CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in Service Interactions

ChatGPT as an Artificial Intelligence Learning Tool for Business Administration Students in Nueva Ecija, Philippines

Open access
Jesus, Fhrizz Saet De, Ibarra, Lyka Mae, Villanueva, Winnie, Leyesa, Marlon·2024·International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
DOI 10.26803/ijlter.23.6.16
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) has expanded significantly in recent years, bringing fresh changes to various aspects of modern life. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ChatGPT as an educational tool for business administration students in Nueva Ecija, Philippines, focusing on improving their engagement, motivation, and understanding of educational content, while examining the advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence (AI). The intention was to evaluate how ChatGPT impacts the academic performance of business administration students, focusing on performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and behavioral intention. In addition, the research aimed to categorize the respondents based on age, gender, and academic year to determine if these variables impact the use of ChatGPT as an educational resource for business administration students. A quantitative research methodology was employed to evaluate the subject matter, involving the use of descriptive statistics such as percentages, frequency distribution, weighted mean, and Pearson’s r to analyze the data. The research instrument was designed by us and underwent validity and reliability tests. Regarding the outcomes, most of the participating students were female. In addition, the majority of the respondents fell within the 18?21?year age range and were typically first-year students. It was found that social influence plays a significant role in how study habits are shared among peers, potentially leading to the adoption of ChatGPT. Even though there are advantages to utilizing AI tools, the respondents reported issues with the ChatGPT tool, including inaccurate responses, insufficient writing skills, limited peer interaction, and misconduct. Finally, it is recommended that students studying business administration should not rely exclusively on ChatGPT for their academic writing. By utilizing this approach, individuals can enhance and refine their writing abilities with or without extensive support from ChatGPT.

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 · 10.26803/ijlter.23.6.16

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Cognitive offloading directly intercepts the learning process in a mediation model.

    “In a mediation model, this perception indicates that cognitive offloading directly intercepts the learning process ( De Jesus, , Ibarra, Pasion, Villanueva, & Leyesa, 2024)”

    From The Double-Edged Sword of Automation: Impact of Generative AI Adoption on Student's Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education Considering Cognitive Offloading as a Mediator (2026) · cites this paper as De Jesus, , Ibarra, Pasion, Villanueva, & Leyesa, 2024

    The Abstract discusses students’ reliance on ChatGPT and recommends against relying on it exclusively for academic writing. It does not address cognitive offloading or a mediation model in which offloading directly intercepts the learning process (searched for those terms and the claimed relationship). (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Ballesteros, M. A. A., Jordan, O. H., Roca, C. L., & Tirado, K. S. (2024). Analysis of college students’ attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in their academic activities: Effect of intent to use, verification of information and responsible use. BMC Psychology, 12(1), Article 255. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01764-z · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bouzar, A., Idrissi, K. E., & Ghourdou, T. (2024). Gender differences in perceptions and usage of ChatGPT. International Journal of Humanities and Educational Research, 06(02), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.47832/2757-5403.25.32 · DOI
  3. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in OpenAI ChatGPT application: A review of ChatGPT in writing English essay. ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275?285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Jereb, E., Jerebic, J., & Urh, M. (2023). Studying habits in higher education before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Athens Journal of Education, 10(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.10-1-4 · DOI
  7. Jo, H., & Bang, Y. (2023). Analyzing ChatGPT adoption drivers with the TOEK framework. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 22606. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49710-0 · DOI
  8. Jowarder, M. I. (2023). The influence of ChatGPT on social science students: Insights drawn from undergraduate students in the United States. Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences, 3(2), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.47540/ijias.v3i2.878 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Mercado, J. O., Mercado, R. E., Julve, J. B., & Naga, G. V. (2018, May 21). Analysis of academic performance of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration student of Surigao del Sur State University. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 10(35). https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jfas/article/view/171493
  10. Ray, P. P. (2023). ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3, 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Saaida, M. B. E. (2023). AI-driven transformations in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Educational Research and Studies, 5(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8164415 · DOI
  12. Tian, W., Ge, J., Zhao, Y., & Zheng, X. (2024). AI chatbots in Chinese higher education: Adoption, perception, and influence among graduate students—an integrated analysis utilizing UTAUT and ECM models. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1268549 · DOI
  13. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3375136

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jesus, F. S. D., Ibarra, L. M., Villanueva, W., & Leyesa, M.
Affiliations
  • Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology (PH)
  • Central Luzon State University (PH)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Publisher
Society for Research and Knowledge Management
Published
2024-06-30
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
348-372
ISSN
  • 1694-2116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1694-2493
DOI
10.26803/ijlter.23.6.16
OpenAlex
W4400198335
Cited by
10
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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 › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI in education, business administration students, student engagement, academic motivation, academic performance, technology acceptance, social influence, academic misconduct, AI-assisted writing

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