CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126Artificial Intelligence in EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

ChatGPT in Learning: Assessing Students’ Use Intentions through the Lens of Perceived Value and the Influence of AI Literacy

Open access
Al-Abdullatif, Ahlam Mohammed, Alsubaie, Merfat Ayesh·2024·Behavioral Sciences
DOI 10.3390/bs14090845PMC PMC11428673
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study sought to understand students’ intentions regarding the use of ChatGPT in learning from the perspective of perceived value, exploring the influence of artificial intelligent (AI) literacy. Drawing on a sample of 676 university students from diverse academic backgrounds, we employed a structured survey questionnaire to measure their perceptions of ChatGPT as a learning tool. The collected data were then analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) via SmartPLS 4 software. The findings showed a strong effect of the students’ perceived value of ChatGPT on their intention to use it. Our findings suggest that perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment and perceived fees had a significant influence on students’ perceived value of ChatGPT, while perceived risk showed no effect. Moreover, the role of AI literacy emerged as pivotal in shaping these perceptions. Students with higher AI literacy demonstrated an enhanced ability to discern the value of ChatGPT. AI literacy proved to be a strong predictor of students’ perception of usefulness, enjoyment, and fees for using ChatGPT in learning. However, AI literacy did not have an impact on students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in learning. This study underscores the growing importance of integrating AI literacy into educational curricula to optimize the reception and utilization of innovative AI tools in academic scenarios. Future interventions aiming to boost the adoption of such tools should consider incorporating AI literacy components to maximize perceived value and, subsequently, use intention.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study applies an extended value-based adoption model to survey 676 university students about their intentions to use ChatGPT in learning, with AI literacy as an antecedent. Perceived value strongly predicted use intention; perceived usefulness, enjoyment, and fees shaped perceived value, while perceived risk did not, and AI literacy influenced most perceptions except perceived risk.

Key findings

  • Perceived value positively predicted ChatGPT use intention (H5 supported). Perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and perceived fees had significant direct effects on perceived value (H1, H2, H4 supported), while perceived risk showed no significant effect on perceived value (H3 rejected).
  • AI literacy positively influenced perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, perceived fees, and perceived value (H6, H7, H9, H10 supported). AI literacy did not predict perceived risk (H8 rejected).
  • Measurement model statistics: indicator loadings ranged from 0.72 to 0.93; Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.80 to 0.93; composite reliability ranged from 0.80 to 0.97; AVE was >0.5; HTMT values were below 0.85.
  • The paper reports high R² and supportive Q² values for key outcomes, but the provided text does not give the numeric R² or Q² values.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional survey conducted in November 2023 among university students at undergraduate and postgraduate levels; sample comprised 676 students, of whom 83.9% were female, 91.6% undergraduates, and 86.6% aged 19–22, across various academic disciplines. The survey was distributed via university email systems and social media over a four-week voluntary response period.
  • Data were analyzed with partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM) using SmartPLS 4.0. The model included 7 constructs and 32 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale: perceived usefulness (3 items), perceived enjoyment (3), perceived fees (3), perceived value (4), perceived risk (5), use intention (4), and AI literacy (10).
  • Analysis followed measurement model assessment (loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, AVE, HTMT) and structural model evaluation to test 10 hypotheses.

Limitations

  • Stated: convenience sampling from several universities in the authors’ eastern region limits generalizability to the broader student population across Saudi Arabia; electronic surveys distributed through university emails and social media may have included respondents unfamiliar or inexperienced with ChatGPT; focusing solely on VAM and AI literacy may overlook other critical factors.
  • Stated: AI literacy was treated as a single unified construct, so the study did not account for individual components such as ethical understanding, functional skills, and critical evaluation of AI technologies.
  • Evident from the text: the design is cross-sectional and self-report, with no behavioral use measure; the sample is heavily female, undergraduate, and aged 19–22, which further constrains generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/bs14090845

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 54 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Perceived fees had a significant influence on students' perceived value of ChatGPT.

    “Our findings suggest that perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment and perceived fees had a significant influence on students’ perceived value of ChatGPT”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    AI literacy did not have an impact on students' perceptions of using ChatGPT in learning.

