SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-025-04010-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Exploring Students’ Perceptions and Satisfaction of Using GenAIChatGPT Tools for Learning in Higher Education: A Mixed Methods
Study
Joey Ng1
· Mavis Tong1 · Eva Y.M. Tsang1 · Kevin Chu1 · William Tsang1
Received: 25 December 2024 / Accepted: 28 April 2025
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2025
Abstract
This study investigates students’ perceptions and satisfaction with using GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their learning processes,
aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of how students perceive and integrate ChatGPT into their educational
activities. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining an online survey of 1,963 respondents who reported using
generative AI tools like ChatGPT for learning, with in-depth interviews involving 14 students to capture qualitative
insights into their experiences and perceptions. The study commenced with the online survey to collect data on students’
experiences and feedback regarding ChatGPT. The internal consistency of the survey instruments was evaluated using
Cronbach’s Alpha, with values exceeding 0.7, indicating high reliability. A right-tailed t-test across all three scales yielded
a p-value of less than 0.001, suggesting that students had a positive user experience, perceived the tools as useful, and
expressed overall satisfaction with GenAI-ChatGPT tools. Following the quantitative survey, a qualitative study involving
focus groups was conducted to explore students’ perceptions and concerns about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools. The qualitative analysis identified five key themes: purposes, user experience, usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools, overall satisfaction, and students’ attitudes and reactions. These focus groups provided nuanced insights into how students interact with
and perceive the value of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their academic endeavors. The findings indicate that students exhibit
a positive attitude towards GenAI-ChatGPT tools, recognizing its value in enhancing quick thinking and responsiveness.
The statistically significant differences between mean scores and the test value support these positive perceptions. This
study offers valuable insights for the development and refinement of GenAI-ChatGPT tools to better meet student needs
and expectations.
Keywords GenAI · ChatGPT · Learning process · User experience · Critical thinking · Learning technology
Introduction
Joey Ng
jng@hkmu.edu.hk
Mavis Tong
mtong@hkmu.edu.hk
Eva Y.M. Tsang
etsang@hkmu.edu.hk
Kevin Chu
kwkchu@hkmu.edu.hk
William Tsang
wntsang@hkmu.edu.hk
1
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong
Metropolitan University, Kowloon, China
The increasing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
tools in educational settings has sparked a significant shift
in teaching and learning practices. Among these tools, the
Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and Generative AI (GenAI) have emerged as valuable resources for
students. Recognizing their potential, Hong Kong Metropolitan University (HKMU) has encouraged students to responsibly utilize these tools, while emphasizing the importance
of ownership, referencing, and critical thinking. To maintain
transparency and understand the impacts of these AI tools on
students’ learning experiences, the university implemented
a policy in September 2023 requiring students to acknowledge the use of GenAI tools and specify their purposes in
SN Computer Science
476
Page 2 of 17
assignments. In particular, HKMU has taken advantage
of the advanced GPT-4 model to build and launch its own
ChatGPT Web Portal for its staff and students since 2023. In
order to evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of employing these GenAI tools at HKMU, it is significantly relevant
to explore students’ perceptions of these tools (in particular,
the ChatGPT Web Portal). Taking a user-centric approach to
study the potential benefits and drawbacks of GenAI tools
in higher education could allow students to reflect on their
user experience, hence reminding them to maintain precaution in using these GenAI tools. With student feedback on
using these AI tools, the education sector can effectively
overcome any potential barriers, develop appropriate strategies for integrating AI tools into the learning environment,
continually improve and adapt AI tools to facilitate students’
learning, and promote student engagement, satisfaction, and
learning outcomes [1, 2]. Although AI tools could possibly
transform the education industry, their success relies heavily on student feedback and acceptance [1]. That is why
exploring student perception and satisfaction with using
these AI tools is critical to their effective implementation,
as well as continuous development in higher education [1,
2]. Understanding students’ perceptions and interactions
with these tools, as well as their reliance on them for academic endeavors, is crucial. By exploring students’ experiences and attitudes towards GenAI-ChatGPT tools, a deeper
understanding of the benefits, drawbacks, and implications
associated with its usage can be obtained. Educators can tailor their approaches based on how students interact with and
benefit from the technology, ensuring that it complements
traditional learning methods. Feedback from students highlights specific areas where GenAI-ChatGPT may fall short,
such as accuracy, relevance, or ease of use for various learning purposes. This information is also crucial for developers
aiming to refine the tool and for educators who might need
to raise students’ awareness of the problems associated with
using it.
