Investigating undergraduate students' perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: a user acceptance perspective study
Open accessAbstract
This study examines the factors influencing user acceptance of ChatGPT as a daily reference tool and assesses varying levels of user awareness. It aims to offer valuable insights into the potential benefits and challenges of implementing ChatGPT in an educational context. To achieve this objective, we employ an integrated model comprising the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and four novel external constructs: Privacy, Security, Social Influence, and Trust. This proposed model delivers an in-depth understanding of user acceptance by simultaneously measuring diverse user perspectives. Adopting a quantitative research approach, the study surveys undergraduate students regarding their use of ChatGPT. The results contribute to bridging the gap between technology and users, shedding light on users' actual experiences and considerations regarding AI-based tools. Specifically, the study is expected to reveal the significant influence of external factors on user acceptance of ChatGPT and to provide a set of recommendations for educational institutions, policymakers, and developers. This study aids the developers of ChatGPT and similar technologies by offering insights into how to design and enhance more user-friendly and secure systems that better meet users' needs and expectations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A growing body of literature suggests that GenAI can support learning when appropriately integrated.
“Despite these concerns, a growing body of literature suggests that GenAI can support learning when appropriately integrated.”
From Beyond unstructured use: scaffolded integration of generative AI in assessment for learning (2026) · cites this paper as Albayati, 2024
Reported benefits of GenAI include improvements in writing, comprehension, problem-solving, and productivity.
“Reported benefits include improvements in writing, comprehension, problemsolving, and productivity (Albayati, 2024;Cao et al., 2023;Kasneci et al., 2023;van Dis et al., 2023).”
From Beyond unstructured use: scaffolded integration of generative AI in assessment for learning (2026) · cites this paper as Albayati, 2024
These findings are consistent with those of Albayati (2024), Zhang L. et al. (2025), and Zhang X. et al. (2025).
“These findings are consistent with those of Albayati (2024), Zhang L. et al. (2025), and Zhang X. et al. (2025).”
From A two-step structural equation modeling and explainable machine learning framework for understanding university students’ adoption of generative AI: balancing intrinsic motivations and perceived risks (2026) · cites this paper as Albayati (2024)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 87 · Cited by 188
- Authors
- Albayati, H.
- Affiliations
- Woosong University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Albayati, Hayder
- ORCID
- Albayati, Hayder
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 100203
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4390816686
- Semantic Scholar
- 728dfbc407bfe623074543a1ff1dad6a34189d80
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 52
- FWCI
- 70.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2024-06-01)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, user acceptance, technology acceptance, undergraduate students, privacy, security (computing), social influence, trust, artificial intelligence in education, student perceptions
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
