Cited by 167Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in Service Interactions

Perceptions and Use of AI Chatbots among Students in Higher Education: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies

Open access
Schei, Odin Monrad, Møgelvang, Anja, Ludvigsen, Kristine·2024·Education Sciences

Abstract

With the recent arrival of publicly available AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Claude follows a need for knowledge about how students in higher education perceive and use these tools, and what this might mean for their learning processes. This scoping review analyzes 24 empirical articles published between 1 January 2022 and 5 September 2023 on students’ perceptions and use of AI chatbots in higher education. The articles were reviewed using a five-stage scoping review methodology. The findings underscore a global research interest in how students engage with AI chatbots, which is especially pronounced in Asia. The studies span diverse disciplines, with a predominance in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. The empirical findings reveal that students perceive AI chatbots as highly useful and motivating as personal task assistants and for getting immediate feedback and help with writing, coding, and academic tasks. However, students are concerned about the accuracy and reliability of the responses from the chatbots, as well as potential negative impacts on their learning processes, critical thinking, discipline, and creativity. The purpose-driven use of AI chatbots among students and their potentially positive influence on motivation and learning processes offer insights for educators and policymakers. Our research concludes that while positive attitudes, perceptions, and critical use prevail, addressing students’ concerns is crucial for responsible AI integration in higher 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 · 10.3390/educsci14080922

Cites

70 of 70 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?

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: 9

  1. Kevian, D.; Syed, U.; Guo, X.; Havens, A.; Dullerud, G.; Seiler, P.; Qin, L.; Hu, B. Capabilities of Large Language Models in Control Engineering: A Benchmark Study on GPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini 1.0 Ultra. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.03647. · arXiv
  2. Biggs, J.; Tang, C.; Kennedy, G. Ebook: Teaching for Quality Learning at University 5e; McGraw-Hill Education (UK): London, UK, 2022.
  3. Papaioannou, D.; Sutton, A.; Booth, A. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1-336.
  4. Muñoz, S.A.S.; Gayoso, G.G.; Huambo, A.C. Examining the Impacts of ChatGPT on Student Motivation and Engagement. Soc. Space 2023, 23, 1-27.
  5. Qureshi, B. Exploring the use of chatgpt as a tool for learning and assessment in undergraduate computer science curriculum: Opportunities and challenges. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2304.11214. · arXiv
  6. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research; Pearson: London, UK, 2012.
  7. Chu, H.-C.; Hwang, G.-H.; Tu, Y.-F.; Yang, K.-H. Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2022, 38, 22-42.
  8. Mládková, L. Learning habits of generation Z students. In European Conference on Knowledge Management; Academic Conferences International Limited: Reading, UK, 2017; pp. 698-703.
  9. Jonassen, D. Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2011, 5, 95-119.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schei, O. M., Møgelvang, A., & Ludvigsen, K.
Affiliations
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (NO)
Corresponding author
Schei, Odin Monrad
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-08-22
Volume
14
Issue
8
Pages
922
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401886088
Cited by
166
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 6
FWCI
62.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
AI chatbots, student perceptions, university students, ChatGPT, generative AI in education, student motivation, critical thinking, responsible AI adoption, academic writing support, coding assistance

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