The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of AI Usage on University Students’ Willingness for Autonomous Learning
Open accessAbstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) technology becomes increasingly integrated into education, understanding the theoretical mechanisms that drive university students to adopt new learning behaviors through these tools is essential. This study extends the Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM) by incorporating both cognitive and affective variables to examine students’ current AI usage and their future expectations. The model includes intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, focusing on three key factors: positive emotions, digital efficacy, and willingness for autonomous learning. A survey of 721 valid responses revealed that positive emotions, digital efficacy, and satisfaction significantly influence continued AI usage, with positive emotions being particularly critical. Digital efficacy and perceived usefulness also impact satisfaction, but long-term usage intentions are more effectively driven by positive emotions. Furthermore, digital efficacy strongly affects the willingness for autonomous learning. Therefore, higher education institutions should promote AI technology, enhance students’ expectation-confirmation levels, and emphasize positive emotional experiences during AI use. Adopting a “human–machine symbiosis” model can foster active learning, personalized learning pathways, and the development of students’ digital efficacy and innovation capabilities.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Prior research has identified satisfaction as one of the strongest predictors of continuance intention”
From Exploring the Role of Generative AI as a Research Assistant in Undergraduate Sociology Research Methods (2026) · cites this paper as Wang & Li, 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Artificial Intelligence tools also contribute to increased intrinsic motivation, student autonomy, and psychological resilience.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A State-of-the-Art Overview of Pedagogical Integrity, Artificial Intelligence Literacy, and Policy Integration (2025) · cites this paper as [60]
In the citing paper
“The 24/7 availability of personalized learning support enhances student confidence while reducing anxiety often associated with traditional instruction [59,60].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A State-of-the-Art Overview of Pedagogical Integrity, Artificial Intelligence Literacy, and Policy Integration (2025) · cites this paper as [60]
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions
Oliver, R. L. (1980) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378001700405 · Cited by 14,494
Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model1
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250921 · Cited by 8,767 · cited 3×
“The theoretical framework for this study is based on the Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM), initially proposed by Bhattacherjee [10].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialComputer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249688 · Cited by 6,553
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
Students' voices on generative ai: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.00290 · Cited by 2,504
Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · Cited by 2,301
Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education
Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 · Cited by 2,019
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148634 · Cited by 1,764
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001 · Cited by 1,082
Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with Science Majors and Nonscience Majors
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20442 · Cited by 733
Özkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011 · Cited by 733
Huang, A. Y. Q., Lu, O. H. T., & Yang, S. J. H. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684 · Cited by 605
Impact of AI assistance on student agency
Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967 · Cited by 548 · cited 1×
“In the age of AI, autonomous learning can fully harness the educational benefits of generative AI, thereby enhancing learners’ independence and self-sufficiency [34].”
BackgroundLiu, G., & Ma, C. (2024) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2023.2240316 · Cited by 511
Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement
Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004 · Cited by 487
Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · Cited by 428
Getenet, S. T., Cantle, R., Redmond, P., & Albion, P. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00437-y · Cited by 412
Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13337 · Cited by 346
Zhang, C., Meng, Y., & Ma, X. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103259 · Cited by 334
The impact of Google Assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate
Tai, T.-Y., & Chen, H. H.-J. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1841801 · Cited by 302
Dai, H. M., Teo, T. P., Rappa, N. A., & Huang, F. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103850 · Cited by 284
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.027 · Cited by 260
Digital Gaming and Language Learning: Autonomy and Community
Chik, A. (2014) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44371 · Cited by 191
Altalhi, M. M. (2020) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10317-x · Cited by 178
Ni, A., & Cheung, A. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11305-z · Cited by 169
Understanding Hong Kong primary school English teachers’ continuance intention to teach with ICT
