CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Artificial Intelligence in EducationAI in Service InteractionsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Dependency on Meta AI Chatbot in Messenger Among STEM and Non-STEM Students in Higher Education

Open access
Hernandez, Hilene, Manalese, Rhiziel, Dianelo, Roque Francis, Yambao, Jaymark, Gamboa, Almer, Feliciano, Llyod, David, Mike Haizon, Pampo, Freneil +1 more·2025·International Journal of Computing Sciences Research
DOI 10.25147/ijcsr.2017.001.1.242
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose – To understand the potential dependency of tertiary students regarding Meta AI in the academic context. Method – This descriptive cross-sectional study surveyed 872 tertiary students from public and private institutions in Luzon, Philippines. Demographic information and perceptions on Meta AI dependency based on existing literature were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and differences between STEM and non-STEM students were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results – The results indicate a nuanced perspective on Meta AI chatbot use among students. While there is general disagreement with heavy reliance on the chatbot for academic tasks, psychological support, and social factors, there is moderate agreement on its technological benefits and academic utility. Students value the Meta AI convenience, availability, and problem-solving assistance, but prefer traditional resources and human interaction for academic and social support. Concerns about dependency risks and impacts on critical thinking are acknowledged, particularly among STEM students, who rely more on chatbots for academic purposes. This suggests that while Meta AI is a valuable resource, its role is complementary rather than transformative in educational contexts, with institutional encouragement and individual preferences influencing usage patterns. Conclusion - Students generally hesitate to rely heavily on meta-AI chatbots. This reflects a preference for traditional resources and independent problem-solving. While students acknowledge AI chatbots academic benefits and technological convenience, concerns about overreliance and its impact on critical thinking persist, particularly among STEM students, who appear more inclined to integrate these tools into their studies. Recommendations – Educational institutions should encourage the balanced use of AI chatbots by integrating them as supplementary tools while promoting critical thinking and independent problem-solving skills. Practical Implications – Despite students reporting limited reliance on Meta AI, educators and policymakers must proactively prepare for potential future dependency by developing forward-looking policies and continuously evaluating their impact on education.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25147/ijcsr.2017.001.1.242

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Risks of dependency were widely acknowledged by LLM-CB companion users.

    “Hernandez et al. surveyed 827 LLM-CB companion users, finding that risks of dependency were widely acknowledged by users124.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [124]

