CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Artificial Intelligence in EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Assessing the Determinants of Generative AI Integration: A Study on Google's Gemini Adoption Among Thai University Graduate Students

Open access
Limna, Pongsakorn, Kraiwanit, Tanpat·2024·Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
DOI 10.53761/7zmssq60
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) in educational tools like Google's Gemini represents a significant evolution. These technologies aim to revolutionize learning by creating human-like content in various formats, enhancing personalized and engaging educational experiences. This research investigates the factors influencing Thai graduate students' adoption of Google's Gemini, employing a quantitative approach with data from 826 respondents via closed-ended questionnaires through convenience sampling. The analysis included demographic, socio-economic, and media platform preference variables. Using binary logistic regression, the study evaluated how these factors affect graduate students' intentions to use Google’s Gemini in Thailand. Key determinants identified include age, education level, occupational status, and preferences for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube. The study provides insights into the factors influencing Thai graduate students' use of Google's Gemini, useful for stakeholders in digital literacy and technology adoption. It stresses the importance of tailoring digital environments to learners' diverse needs, influenced by demographics and social media, and offers strategies for enhancing digital literacy and engagement. The research also sets the stage for further academic inquiry into educational technology, advocating for an interdisciplinary approach to better understand technology's educational impact.

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 · 10.53761/7zmssq60

Cites

13 of 13 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?

  • Students with more educated parents are more confident and trusting in using AI systems for academic purposes.

    “Students with more educated parents are more confident and trusting in using AI systems for academic purposes, possibly due to more supportive home learning environments and digital culture (Limna & Kraiwanit, 2024).”

    From <b>Beyond Access: Socioeconomic, Academic and Disciplinary Determinants of Generative AI Use in Higher Education</b> (2026) · cites this paper as Limna & Kraiwanit, 2024

