Cited by 41

Higher Education Students’ Perceptions of GenAI Tools for Learning

Daher, Wajeeh, Hussein, Asma·2024·Information

Abstract

Students’ perceptions of tools with which they learn affect the outcomes of this learning. GenAI tools are new tools that have promise for students’ learning, especially higher education students. Examining students’ perceptions of GenAI tools as learning tools can help instructors better plan activities that utilize these tools in the higher education context. The present research considers four components of students’ perceptions of GenAI tools: efficiency, interaction, affect, and intention. To triangulate data, it combines the quantitative and the qualitative methodologies, by using a questionnaire and by conducting interviews. A total of 153 higher education students responded to the questionnaire, while 10 higher education students participated in the interview. The research results indicated that the means of affect, interaction, and efficiency were significantly medium, while the mean of intention was significantly high. The research findings showed that in efficiency, affect, and intention, male students had significantly higher perceptions of AI tools than female students, but in the interaction component, the two genders did not differ significantly. Moreover, the degree affected only the perception of interaction of higher education students, where the mean value of interaction was significantly different between B.A. and Ph.D. students in favor of Ph.D. students. Moreover, medium-technology-knowledge and high-technology-knowledge students differed significantly in their perceptions of working with AI tools in the interaction component only, where this difference was in favor of the high-technology-knowledge students. Furthermore, AI knowledge significantly affected efficiency, interaction, and affect of higher education students, where they were higher in favor of high-AI-knowledge students over low-AI-knowledge students, as well as in favor of medium-AI-knowledge students over low-AI-knowledge students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/info15070416

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daher, W., & Hussein, A.
Affiliations
Department of Higher Education, An-Najah National University, Nablus P420, Palestine
Venue
Information
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-07-18
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
416
ISSN
2078-2489
Cited by
41
References
6
Language
en

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