ChatGPT in higher education—a student's perspective
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of factors influencing students' adoption of ChatGPT within the context of higher education. With the rapid expansion of its user base and its increasing utilization across various fields, there is a pressing need to comprehensively explore students' interactions and experiences with this innovative technology, a topic largely unaddressed in existing literature. This paper aims to identify the factors contributing to ChatGPT's rapid proliferation and to highlight its potential for reshaping higher education. To achieve our research objective, we extend the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) with a quantitative approach. We collected data from a sample of 283 university students in the United Arab Emirates, employing a convenience sampling method. Our findings reveal significant impacts of students' trust, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, and hedonic motivation on their attitudes towards ChatGPT. Additionally, perceived risks and attitude towards ChatGPT significantly influence students' intentions to sustain its usage for educational purposes. Intriguingly, social influences were found to have no significant impact on students' intentions to engage with this AI-based chatbot. These findings have practical implications for the integration of ChatGPT in higher education. Educators and institutions should focus on building trust and enhancing students' perception of effort, performance, and hedo…
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?
Students widely perceive AI tools as beneficial for summarization, clarification, and idea generation, yet simultaneously express concerns regarding reliability, accuracy, and ethical boundaries.
“Several studies indicate that students widely perceive AI tools as beneficial for summarization, clarification, and idea generation, yet simultaneously express concerns regarding reliability, accuracy, and ethical boundaries (Blahopoulou and Ortiz-Bonnin 2025; Shuhaiber et al., 2025).”
From Information competence and critical thinking in digital environments evidence from university students in Kazakhstan (2026) · cites this paper as Shuhaiber et al., 2025
AI self-efficacy has a positive correlation with perceptions of usefulness and efficient usage of GenAI solutions.
“It was found by Shuhaiber et al. (2025) and Haq et al. (2025) to have a positive correlation with perceptions of usefulness and efficient usage of GenAI solutions.”
From Mapping the impact of generative AI in higher education: A scoping review of psychological and equity dimensions. (2026) · cites this paper as Shuhaiber et al. (2025)
Cites
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · see citing works
Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-02-2019-0189 · Cited by 4,618 · see citing works
ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine
Weizenbaum, J. (1966) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/365153.365168 · Cited by 4,452 · see citing works
Chatbots: History, technology, and applications
Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2020.100006 · Cited by 1,090 · see citing works
Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review
Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3 · Cited by 841 · see citing works
Self-citationQiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222250405 · Cited by 737 · see citing works
Chatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions
Kooli, C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075614 · Cited by 666 · see citing works
Cao, G., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102312 · Cited by 571 · see citing works
The design of motivational agents and avatars
Baylor, A. L. (2011) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Breward, M., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2017) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2017.0706 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Visualizing Student Opinion Through Text Analysis
Cunningham-Nelson, S., Baktashmotlagh, M., & Boles, W. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/te.2019.2924385 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ni, W., & Li, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1856854 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
From credibility to reliance: Trust in generative AI as an academic information source.
Pudasaini, S. (2026) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669261468286 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Yrymbayeva, N., Yermekova, M., Tezekova, O., Issatayeva, B., Zhubandykova, A., & Tuxanbayev, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1809360 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shuhaiber, A., Kuhail, M. A., & Salman, S.
- Affiliations
- Zayed University (AE)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhail, Mohammad Amin
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior Reports
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-03
- Volume
- 17
- Pages
- 100565
- ISSN
- 2451-9588 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405414118
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 20
- FWCI
- 20.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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, AI chatbots in education, technology acceptance, UTAUT2, student attitudes, trust in AI, perceived effort, performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, risk perception, social influence, intention to use, higher education, generative AI adoption
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