    “However, AI literacy did not have an impact on students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    AI literacy proved to be a strong predictor of students' perception of enjoyment for using ChatGPT in learning.

    “AI literacy proved to be a strong predictor of students’ perception of usefulness, enjoyment, and fees for using ChatGPT in learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    AI literacy proved to be a strong predictor of students' perception of fees for using ChatGPT in learning.

    “AI literacy proved to be a strong predictor of students’ perception of usefulness, enjoyment, and fees for using ChatGPT in learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Perceived risk showed no effect on students' perceived value of ChatGPT.

    “while perceived risk showed no effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Higher levels of digital literacy are associated with more positive attitudes towards the internet and its capabilities.

    “Hargittai and Hsieh [72] found that higher levels of digital literacy are associated with more positive attitudes towards the internet and its capabilities”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [72] Hargittai, 2012, Succinct survey measures of web-use skills, Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    AI literacy stressed the importance of shaping perceptions of the risks and opportunities associated with ChatGPT in education.

    “Fütterer et al. [68], in their article on global reactions to AI innovations, suggested that AI, such as ChatGPT, stressed the importance of AI literacy in shaping perceptions of the risks and opportunities associated with ChatGPT in education.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [68] Fütterer, T., Fischer, C., Alekseeva, A., Chen, X., Tate, T., Warschauer, M., and Gerjets, P. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Global reactions to AI innovations. Sci. Rep., 13. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Perceived fees and perceived risk represent crucial elements that users evaluate when considering the adoption of a new technology.

    “In terms of costs, perceived fees and perceived risks represent crucial elements that users evaluate when considering the adoption of a new technology.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Three educational technology experts reviewed and slightly modified the wording of the survey items.

    “To ensure the precision and suitability of the survey items, three educational technology experts reviewed and slightly modified the wording.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AI literacy is positively correlated with attitudes toward robots and users' regular use of AI.

    “Wang et al. [58] affirmed a notable correlation between AI literacy and attitudes toward robots’ and users’ regular use of AI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [58] Wang, 2023, Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale, Behav. Inf. Technol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In adopting an e-learning system, perceived value is strongly predicted by perceived usefulness.

    “Likewise, Liao et al. [29] confirmed that, in adopting an e-learning system, perceived value is strongly predicted by perceived usefulness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Liao, Y.K., Wu, W.Y., Le, T.Q., and Phung, T.T.T. (2022). The integration of the technology acceptance model and value-based adoption model to study the adoption of e-learning: The moderating role of e-WOM. Sustainability, 14. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Perceived usefulness is the most significant factor affecting the adoption of media tablets, particularly when moderated by perceived value.

    “According to Yu et al. [28], the most significant factor affecting the adoption of media tablets is perceived usefulness, particularly when moderated by perceived value.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Yu, 2017, User acceptance of media tablets: An empirical examination of perceived value, Telemat. Inform. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Perceived enjoyment is a component of perceived benefits in the VAM.

    “While perceived usefulness plays a crucial role in providing functional advantages, perceived enjoyment is equally vital for its emotional benefits, as outlined by Teo [33].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] Teo, 2011, Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test, Comput. Educ. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Digital literacy could predict about 95% of the changes in students' perceived enjoyment.

    “The findings revealed that digital literacy could predict about 95% of the changes in the students’ perceived enjoyment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [64] Feng, 2023, Modeling the contribution of EFL students’ digital literacy to their foreign language enjoyment and self-efficacy in online education, Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The level of AI literacy determines whether students embrace AI technologies.

    “Wang et al. [58] indicated that the level of AI literacy determines whether students embrace AI technologies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [58] Wang, 2023, Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale, Behav. Inf. Technol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AI literacy programmes improve students' AI knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

    “For example, Su and Yang [62] noted improvements in students’ AI knowledge, skills, and attitudes from AI literacy programmes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [62] Su, 2023, AI literacy curriculum and its relation to children’s perceptions of robots and attitudes towards engineering and science: An intervention study in early childhood education, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Perceived value is determined by two main factors: benefits (perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment) and sacrifices (perceived fees and perceived risk).

