Cited by 76Artificial Intelligence in EducationAI in Service InteractionsTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

A Structural equation modeling analysis of generative AI chatbots adoption among students and educators in higher education

Open access
Saihi, Afef, Ben-Daya, Mohamed, Hariga, Moncer, As'ad, Rami·2024·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping educational paradigms, this study explores AI-based chatbot adoption in higher education among students and educators. Employing a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach, the research focuses on developing and validating a comprehensive model to understand the multifaceted factors impacting the acceptance and use of these chatbots. The methodology integrates an extensive literature review, construction of a theoretical model, administration of a detailed questionnaire to a representative sample from the higher education sector, coupled with advanced SEM techniques for data analysis and interpretation. The SEM analysis validates the model's robustness and highlights the relationships between several key factors affecting users' perspectives and chatbots adoption. Results reveal a predominantly positive perception towards AI-chatbots among both students and educators, underscoring the potential to substantially enrich their educational journey. However, it also uncovers critical concerns pertaining to trust, privacy, response bias, and information accuracy. Moreover, the study offers valuable insights into how moderators such as technological proficiency, user roles, and gender influence the adoption model relationships. This emphasizes the need for customizing AI-chatbots deployment to meet the diverse needs of users effectively. Contributing a robust framework for understanding users' perceptions towards AI-chatbots and their adoption patterns, this study offers actionable insights for educational leaders, policymakers, and technology developers. It also lays the groundwork for future research, including longitudinal studies to evaluate the long-term impact of these technologies, investigations into their effect on learning outcomes, and explorations of the ethical and privacy considerations involved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100274

Cites

245 of 245 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saihi, A., Ben-Daya, M., Hariga, M., & As'ad, R.
Affiliations
American University of Sharjah (AE)
Corresponding author
Saihi, Afef
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-12
Volume
7
Pages
100274
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401295314
Cited by
75
References
242
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 5
FWCI
28.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
generative AI chatbots, technology adoption, higher education, students, educators, trust in AI, privacy concerns, response bias, information accuracy, technological competence, gender differences, user roles, artificial intelligence in education

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