Higher Education Students’ Perceptions of GenAI Tools for Learning
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
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-focused research has examined how learners perceive GenAI as a learning tool, including its efficiency, interaction, affect, and intention to use.
“By contrast, student-focused research has examined how learners perceive GenAI as a learning tool, including its efficiency, interaction, affect, and intention to use [5].”
From Engineering student perceptions of generative AI use in learning trust judgment and information seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Generative AI is often discussed as a resource that may support learning, improve efficiency, and expand access to educational assistance.
“Consequently, GenAI is often discussed as a resource that may support learning, improve efficiency, and expand access to educational assistance [5,6].”
From Engineering student perceptions of generative AI use in learning trust judgment and information seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · see citing works
ChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842 · see citing works
Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers
Vears, D. F., & Gillam, L. (2022) · Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal · doi:10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544 · Cited by 741 · see citing works
Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic Analysis and Follow-Up Survey
Shoufan, A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3268224 · Cited by 499 · see citing works
Kelly, A., Sullivan, M., & Strampel, K. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.6.12 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
How Nature readers are using ChatGPT
Owens, B. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00500-8 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mengesha, Z., Estellore, J., Smith, J., George, M. S., McFarlane, R. A., & Parmar, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1825937 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Mohammed, Y., Qandil, H., & Lund, B. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-02086-2
- 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