Use of generative AI by higher education students
Open accessAbstract
This research aims to explore the use, perceptions, and challenges associated with generative AI (GenAI) among higher education students. As GenAI technologies, such as language models, image generators, and code assistants, become increasingly prevalent in academic settings, it is essential to understand how students engage with these tools and their impact on their learning process. The study investigates students’ awareness, adoption patterns, and perceptions of generative AI’s role in academic tasks, alongside the benefits they identify and the challenges they face, including ethical concerns, reliability, and accessibility. Through quantitative methods, the research provides a comprehensive analysis of student experiences with generative AI in higher education. The findings aim to inform educators, technologists, and institutions about the opportunities and barriers of integrating these technologies into educational practices and guide the development of strategies that support effective and responsible AI use in academia.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Student psychological adaptation depends less on abstract policy flexibility and more on regulatory clarity, actionable pedagogical practices, verifiable assessment criteria, and accessible support mechanisms.
“Empirical evidence suggests that student psychological adaptation depends less on abstract policy flexibility and more on regulatory clarity, actionable pedagogical practices, verifiable assessment criteria, and accessible support mechanisms (Sousa and Cardoso, 2025).”
From Multidimensional responses to generative AI in higher education: an integrative framework linking institutional governance, teaching practice, and student psychological adaptation (2026) · cites this paper as Sousa and Cardoso, 2025
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 52 · Cited by 95
- Authors
- Sousa, A. E., & Cardoso, P.
- Affiliations
- Universidade de Leiria e Oeste (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Sousa, Ana Elisa
- Venue
- Electronics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-03-22
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1258
- ISSN
- 2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408774046
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 79 · 2025: 16
- FWCI
- 97.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Instituto Politécnico de Leiria (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- CITUR/IPLeiria (Centre for Tourism Research, Development and Innovation) (FCT 2025-2029)
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- generative AI, university students, student perceptions, artificial intelligence adoption, academic use of AI, ethical considerations, AI reliability, accessibility, responsible AI use, artificial intelligence 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.
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