    The Demographic factors section discusses parental education as a predictor of academic achievement, while the Discussion links students’ own education level to their intention to use Gemini. Neither passage addresses whether students with more educated parents are more confident in or trusting of AI, or whether a supportive home environment or digital culture explains such a relationship. Searches for those terms found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The impact of social media on learning behavior for sustainable education: Evidence of students from selected universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6), 1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061683 · DOI
  2. Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023). Educational technology: Exploring the convergence of technology and pedagogy through mobility, interactivity, AI, and learning tools. Cogent Engineering, 10(2), 2283282. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2283282 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ali, M. A. B., & Zubairi, S. A. (2020). Impact of demographic factors on impulse buying behavior: A study of consumer behavior in supermarkets of Karachi. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(3), 1-7. https://www.ejbmr.org/index.php/ejbmr/article/view/355
  4. Amegbe, H., Zungu, N. P., & Asamoah, E. S. (2023). How does SME social media adoption drive marketing performance?. African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(1), 1-17. https://journals.co.za/doi/full/10.51415/ajims.v5i1.1174 · DOI
  5. Ananda, D. R. (2024). Students' perception on AI technology: Gemini as a writing assistant tool. Linguistics and ELT Journal, 12(1), 46-54. https://journal.ummat.ac.id/index.php/JELTL/article/view/24393
  6. Asensio, J. M. L., Peralta, J., Arrabales, R., Bedia, M. G., Cortez, P., & Peña, A. L. (2014). Artificial intelligence approaches for the generation and assessment of believable human-like behaviour in virtual characters. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7281-7290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.004 · DOI
  7. Burhanli, S., & Bangir-Alpan, G. (2021). Why do university students prefer YouTube to learn and study?. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(4), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.383. · DOI
  8. Chayomchai, A., Phonsiri, W., Junjit, A., Boongapim, R., & Suwannapusit, U. (2020). Factors affecting acceptance and use of online technology in Thai people during COVID-19 quarantine time. Management Science Letters, 10(13), 3009-3016. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.024 · DOI
  9. Chinonso, O. E., Theresa, A. M. E., & Aduke, T. C. (2023). ChatGPT for teaching, learning and research: Prospects and challenges. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(2), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajhss.2023.v05i02.001 · DOI
  10. Chiu, T. K., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Sustainable curriculum planning for artificial intelligence education: A self-determination theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(14), 5568. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145568 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Crawford, J., Cowling, M., Ashton-Hay, S., Kelder, J., Middleton, R., & Wilson, G. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and authorship editor policy: ChatGPT, Bard Bing AI, and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(5), 1-11. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol20/iss5/1/
  12. Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893- 3200.19.2.294 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Duta, A., Wielgoszewska, B., & Iannelli, C. (2021). Different degrees of career success: Social origin and graduates' education and labour market trajectories. Advances in Life Course Research, 47, 100376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100376 · DOI
  14. Fraccastoro, S., Gabrielsson, M., & Pullins, E. B. (2021). The integrated use of social media, digital, and traditional communication tools in the B2B sales process of international SMEs. International Business Review, 30(4), 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101776 · DOI
  15. Funda, V. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence-enabled decision support system for South African higher education institutions. Doctoral dissertation, Cape Peninsula University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.25381/cput.25397755.v1 · DOI
  16. Gajanova, L., Nadanyiova, M., & Moravcikova, D. (2019). The use of demographic and psychographic segmentation to creating marketing strategy of brand loyalty. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 66(1), 65-84. https://saeb.feaa.uaic.ro/index.php/saeb/article/view/1115
  17. García-Peñalvo, F. J., Llorens Largo, F., & Vidal, J. (2023). The new reality of education in the face of advances in generative artificial intelligence. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 27(1), 9-39. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.27.1.37716 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.. (2023). A general introduction to artificial intelligence. In Artificial Intelligence Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2879- 6_1 · DOI
  19. Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2024). Google Gemini as a next generation AI educational tool: A review of emerging educational technology. Smart Learning Environments, 11, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00310-z · DOI
  20. Ismail, F., Tan, E., Rudolph, J., Crawford, J., & Tan, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education. A protocol paper for a systematic literature review. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.34 · DOI
  21. Kasmia, N. B., & M'hamed, H. (2023). Digitalization of higher education: Impacts on management practices and institutional development. A literature review. Conhecimento & Diversidade, 15(39), 56-82. https://doi.org/10.18316/rcd.v15i39.11135 · DOI
  22. Khademi, A. (2023). Can ChatGPT and Bard generate aligned assessment items? A reliability analysis against human performance. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 75- 80. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.28 · DOI
  23. Knowles, M., Knowles, M.S., Holton III, E.F., Holton III, E.F., Robinson, P.A., Swanson, R.A., Swanson, R., & Robinson, P.A. (2020). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (9th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429299612 · DOI
  24. Kuleto, V., Ilić, M., Dumangiu, M., Ranković, M., Martins, O. M., Păun, D., & Mihoreanu, L. (2021). Exploring opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence and machine learning in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 13(18), 10424. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810424 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kurlaender, M., & Hibel, J. (2018). Students' educational pathways: Aspirations, decisions, and constrained choices along the education lifecourse. In Schneider, B. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Education in the 21st Century. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76694-2_16 · DOI
  26. Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Computers & Education, 95, 216-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.012 · DOI
  27. Mcdonald, N., Razi, A., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Seberger, J. S., Agosto, D., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2023, October). AI through the eyes of Gen Z: Setting a research agenda for emerging technologies that empower our future generation. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 518- 521). https://doi.org/10.1145/3584931.3611281 · DOI
  28. Mukhamediev, R. I., Popova, Y., Kuchin, Y., Zaitseva, E., Kalimoldayev, A., Symagulov, A., Levashenko, V., Abdoldina, F., Gopejenko, V., Yakunin, K., & Muhamedijeva, E. (2022). Review of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies: Classification, restrictions, opportunities and challenges. Mathematics, 10(15), 2552. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152552 · DOI
  29. Petrović, V. M. (2018). Artificial intelligence and virtual worlds-toward human-level AI agents. IEEE Access, 6, 39976-39988. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2855970 · DOI
  30. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Qalati, S. A., Yuan, L. W., Khan, M. A. S., & Anwar, F. (2021). A mediated model on the adoption of social media and SMEs' performance in developing countries. Technology in Society, 64, 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101513 · DOI
  32. Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. (2022). What's to like? Facebook as a tool for survey data collection. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(1), 108-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119882477 · DOI
  33. Schörner, K., & Bittmann, F. (2023). Children's aspirations, their perceptions of parental aspirations, and parents' factual aspirations-Gaining insights into a complex world of interdependencies. European Sociological Review, jcad074. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad074 · DOI
  34. Shandilya, S. K., Datta, A., Kartik, Y., & Nagar, A. (2024). Role of artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Digital Resilience: Navigating Disruption and Safeguarding Data Privacy (pp. 313-399). EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53290-0_6 · DOI
  35. Shoufan, A., & Mohamed, F. (2022). YouTube and education: A scoping review. IEEE Access, 10, 125576-125599. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3225419 · DOI
  36. Siad, S. M. (2023). The promise and perils of Google's Bard for scientific research. Humanities Commons, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.17613/yb4n-mc79 · DOI
  37. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Thai, K., Tsiandoulas, K. H., Stephenson, E. A., Menna-Dack, D., Shaul, R. Z., Anderson, J. A., Shinewald, A. R., Ampofo, A., & McCradden, M. D. (2023). Perspectives of youths on the ethical use of artificial intelligence in health care research and clinical care. JAMA Network Open, 6(5), e2310659. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10659 · DOI
  39. Vahdat, A., Alizadeh, A., Quach, S., & Hamelin, N. (2021). Would you like to shop via mobile app technology? The technology acceptance model, social factors and purchase intention. Australasian Marketing Journal, 29(2), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.01.002 · DOI
  40. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members' lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.004 · DOI
  41. Wang, Q., Myers, M. D., & Sundaram, D. (2013). Digital natives and digital immigrants: Towards a model of digital fluency. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 55, 409-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-013-0390-2 · DOI
  42. Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/58701

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Limna, P., & Kraiwanit, T.
Affiliations
Rangsit University (TH)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2024-11-05
Volume
21
Issue
10
ISSN
1449-9789 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.53761/7zmssq60
OpenAlex
W4404026816
Cited by
13
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
generative AI adoption, Google Gemini, technology adoption factors, graduate students, digital literacy, demographic factors, educational technology, Thai university students

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