Cited by 11Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Technology in Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Generative AI Tools on Postgraduate Students’ Learning Experiences: New Insights Into Usage Patterns

Open access
T Aldulaijan, Asmaa, M Almalky, Shatha·2025·Journal of Information Technology Education: Research

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools on postgraduate students’ learning experiences. It examined how these students utilize GenAI tools, identified the perceived benefits of their use, and uncovered the challenges students face in their learning experiences with these tools. Background: Recent advancements in GenAI, particularly tools like ChatGPT, are transforming how postgraduate students engage with learning, offering new opportunities for academic endeavors. However, understanding how students interact with these tools remains unclear, especially relating to their engagement with activities designed to use GenAI tools as learning assistants. Methodology: This study employed a qualitative case study research design, including 11 female postgraduate students enrolled in an educational technology master’s program as the primary data collection method. The researchers only had access to female students because of the gender-segregated education system at most Saudi universities. The participants were interviewed after they engaged in a planned activity called Designing a Training Program with GPT Assistance (DTPGA) and unplanned activities involving other GenAI tools. DTPGA is an activity aimed at integrating innovations in training technologies by designing a training program with ChatGPT assistance. Eleven ChatGPT conversation logs and DTPGA activity answers were analyzed based on specific rubrics. The results of the DTPGA activity analysis support the thematic analysis of the interviews. Contribution: The key contributions of this study include the design and implementation of a planned activity (DTPGA) to understand how students interact with GenAI tools as learning assistants. Evaluating students’ work on a DTPGA activity offers educators a clear vision for assessing GenAI-assisted tasks. In terms of data collection and analysis, this study also offers a deep understanding of the participants’ perspectives and actual usage. The study identified two distinct usage patterns of GenAI among students, each classified with its characteristics and implications, shedding light on the diverse ways these tools are integrated into students’ learning experiences. Furthermore, the findings provide compelling evidence of the risks associated with misunderstandings that can emerge when students misuse GenAI tools. Findings: Students employ GenAI tools to have intellectual conversations, broaden their perspectives, and prototype and test their solutions. The research identified two distinct GenAI usage patterns – the intellectual partner and the information browser – each characterized by unique traits. The first pattern, intellectual partner, uses ChatGPT as a cognitive partner and interacts with it as if it were a real person. This usage tends to be dialogic, collaborative, selectively researching, persistent, and feedback-oriented. The second pattern, information browser, utilizes ChatGPT primarily as a search engine for ideas with the following usage traits: transactional use and illusory understanding. Regarding the perceived benefits, the students appreciated the importance of GenAI tools in enhancing academic skills development, such as academic writing, translation, and self-directed learning. They also acknowledged GenAI tools’ role in boosting productivity in routine tasks by optimizing efforts and enhancing efficiency. In creative tasks, they saved time, offered diverse and innovative ideas, and boosted motivation and confidence. However, the perceived drawbacks included concerns about ethical use, a lack of clear guidelines, limited capabilities, overreliance on GenAI, and potential skills erosion. Recommendations for Practitioners: These findings will help educators guide students in developing metacognitive awareness and refining their use of GenAI tools while addressing the potential risks. Emphasis should be placed on understanding the distinct patterns of GenAI use, which will enable practitioners to scaffold learners. Integration also requires developing innovative strategies through redesigning lessons and activities and carefully selecting adequate assessment methods that foster critical thinking. Additionally, it is important to enhance learners’ skills in effective intellectual communication through GenAI tools, to guide them in evaluating AI-generated content, and to provide ethical frameworks for responsible AI use. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers need to explore more innovative strategies to integrate GenAI tools into higher education, in line with the nature of the various disciplines, to use GenAI tools as intellectual partners and not superficially. The field requires further studies to investigate how GenAI tools can be integrated to develop students’ intellectual skills, preparing them for future roles that demand advanced abilities and effective use of GenAI for personal and professional growth. Impact on