Bai, B., Wang, J., & Chai, C. S. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1627459 · Cited by 162
The role of universities in modern society
Moscardini, A. O., Strachan, R., & Vlasova, T. (2020) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1807493 · Cited by 144
ChatGPT for Higher Education and Professional Development: A Guide to Conversational AI
Atlas, S. (2023) · Journal of Media Literacy Education · Cited by 144
What drives students’ intention to use tablet computers: An extended technology acceptance model
Zheng, J., & Li, S. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101612 · Cited by 132
Kim, S. H., Bae, J. H., & Jeon, H. M. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11061578 · Cited by 131
Gupta, A. K., Dhiman, N., Yousaf, A., & Arora, N. (2020) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1748715 · Cited by 124
Decision-guided chatbots and cognitive styles in interdisciplinary learning
Iku-Silan, A., Hwang, G., & Chen, C. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104812 · Cited by 124
Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in laptop classrooms
Trimmel, M., & Bachmann, J. (2004) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00076.x · Cited by 111
Li, B., Bonk, C. J., Wang, C., & Kou, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3386098 · Cited by 109
Zadorozhnyy, A., & Lee, J. S. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2023.2215279 · Cited by 101
Dings, R. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02864-0 · Cited by 79
Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Education
(2023) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781800375413 · Cited by 78
A Chatbot System for Mental Healthcare Based on SAT Counseling Method
Kamita, T., Ito, T., Matsumoto, A., Munakata, T., & Inoue, T. (2019) · Mobile Information Systems · doi:10.1155/2019/9517321 · Cited by 69
The Case for Generative AI in Scholarly Practice
Berg, C. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4407587 · Cited by 69
Looking forward: The role of hope in information system continuance
Ding, Y. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.002 · Cited by 55
Paetsch, J., & Drechsel, B. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733830 · Cited by 52
A study of the continuous usage intention of social software in the context of instant messaging
Hong, J., Lee, O.-K. D., & Suh, W. (2013) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-08-2011-0144 · Cited by 43
Beyond the Iron Triangle: improving the quality of teaching and learning at scale
Ryan, T., French, S., & Kennedy, G. E. (2019) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1679763 · Cited by 34
Blondeel, E., Everaert, P. C., & Opdecam, E. (2023) · The British Accounting Review · doi:10.1016/j.bar.2023.101189 · Cited by 33
Owens, J. A., & Lilly, F. R. W. (2017) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-017-9137-1 · Cited by 32
Digital Problem Solving: The Literacies of Navigating Life in the Digital Age
Jacobs, G., & Castek, J. (2018) · Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · doi:10.1002/jaal.745 · Cited by 14
(2021) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Biggs, J.B. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, McGraw-Hill Education.
- Lee, 2011, Adding Innovation Diffusion Theory to the Technology Acceptance Model: Supporting Employees’ Intentions to Use E-Learning Systems, Educ. Technol. Soc., 14, 124
- Wang, 2018, Research on the Influencing Factors of Users’ Continuous Contribution Behavior in Network Group Collaboration, Libr. J., 37, 12
- Liu, 2022, Artificial Intelligence Support for Language Study: How Anthropomorphic Technology Affects Study, J. Electrochem. Educ. Res., 10, 102
- Lv, 2019, Knowledge Purport: The Deep Driving Force Affecting the Quality of Undergraduate Learning Experience in Top Universities: Based on the SERU Survey Data of Eight Universities in China and the United States (2017–2018), High. Educ. Jiangsu, 9, 57
- Sun, 2021, Game and Construction of Human-Technology Relationship in Artificial Intelligence Education: From Reverse Domestication to Technical Mediation, Open Educ. Res., 27, 37
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Merino-Campos, C. (2025) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu4020017 · Cited by 342
Mustofa, R. H., Kuncoro, T. G., Atmono, D., Hermawan, H. D., & Sukirman, S. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100379 · Cited by 187
Adamakis, M., & Rachiotis, T. (2025) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia5040180 · Cited by 76
Liu, G., & Zhao, X. (2025) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344025100359 · Cited by 57
Ninghardjanti, P., Umam, M. C., Subarno, A., Winarno, W., Langgi, N. R., & Widodo, J. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1719625 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, L., & Li, W.
- Affiliations
- Yili Normal University (CN)
- Nanjing University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Wenye
- ORCID
- Venue
- Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-10-16
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 956
- ISSN
- 2076-328X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11505466
- OpenAlex
- W4403493263
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 35.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Education Planning Topics General Project (BIA240122, KYCX24_0098)
- Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (BIA240122, KYCX24_0098)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, university students, self-directed learning, expectation-confirmation model, positive emotions, perceived usefulness, user satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, human-machine symbiosis, personalized learning
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