    “Kim et al. [23] proposed that, when assessing the intention to use technology, perceived value is determined by two main factors: the benefits individuals derive (such as perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment) and the relative sacrifices they make (including perceived fees and perceived risk).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] Kim, 2007, Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation, Decis. Support Syst. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    AI literacy can significantly impact users' awareness and knowledge of the costs associated with AI technology purchases and usage.

    “Their findings suggest that a user’s Al literacy level can significantly affect their awareness and knowledge of the costs associated with AI technology purchases and usage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [69] Catala, 2023, AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review, Int. J STEM Educ. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Perceived usefulness is one of the components of perceived benefits in the VAM.

    “Perceived usefulness, according to the VAM, is one of the components of perceived benefits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Internal consistency was confirmed through Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability, with values (0.80 ≥ α ≤ 0.93, 0.80 ≥ CR ≤ 0.97), indicating good to high reliability.

    “Internal consistency was confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR), with values (0.80 ≥ α ≤ 0.93, 0.80 ≥ CR ≤ 0.97), indicating good to high reliability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Perceived enjoyment emerged as the foremost predictor of users' perceived value in utilising AI-based intelligent products.

    “In the AI-driven context, Sohn and Kwon [35] highlighted that perceived enjoyment emerged as the foremost predictor of users’ perceived value in utilising AI-based intelligent products.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Sohn, 2020, Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial intelligence-based intelligent products, Telemat. Inform. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This understanding can lead to a greater appreciation of these technologies' value, making users more amenable to paying for access to advanced features or services.

    “This understanding can lead to a greater appreciation of these technologies’ value, making users more amenable to paying for access to advanced features or services.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    As the cost of using ChatGPT increases, its attractiveness decreases unless the fees are justified by exceptional benefits or outcomes that cannot be obtained elsewhere for free or at a lower cost.

    “The negative impact of perceived fees on ChatGPT’s value indicates that, as the cost of using the tool increases, its attractiveness decreases unless the fees are justified by exceptional benefits or outcomes that cannot be obtained elsewhere for free or at a lower cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Knowledgeable users are better equipped to set realistic expectations for what ChatGPT can offer.

    “Knowledgeable users are better equipped to set realistic expectations for what ChatGPT can offer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Users with a higher degree of AI literacy may better understand the complexities involved in developing and maintaining AI technologies, such as ChatGPT.

    “Users with a higher degree of AI literacy may better understand the complexities involved in developing and maintaining AI technologies, such as ChatGPT.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This deeper engagement can lead to a more enjoyable experience, as users will explore a wider range of features and use cases, discovering novel and interesting ways to incorporate the tool into their academic and personal lives.

    “This deeper engagement can lead to a more enjoyable experience, as users will explore a wider range of features and use cases, discovering novel and interesting ways to incorporate the tool into their academic and personal lives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This alignment between expectations and capabilities can lead to higher satisfaction with the tool's performance, further enhancing its perceived usefulness.

    “This alignment between expectations and capabilities can lead to higher satisfaction with the tool’s performance, further enhancing its perceived usefulness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A positive user experience, where ease of use, interface design and interactive feedback play critical roles, is important.

    “This finding underscores the importance of a positive user experience, where ease of use, interface design and interactive feedback play critical roles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Digital literacy not only affects the ability to use technology, but also influences the affective and motivational aspects of technology use.

    “A study by Vekiri [71] indicated that digital literacy not only affects the ability to use technology, but also influences the affective and motivational aspects of technology use.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [71] Vekiri, 2010, Information science instruction and changes in girls’ and boys’ expectancy and value beliefs: In search of gender-equitable pedagogical practices, Comput. Educ.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Several other studies indicated the positive impact of digital and information literacy on technology adoption.

    “Several other studies have indicated the positive impact of digital and information literacy on technology adoption [60,73,74].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [60] Jang, 2021, The impact of literacy on intention to use digital technology for learning: A comparative study of Korea and Finland, Telecommun. Policy source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [73] Mohammadyari, 2015, Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy, Comput. Educ. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [74] Nazzal, 2022, The effect of digital literacy and website quality on purchase intention in Internet shopping through mediating variable: The case of Internet users in Palestine, Webology source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    As ChatGPT and similar AI tools become more prevalent, students may also feel that awareness and transparency around risks have improved, leading to the assumption that any remaining risks are manageable or acceptable.