Overview

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 · 10.28945/5428

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Aldossary, A. S., Aljindi, A. A., & Alamri, J. M. (2024). The role of generative AI in education: Perceptions of Saudi students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15496 · DOI
  2. Almassaad, A., Alajlan, H., & Alebaikan, R. (2024). Student perceptions of generative artificial intelligence: In- vestigating utilization, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Systems, 12(10), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12100385 · DOI
  3. Almogren, A. S., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Dahri, N. A. (2024). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: A smart education perspective. Heliyon, 10(11), e31887 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31887 · DOI
  4. Almulla, M. A. (2024). Investigating influencing factors of learning satisfaction in AI ChatGPT for research: University students perspective. Heliyon., 10(11), e32220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32220 · DOI
  5. Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2023). The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for aca- demia in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(5), 1029-1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2271445 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustwor- thiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chan, C., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chauke, T., Mkhize, T., Methi, L., & Dlamini, N. (2024). Postgraduate students' perceptions on the benefits associated with artificial intelligence tools for academic success: The use of the ChatGPT AI tool. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 6(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2024. · DOI
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  11. DaCosta, B., & Kinsell, C. (2024). Investigating media selection through ChatGPT: An exploratory study on generative artificial intelligence in the aid of instructional design. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(4), 187- 227. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.124014 · DOI
  12. Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Almutairy, S., Shutaleva, A., & Soomro, R. B. (2024). Extended TAM based acceptance of AI-Powered ChatGPT for supporting meta- cognitive self-regulated learning in education: A mixed-methods study. Heliyon, 10(8), e29317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29317 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Vighio, M. S., Alblehai, F., Soomro, R. B., & Shutaleva, A. (2024). Investigating AI-based academic support acceptance and its impact on students' performance in Malaysian and Pakistani higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 18695-18744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12599-x · DOI
  14. Dai, Y., Liu, A., & Lim, C. P. (2023). Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven inno- vation in higher education. Procedia CIRP, 119, 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.05.002 · DOI
  15. Dempere, J., Modugu, K., Hesham, A., & Ramasamy, L. K. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on higher educa- tion. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1206936. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1206936 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
  17. Duong, C. D., Vu, T. N., & Ngo, T. V. N. (2023). Applying a modified technology acceptance model to explain higher education students' usage of ChatGPT: A serial multiple mediation model with knowledge sharing as a moderator. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 100883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100883 · DOI
  18. Elkhodr, M., Gide, E., Wu, R., & Darwish, O. (2023). ICT students' perceptions towards ChatGPT: An experi- mental reflective lab analysis. STEM Education, 3(2), 70-88. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2023006 · DOI
  19. Faisal, E. (2024). Unlock the potential for Saudi Arabian higher education: A systematic review of the benefits of ChatGPT. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1325601. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1325601 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Firat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 57-63. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gozali, I., Wijaya, A. R. T., Lie, A., Cahyono, B. Y., & Suryati, N. (2024). Leveraging the potential of ChatGPT as an automated writing evaluation (AWE) tool: Students' feedback literacy development and AWE tools integration framework. The JALT CALL Journal, 20(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.29140/jalt- call.v20n1.1200 · DOI
  23. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Husain, A. (2024). Potentials of ChatGPT in computer programming: Insights from programming instructors. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 23, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.28945/5240 · DOI
  25. Hutson, J., & Plate, D. (2023). Human-AI collaboration for smart education: Reframing applied learning to support metacognition. In A. Soofastaei (Ed.), Advanced virtual assistants -A window to the virtual future (pp. 194-203). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001832 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3(2), 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Jiayu, Y. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative artificial intelligence in higher education student educational management. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology, 7(9), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.23977/aetp.2023.070914 · DOI
