FACTORS INFLUENCING CHATGPT USAGE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN GEORGIA
Abstract
This study investigates the key determinants influencing the adoption of ChatGPT among university students in Georgia, contributing to the growing body of literature on artificial intelligence integration in higher education. As generative AI tools become increasingly prevalent in academic environments worldwide, understanding the factors that drive or inhibit their adoption in specific socio-cultural and institutional contexts is of critical importance. This research addresses a notable gap in the existing scholarship, as post-Soviet educational settings remain significantly underrepresented in technology adoption studies despite their distinct structural and cultural characteristics.
The study draws on primary data collected from 150 students enrolled at a Georgian university through an online questionnaire utilizing a 10-point Likert scale. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify statistically significant predictors of ChatGPT usage for academic purposes. The analytical framework integrates social influence theory with established technology acceptance models, offering a theoretically grounded lens through which to interpret adoption behavior in the context of generative AI tools.
The findings reveal that peer encouragement and institutional support are the most influential factors driving ChatGPT adoption, with odds ratios of 1.180 and 1.264, respectively. These results underscore the pivotal role that social networks and university-level policies play in shaping students' willingness to incorporate AI tools into their academic workflows. Strong positive correlations were also identified between perceived helpfulness in completing assignments, improved comprehension of complex subject matter, and overall study efficiency, suggesting that students are primarily motivated by tangible academic benefits when evaluating AI tools.
Gender differences in adoption patterns were examined, with male students demonstrating a statistically significant higher likelihood of using ChatGPT for academic work compared to their female counterparts. This finding highlights the importance of considering demographic variables when designing AI literacy programs and institutional support structures.
The study further evaluates the tension between fostering technological innovation and upholding academic integrity within higher education institutions. As universities navigate the challenges posed by generative AI, the findings provide actionable implications for the development of evidence-based AI integration strategies. This research ultimately calls for a balanced institutional approach, one that promotes digital competency and equitable access while safeguarding the principles of original scholarly work.
Downloads
References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
Baskara, F. R., & Mukarto, M. (2023). Exploring the implications of ChatGPT for language learning in higher education. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 343-358. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v7i2.1387
Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., ... Wright, R. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT self-efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships. Computers & Education, 118, 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.011
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106
Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7), 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570-581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Maruping, L. M., & Magni, M. (2015). Motivating employees to explore collaboration technology in team contexts. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.01
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. The Wharton School Research Paper, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4391243
Nistor, N., Göğüş, A., & Lerche, T. (2014). Educational technology acceptance across national and professional cultures: A European study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 461-482.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150-162.
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), 07. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342-363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Salanova, M., Grau, R. M., Cifre, E., & Llorens, S. (2005). Computer training, frequency of usage and burnout: The moderating role of computer self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6), 575-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00028-5
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
Sumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067-2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of e-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645-1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002
Tindall, I. K., & Curtis, G. J. (2020). Negative emotionality predicts attitudes toward plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(1), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09343-3
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Trust, T., Whalen, J., & Mouza, C. (2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 1-23.
Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
