CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Technology and Pedagogy

Students' perceptions of artificial intelligence integration in higher education

Open access
Slimi, Zouhaier, Benayoune, Abdelghani, Alemu, Abebe Ejigu·2025·European Journal of Educational Research
DOI 10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study explores the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) integration on students' educational experiences. It investigates student perceptions of AI across various academic aspects, such as module outlines, learning outcomes, curriculum design, instructional activities, assessments, and feedback mechanisms. It evaluates the impact of AI on students' learning experiences, critical thinking, self-assessment, cognitive development, and academic integrity. This research used a structured survey distributed to 300 students through Microsoft Forms 365, yet the response rate was 29.67%. A structured survey and thematic analysis were employed to gather insights from 89 students. Thematic analysis is a qualitative method for identifying and analysing patterns or themes within data, providing insights into key ideas and trends. The limited response rate may be attributed to learners' cultural backgrounds, as not all students are interested in research or familiar with AI tools. The survey questions are about AI integration in different academic areas. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes within the data. Benefits such as enhanced critical thinking, timely feedback, and personalised learning experiences are prevalent. AI tools like Turnitin supported academic integrity, and platforms like ChatGPT and Grammarly were particularly valued for their utility in academic tasks. The study acknowledges limitations linked to the small sample size and a focus on undergraduate learners only. The findings suggest that AI can significantly improve educational experiences. AI provides tailored support and promotes ethical practices. This study recommends continued and expanded use of AI technologies in education while addressing potential implementation challenges.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703-732). Wiley.
  2. Slimi, Z., Benayoune, A., & Alemu, A. E. (2025). Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence integration in higher education. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
  3. Slimi, Z., Benayoune, A., & Alemu, A. E. (2025). Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence integration in higher education. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
  4. Slimi Z, Benayoune A, Alemu AE. Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence integration in higher education. European J Ed Res. 2025;14(2):471–484. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
  5. Slimi, Zouhaier, Abdelghani Benayoune, and Abebe Ejigu Alemu. "Students’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Integration in Higher Education," European Journal of Educational Research 14, no. 2 (2025): 471–484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
  6. Slimi, Z., Benayoune, A. & Alemu, A.E. 2025, ‘Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence integration in higher education’, European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 471–484, https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
  7. Slimi, Zouhaier, et al. "Students’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Integration in Higher Education." European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 14, no. 2, 2025, pp. 471–484, https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Slimi, Z., Benayoune, A., & Alemu, A. E.
Affiliations
Universidad de Deusto (ES)
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Educational Research
Publisher
Eurasian Society of Educational Research
Published
2025-03-06
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
471-484
ISSN
2165-8714 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.12973/eu-jer.14.2.471
OpenAlex
W4408204763
Cited by
38
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 9
FWCI
39.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
European Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, student perceptions, higher education, critical thinking, academic integrity, self-assessment, personalized learning, AI-generated feedback, ChatGPT, Grammarly, Turnitin, curriculum development, learning outcomes, undergraduate students

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