  28. Jo, H. (2024). From concerns to benefits: A comprehensive study of ChatGPT usage in education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024- 00471-4 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kim, M., & Adlof, L. (2024). Adapting to the future: ChatGPT as a means for supporting constructivist learn- ing environments. TechTrends, 68, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00899-x · DOI · Paper page
  30. Laato, S., Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., & Björne, J. (2023, July). AI-assisted learning with ChatGPT and large language models: Implications for higher education. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Ad- vanced Learning Technologies, Orem, UT, USA, 226-230. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00072 · DOI
  31. Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: Systematic literature re- view. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lodge, J. M., Yang, S., Furze, L., & Dawson, P. (2023). It's not like a calculator, so what is the relationship be- tween learners and generative artificial intelligence? Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261106 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Lugo, L. G. (2022). A qualitative case study of students' perceptions of their experiences in undergraduate online courses [Doc- toral dissertation, St. John's University]. https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_dissertations/411
  34. Meşe, E., & Sevilen, Ç. (2021). Factors influencing EFL students' motivation in online learning: A qualitative case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 4(1), 11-22.
  35. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded ed. National Acad- emy Press.
  36. Ngo, T. T. A., An, G. K., Nguyen, P. T., & Tran, T. T. (2024). Unlocking educational potential: Exploring stu- dents' satisfaction and sustainable engagement with ChatGPT using the ECM model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 23, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.28945/5344 · DOI
  37. Parsons, B., & Curry, J. H. (2024). Can ChatGPT pass graduate-level instructional design assignments? Poten- tial implications of artificial intelligence in education and a call to action. TechTrends, 68, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00912-3 · DOI
  38. Poenaru, L. F., Popescu, D., Hornoiu, R. I., & Lanfranchi, G. (2024). Professors versus students: An introduc- tive bibliometric review of AI acceptance in higher education's specialisations of tertiary sector. Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences, 6(1), 326-335.
  39. Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., Robin, M., Santini, F. de O., Ladeira, W. J., Sun, M., Day, I., Rather, R. A., & Heathcote, L. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  41. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074640 · DOI
  42. Samala, A. D., Sokolova, E. V., Grassini, S., & Rawas, S. (2024). ChatGPT: A bibliometric analysis and visuali- zation of emerging educational trends, challenges, and applications. International Journal of Evaluation and Re- search in Education, 13(4), 2374-2387. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.28119 · DOI
  43. Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  44. In M. Al-Suqri, & A. Al-Aufi (Eds.), In- formation seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends (pp. 205-219). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8156-9. · DOI
  45. ch013 · DOI
  46. Sova, R., Tudor, C., Tartavulea, C. V., & Dieaconescu, R. I. (2024). Artificial intelligence tool adoption in higher education: A structural equation modeling approach to understanding impact factors among eco- nomics students. Electronics, 13(18), 3632. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13183632 · DOI
  47. Stojanov, A., Liu, Q., & Koh, J. H. L. (2024). University students' self-reported reliance on ChatGPT for learn- ing: A latent profile analysis. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100243 · DOI
  48. Taranikanti, V., & Davidson, C. J. (2023). Metacognition through an iterative anatomy AI chatbot: An innova- tive playing field for educating the future generation of medical students. Anatomia, 2(3), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.3390/anatomia2030025 · DOI
  49. Vargas-Murillo, A. R., de la Asuncion, I. N. M., & de Jesús Guevara-Soto, F. (2023). Challenges and opportuni- ties of AI-assisted learning: A systematic literature review on the impact of ChatGPT usage in higher edu- cation. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(7), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.7.7 · DOI
  50. Xu, X., Su, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., & Xu, X. (2024). Understanding learners' perceptions of ChatGPT: A the- matic analysis of peer interviews among undergraduates and postgraduates in China. Heliyon, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26239. · DOI
  51. Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Prac- tical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Jour- nal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Zhou, J., Shen, L., & Chen, W. (2024). How ChatGPT transformed teachers: The role of basic psychological needs in enhancing digital competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1458551. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1458551 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
T Aldulaijan, A., & M Almalky, S.
Affiliations
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University
Venue
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research
Published
2025
Volume
24
Pages
003
ISSN
  • 1539-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-9714
OpenAlex
W4407162448
Cited by
11
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Information Technology Education Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Technology in Learning
Keywords
graduate students, generative AI, ChatGPT, AI-assisted learning, learning experience, AI as cognitive partner, Saudi universities, training program design

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