From concerns to benefits: A comprehensive study of ChatGPT usage in education
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly becoming integral components of the digital learning ecosystem. As AI technologies continue to evolve, it is crucial to understand the factors influencing their adoption and use among students in higher education. This study is undertaken against this backdrop to explore the behavioral determinants associated with the use of the AI Chatbot, ChatGPT, among university students. The investigation delves into the role of ChatGPT’s self-learning capabilities and their influence on students’ knowledge acquisition and application, subsequently affecting the individual impact. It further elucidates the correlation of chatbot personalization with novelty value and benefits, underscoring their importance in shaping students’ behavioral intentions. Notably, individual impact is revealed to have a positive association with perceived benefits and behavioral intention. The study also brings to light potential barriers to AI chatbot adoption, identifying privacy concerns, technophobia, and guilt feelings as significant detractors from behavioral intention. However, despite these impediments, innovativeness emerges as a positive influencer, enhancing behavioral intention and actual behavior. This comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted influences on student behavior in the context of AI chatbot utilization provides a robust foundation for future research. It also offers invaluable insights for AI chatbot developers and educators, aiding them in crafting more effective strategies for AI integration in educational settings.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
ChatGPT is widely perceived as useful and efficient, yet these benefits are frequently accompanied by confidence gains that are not consistently matched by evidence of deep or transferable learning.
“ChatGPT is widely perceived as useful and efficient, yet these benefits are frequently accompanied by confidence gains that are not consistently matched by evidence of deep or transferable learning [46].”
From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that users perceive greater benefits and improved efficiency, productivity, and task accomplishment from ChatGPT. But the paper does not report confidence gains that outpace deep or transferable learning; its Discussion instead reports positive associations with knowledge acquisition and application. A search for confidence found no passage establishing the claimed mismatch. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 106 · Cited by 146
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management systems: Conceptual foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 107-136.
- Bishop, C. M., & Nasrabadi, N. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Vol. 4). Springer.
- Biswas, S. S. (2023b). Role of Chat Gpt in Public Health. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 1-2.
- D'mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2013). Autotutor and Affective Autotutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally Intel- ligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 2(4), 1-39.
- Jo International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2024) 21:35
- Jo International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2024) 21:35
- Taylor & Francis.
- Selwyn, N. (2013). Discourses of Digital Disruption in Education: A Critical Analysis. In Fifth International Roundtable on Discourse Analysis, City University Hong Kong, May 23-25, 2013 (pp. 1-28).
- Authors
- Jo, H.
- Corresponding author
- Jo, Hyeon
- ORCID
- Jo, Hyeon
- Venue
- International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
- Published
- 2024-06-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2365-9440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399272498
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 106
- Citations by year
- 2026: 70 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 14
- FWCI
- 54.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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
- ChatGPT, AI chatbots, technology adoption, behavioral intention, university students, higher education, perceived benefits, novelty value, personalization, privacy concerns, technophobia, guilt, innovativeness, self-learning, knowledge acquisition
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