    “As ChatGPT and similar AI tools become more prevalent, students may also feel that awareness and transparency around risks have improved, leading to the assumption that any remaining risks are manageable or acceptable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The immediacy of benefits may make the risks appear distant or abstract, particularly when students do not encounter significant negative experiences while using ChatGPT.

    “Furthermore, the immediacy of benefits (e.g., instant responses, enhanced learning) may make the risks appear distant or abstract, particularly when students do not encounter significant negative experiences while using ChatGPT.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Students evaluate ChatGPT as a whole rather than considering isolated features or capabilities.

    “Students consider isolated features or capabilities and evaluate ChatGPT as a whole.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The utility of ChatGPT makes it more attractive and embeds it as a critical resource in students' educational toolkits.

    “This utility makes the tool more attractive and embeds it as a critical resource in the students’ educational toolkits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When users understand what ChatGPT can and cannot do, they are more likely to use it in ways that yield successful outcomes, thereby enhancing the overall enjoyment of the experience.

    “When users understand what ChatGPT can and cannot do, they are more likely to use it in ways that yield successful outcomes, thereby enhancing the overall enjoyment of the experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    With a solid understanding of ChatGPT, students might be more open to integrating it into their study routines, recognising its potential to aid research, writing and learning.

    “With a solid understanding of ChatGPT, students might be more open to integrating it into their study routines, recognising its potential to aid research, writing and learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Students are sensitive to the costs associated with using ChatGPT and this sensitivity can detract from the tool's perceived value.

    “The support for H4 suggests that students are sensitive to the costs associated with using ChatGPT and that this sensitivity can detract from the tool’s perceived value.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This familiarity reduces their concern for potential issues, such as bias in the AI's responses or data privacy, making risk perception less salient.

    “This familiarity reduces their concern for potential issues, such as bias in the AI’s responses or data privacy, making risk perception less salient.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Students who have more experience engaging with AI tools are better at navigating risks and understanding the limitations of these technologies.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A deeper comprehension of AI enhances the usability of ChatGPT and elevates its overall importance and value in the eyes of students.

    “This relationship suggests that a deeper comprehension of AI not only enhances the usability of ChatGPT, but also elevates its overall importance and value in the eyes of the students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    With a solid grasp of AI principles, students can strategize their use of ChatGPT more effectively, applying it to tasks that offer the most benefit.

    “With a solid grasp of AI principles, students can strategize their use of ChatGPT more effectively, applying it to tasks that offer the most benefit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Focusing solely on VAM and AI literacy may overlook other critical factors influencing the acceptance and use of AI technologies.

    “In addition, focusing solely on VAM and AI literacy may overlook other critical factors influencing the acceptance and use of AI technologies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Investigating students' use intentions through the combined lens of perceived value and AI literacy provides a nuanced understanding of the factors driving the adoption and effective use of ChatGPT in educational settings.

    “Investigating students’ use intentions through the combined lens of perceived value and AI literacy provides a nuanced understanding of the factors driving the adoption and effective use of ChatGPT in educational settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The data collection relied on electronic surveys distributed through university emails and social media, potentially including respondents unfamiliar or inexperienced in ChatGPT, which might have affected the study's conclusions.

    “Furthermore, the data collection relied on electronic surveys distributed through university emails and social media, potentially including respondents unfamiliar or inexperienced in ChatGPT, which might have affected the study’s conclusions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Using this framework, educators and developers can more effectively customise ChatGPT to address the diverse needs of students, improving the adoption and effectiveness of its integration into learning.

    “Using this framework, educators and developers can more effectively customise ChatGPT to address the diverse needs of students, improving the adoption and effectiveness of its integration into learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    AI-literate students are more likely to understand the complexities and capabilities of ChatGPT, leading to an informed appreciation of its functionality.

    “AI-literate students are more likely to understand the complexities and capabilities of ChatGPT, leading to an informed appreciation of its functionality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The link between AI literacy and the perceived value of ChatGPT suggests a critical role for educational initiatives aimed at increasing AI literacy among students in higher education.

