 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Lemke, C., Kirchner, K., Anandarajah, L., & Herfurth, F. (2023). Exploring the Student Perspective: Assessing Technology Readi- ness and Acceptance for Adopting Large Language Models in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Confer- ence on e-Learning (pp. 156-164).
  16. Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ ijhe. v2n2p 22 · DOI
  17. Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. К. (2007). How Habit limits the predictive power of intentions: The case of IS continu- ance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705-737.
  18. Luckin, R., Cukurova, M., Kent, C., & du Boulay, B. (2022). Empower- ing educators to be AI-ready. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100076. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai. 2022. 100076 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Martin, B. A., Jin, H. S., Wang, D., Nguyen, H., Zhan, K., & Wang, Y. X. (2020). The influence of consumer anthropomorphism on attitudes towards artificial intelligence trip advisors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 108-111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jhtm. 2020. 06. 004 · DOI
  20. Nouraldeen, R. M. (2023). The impact of technology readiness and use perceptions on students' adoption of artificial intelligence: The moderating role of gender. Development and Learning in Organi- zations, 37(3), 7-10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ DLO-07-2022-0133 · DOI
  21. Parker, L., Carter, C., Karakas, A., Loper, A. J., & Sokkar, A. (2024). Graduate instructors navigating the AI frontier: The role of Chat- GPT in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100-166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeo. 2024. 100166 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Poonpanich, N., & Buranasiri, J. (2022). Factors affecting baby boom- ers' attitudes towards the acceptance of mobile network provid- ers' AI chatbot. Jurnal Nasional Pendidikan Teknik Informatika: JANAPATI, 11(3), 176-182.
  23. Rafiq, F., Dogra, N., Adil, M., & Wu, J. (2022). Examining con- sumer's intention to adopt AI-chatbots in tourism using partial least squares structural equation modeling method. Mathematics, 10(13), 1-15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ math1 01321 90 · DOI
  24. Rahim, N. I., A. Iahad, N., Yusof, A. F., & A. Al-Sharafi, M. (2022). AI-based chatbots adoption model for higher-education institu- tions: A hybrid PLS-SEM-neural network modelling approach. Sustainability, 14(19), 12726. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su141 912726 · DOI
  25. Rahimi, F., & TalebiBezminAbadi, A. (2023). ChatGPT and publica- tion ethics. Archives of Medical Research, 54(3), 272-274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. arcmed. 2023. 03. 004 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Raman, R., Mandal, S., Das, P., Kaur, T., Sanjanasri, J. P., & Nedun- gadi, P. (2023). University students as early adopters of ChatGPT: Innovation diffusion study. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21203/ rs.3. rs-27341 42/ v1 · DOI
  27. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe.
  28. Santomartino, S. M., & Yi, P. H. (2022). Systematic review of radiolo- gist and medical student attitudes on the role and impact of AI in radiology. Academic Radiology, 29(11), 1748-1756. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. acra. 2021. 12. 032 · DOI
  29. Sier, J. (2022) Chatgpt takes the internet by storm, bad poetry and all. Financial Review. https:// www. afr. com/ techn ology/ chatg pt- takes-the-inter net-by-storm-bad-poetry-and-all-20221 207-p5c4hv. Accessed 25 Aug 2024
  30. Sobaih, A. E. E., Elshaer, I. A., & Hasanein, A. M. (2024). Examin- ing students' acceptance and use of ChatGPT in Saudi Arabian higher education. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(3), 709-721. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ejihp e1403 0047 · DOI
  31. Tremblay, C. W. (2023). Meet ChatGPT. College and University, 98(1), 49-54.
  32. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30036 540 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer accept- ance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 41410 412 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ ceps. 1999. 1015 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Zhang, B., & Dafoe, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: American atti- tudes and trends. SSRN. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 33128 74 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maxwell, D., Oyarzun, B., Kim, S., & Bong, J. Y.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Maxwell, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
TechTrends
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-06-10
Volume
69
Issue
6
Pages
1248-1259
ISSN
  • 1559-7075 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-3894
DOI
10.1007/s11528-025-01109-6
OpenAlex
W4411175795
Cited by
80
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 8
FWCI
51.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
TechTrends (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
generative AI, higher education, student perceptions, demographic differences, perceived preparedness, AI literacy, academic integrity, overreliance on AI, data privacy, AI in learning, student classification, enrollment status, institutional type

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review