    The “Dependency Risks Associated with AI Chatbot Use” section reports moderate concern: students agreed that overuse could reduce critical thinking and independent learning, but disagreed that they felt less capable of solving problems without chatbots. The study surveyed 872 tertiary students using Meta AI in Messenger, not 827 LLM-CB companion users as the citing sentence states. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Antony, S., & Ramnath, R. (2023). A Phenomenological Exploration of Students' Perceptions of AI Chatbots in Higher Education. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education, 11(2), 7-38. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1403709.pdf
  2. Ayanwale, M. A., & Molefi, R. R. (2024). Exploring intention of undergraduate students to embrace chatbots: from the vantage point of Lesotho. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239- 024-00451-8 · DOI
  3. Bettayeb, A. M., Abu Talib, M., Sobhe Altayasinah, A. Z., & Dakalbab, F. (2024). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT: conversational AI in education. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1379796 · DOI
  4. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Farrow, R., Bai, J. Y. H., Nerantzi, C., Moore, S., Dron, J., Stracke, C. M., Singh, L., Crompton, H., Koutropoulos, A., Terentev, E., Pazurek, A., Nichols, M., Sidorkin, A. M., Costello, E., Watson, S., Mulligan, D., Honeychurch, S., … Asino, T. I. (2024). The Manifesto for Teaching and Learning in a Time of Generative AI: A Critical Collective Stance to Better Navigate the Future. Open Praxis. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.4.777 · DOI
  5. Çela, E., Fonkam, M. M., & Potluri, R. M. (2024). Risks of AI-Assisted Learning on Student Critical Thinking: A Case Study of Albania. International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management, 12(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJRCM.350185 · DOI
  6. Darwin, Rusdin, D., Mukminatien, N., Suryati, N., Laksmi, E. D., & Marzuki. (2024). Critical thinking in the AI era: An exploration of EFL students' perceptions, benefits, and limitations. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2290342. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2290342 · DOI
  7. Dekker, I., De Jong, E. M., Schippers, M. C., De Bruijn-Smolders, M., Alexiou, A., & Giesbers, B. (2020). Optimizing Students' Mental Health and Academic Performance: AI- Enhanced Life Crafting. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01063 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022). The impact of a virtual teaching assistant (chatbot) on students' learning in Ghanaian higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Fabio, R. A., Plebe, A., & Suriano, R. (2024). AI-based chatbot interactions and critical thinking skills: an exploratory study. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06795-8 · DOI · Paper page
  10. George, B., & Wooden, O. (2023). Managing the Strategic Transformation of Higher Education through Artificial Intelligence. In Administrative Sciences (Vol. 13, Issue 9). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13090196 · DOI
  11. Ghamrawi, N., Shal, T., & Ghamrawi, N. A. R. (2024). Exploring the impact of AI on teacher leadership: regressing or expanding? Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8415-8433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12174-w · DOI
  12. Gökçearslan, Ş., Tosun, C., & Erdemir, Z. G. (2024). Benefits, Challenges, and Methods of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots in Education: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.600 · DOI
  13. Gruenhagen, J. H., Sinclair, P. M., Carroll, J.-A., Baker, P. R. A., Wilson, A., & Demant, D. (2024). The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students' perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2023). Drivers and Consequences of ChatGPT Use in Higher Education: Key Stakeholder Perspectives. In European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education (Vol. 13, Issue 11, pp. 2599-2614). https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110181 · DOI
  15. Hunziker, S., & Blankenagel, M. (2024). Cross-Sectional Research Design. In S. Hunziker & M. Blankenagel (Eds.), Research Design in Business and Management: A Practical Guide for Students and Researchers (pp. 187-199). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_10 · DOI
  16. Izadi, S., & Forouzanfar, M. (2024). Error Correction and Adaptation in Conversational AI: A Review of Techniques and Applications in Chatbots. In AI (Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 803- 841). https://doi.org/10.3390/ai5020041 · DOI
  17. Keengwe, J. (2023). Creative AI Tools and Ethical Implications in Teaching and Learning. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0205-7 · DOI
  18. Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions. In Sustainability (Vol. 15, Issue 7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ma, W., Ma, W., Hu, Y., & Bi, X. (2024). The who, why, and how of ai-based chatbots for learning and teaching in higher education: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13128-6 · DOI
  21. MacFarland, T. W., & Yates, J. M. (2016). Mann-Whitney U Test. In T. W. MacFarland & J. M. Yates (Eds.), Introduction to Nonparametric Statistics for the Biological Sciences Using R (pp. 103-132). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-30634-6_4 · DOI
  22. Mohebi, L. (2024). Empowering learners with ChatGPT: insights from a systematic literature exploration. Discover Education, 3(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024- 00120-y NapoleonCat. (2024). Facebook users in Philippines. https://napoleoncat.com/stats/facebook-users-in-philippines/2024/06/ · DOI
  23. Niloy, A. C., Bari, M. A., Sultana, J., Chowdhury, R., Raisa, F. M., Islam, A., Mahmud, S., Jahan, I., Sarkar, M., Akter, S., Nishat, N., Afroz, M., Sen, A., Islam, T., Tareq, M. H., & Hossen, M. A. (2024). Why do students use ChatGPT? Answering through a triangulation approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100208 · DOI
  24. Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Sain, Z. H., & Hebebci, M. T. (2023). ChatGPT and Beyond: The Rise of AI Assistants and Chatbots in Higher Education. Proceedings of International Conference on Academic Studies in Technology and Education, 1-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED639665.pdf#page=7
  26. Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2024). Artificial Intelligence- Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education. In Information (Vol. 15, Issue 10). https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100596 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2024). Unveiling the landscape of generative artificial intelligence in education: A comprehensive taxonomy of applications, challenges, and future prospects. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Schei, O. M., Møgelvang, A., & Ludvigsen, K. (2024). Perceptions and Use of AI Chatbots among Students in Higher Education: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies. In Education Sciences (Vol. 14, Issue 8). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080922 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Xu, W., & Ouyang, F. (2022). The application of AI technologies in STEM education: a systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Yu, H., & Nazir, S. (2021). Role of 5g and artificial intelligence for research and transformation of English situational teaching in higher studies. Mobile Information Systems, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3773414 · DOI
  31. Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hernandez, H., Manalese, R., Dianelo, R. F., Yambao, J., Gamboa, A., Feliciano, L., David, M. H., Pampo, F., & Miranda, J. P.
Affiliations
Pampanga State University (PH)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Computing Sciences Research
Publisher
STEP Academic Publisher
Published
2025-01-01
Volume
9
Pages
3674-3690
ISSN
  • 2546-0552 (ISSN-L)
  • 2546-115X
DOI
10.25147/ijcsr.2017.001.1.242
OpenAlex
W6964150642
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Computing Sciences Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
large language models in education, STEM students, non-STEM students, university students, critical thinking, overreliance on AI, student perceptions of AI, academic support, social support, independent problem solving

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