    “The link between AI literacy and the perceived value of ChatGPT suggests a critical role for educational initiatives aimed at increasing AI literacy among students in higher education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study relied on a convenience sampling method, selecting participants exclusively from several universities within the authors' eastern region, limiting the findings' applicability to the broader student population across Saudi Arabia.

    “Initially, this study relied on a convenience sampling method, selecting participants exclusively from several universities within the authors’ eastern region, limiting the findings’ applicability to the broader student population across Saudi Arabia.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study treated AI literacy as a single unified construct, which did not account for individual components of AI literacy such as ethical understanding, functional skills, and critical evaluation of AI technologies.

    “Another limitation of this study is the treatment of AI literacy as a single unified construct. While this approach enabled us to assess its overall impact on other variables, it did not account for the individual components of AI literacy, such as ethical understanding, functional skills, and critical evaluation of AI technologies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
43 of 43

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a noticeable lack of research concerning the acceptance and utilisation of ChatGPT by students.

    “Despite the evident potential of ChatGPT in the academic realm, there is a noticeable lack of research concerning its acceptance and utilisation by students.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a glaring gap in the literature concerning how students perceive the value of ChatGPT and the factors, such as AI literacy, which might affect this perception.

    “However, there is a glaring gap in the literature concerning how students perceive the value of such a tool and the factors, such as AI literacy, which might affect this perception.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Empirical investigations specifically into ChatGPT’s acceptance in academic settings are limited.

    “While there is abundant discourse on the potential of AI in education or even the theoretical underpinnings of AI-driven tools, empirical investigations specifically into ChatGPT’s acceptance in academic settings are limited.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The efficacy and impact of ChatGPT in the educational sector depend not just on its capabilities, but also on its acceptance by end users—students, educators, and academic institutions.

    “Like all technological innovations, the efficacy and impact of ChatGPT in the educational sector hinge not just on its capabilities, but also on its acceptance by end users—students, educators, and academic institutions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students in higher education are increasingly exposed to various forms of technology.

    “Students, particularly those in higher education, are increasingly exposed to various forms of technology.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students who have more experience engaging with AI tools are better at navigating risks and understanding the limitations of these technologies.

    “Students who have more experience engaging with AI tools are better at navigating risks and understanding the limitations of these technologies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior study has evaluated ChatGPT acceptance in higher education through an extended VAM framework with AI literacy.

    “This research is among the pioneering efforts to evaluate ChatGPT acceptance in higher education through an extended VAM framework with AI literacy.”
7 of 7

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract says AI literacy has no impact despite reporting significant effects

    Minor

    The abstract says AI literacy did not affect students' perceptions of using ChatGPT in learning, but it also reports that AI literacy predicts several of those perceptions. The results section likewise reports significant effects on perceived usefulness, enjoyment, fees, and value.

  • Discussion reverses the stated direction of H8

    Minor

    H8 hypothesizes a negative effect of AI literacy on perceived risk, whereas the discussion describes the unsupported hypothesis as a positive effect.

2 of 2

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 2024, Leveraging ChatGPT for adult ESL education, WAESOL Educ., 49, 34
  2. Rogers, E.M. (2023). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press. [5th ed.].
  3. Chan, C.K.Y. (2023). Is AI Changing the Rules of Academic Misconduct? An In-depth Look at Students’ Perceptions of ‘AI-giarism’. arXiv.
  4. Fatima, 2021, Examining factors influencing adoption of m-payment: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value, Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang., 15, 276
  5. Luckin, R., and Holmes, W. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education, Pearson.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Alsubaie, M. A.
Affiliations
King Faisal University (SA)
Corresponding author
Al-Abdullatif, Ahlam Mohammed
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-09-19
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
845
ISSN
2076-328X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/bs14090845
PMC
PMC11428673
OpenAlex
W4402690583
Semantic Scholar
858863c832af0d0b1d053657f93488410d7fa9b5
Cited by
126
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 2
FWCI
47.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
King Faisal University (GrantA083)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, AI literacy, perceived value, intention to use, university students, perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, risk perception, perceived cost, AI adoption in education

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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