This study aims to investigate the specific utilization
of GenAI-ChatGPT tools by students in their learning and
assignments, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of how students perceive and integrate GenAI-ChatGPT
tools into their learning processes. The increasing prevalence of GenAI-ChatGPT tools, in educational settings
offers innovative ways for students to explore and enhance
their learning experiences. However, questions and concerns arise regarding the effectiveness and limitations of
integrating GenAI-ChatGPT tools within the educational
context. While this study focuses on perceptions, it does not
preclude the need for future research examining the effects
of students’ use of AI-generated tools on their academic
performance. The current study facilitates the identification of students’ intentions, emotional responses, cognitive
SN Computer Science
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
reasoning, and perceived usefulness as they adopt GenAIChatGPT, laying the groundwork for further research into
the effects of using ChatGPT on their actual academic performance and providing context for why certain outcomes
may occur.
To achieve the aims, the study employs a mixed methodology approach combining quantitative and qualitative
methods. A quantitative survey was administered to collect
data on students’ usage and feedback regarding GenAIChatGPT tools, followed by descriptive analysis. Additionally, qualitative focus group interviews were conducted to
delve into students’ perceptions and concerns surrounding
the use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools. This study provides a
detailed exploration of students’ perceptions regarding the
use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
Literature Review
Large Language Models (LLMs)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a vast field, and the term “artificial intelligence” was coined by Professor John McCarthy,
who also claimed the founding year of AI as 1956 [3]. AI
involves creating intelligent machines and developing intelligent computer programs. In the context of chatbots, different Large Language Models (LLMs) are utilized to generate
responses based on user input. These models, such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), are trained using
vast amounts of text data from sources like books and online
databases, including Wikipedia. They are essentially robots
that can be commanded by humans to generate various types
of content, such as articles, stories, resumes, or letters. Various companies have developed their own language models,
and OpenAI’s GPT is one prominent example, powering the
chatbot ChatGPT. Other tech companies have also developed their own models using different training methods and
datasets. LLMs exhibit great versatility and can perform
diverse tasks, including text translation, code writing, chatbot functionality, generating different genres of text, and
even generating images from text [4].
ChatGPT
GPT is the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, a
popular chatbot developed by OpenAI in 2018. GPT offers
several advantages, including efficient handling of large
amounts of text, capturing the word order in sentences,
and continuous improvement through learning from extensive existing data [5, 6]. In November 2022, the generative
artificial intelligence (GenAI) tool ChatGPT 3.5 was introduced as a new chatbot based on the Generative Pre-trained
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
Transformer Model [7, 8]. Subsequently, in March 2023,
OpenAI released the pay-for-use version GPT-4, which
leveraged the same training data but reportedly exhibited
enhanced factual accuracy, reduced probability of generating offensive or dangerous output, and improved responsiveness to user intentions expressed in questions or queries.
Using ChatGPT in Higher Education
The use of ChatGPT is particularly disruptive in Higher
Education, as it provides students with immediate, personalized feedback and guidance, offering an extensive range of
responses accessible anytime and anywhere. Its applications
include assisting with tasks such as essay writing, scientific
article composition, brainstorming research ideas, conducting literature reviews, enhancing papers, and even proofreading text for structural, punctuation, and grammatical
errors [6, 9–12]. The issue of student plagiarism in academic
assignments has been a topic of concern among scholars. A
study by [13] has provided a summary of criticisms regarding
the use of ChatGPT by students in their writing assignments,
drawing upon earlier studies that examined the introduction
of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in educational
settings. Several reports have highlighted instances where
university students have utilized chatbots to complete their
assignments, papers, and homework [14–17]. Scholars
have examined the benefits, risks, ethical considerations,
and the impact of LLMs on traditional assessment methods
[18–20]. Of particular concern is the possibility of students
overly relying on ChatGPT, which may hinder their critical
thinking skills and ability to evaluate content and information. Findings from a survey conducted by Intelligent.com
[21] reveal that nearly one-third of college students utilized
ChatGPT for their schoolwork during the 2023 academic
year. In addition, a separate investigation by BestColleges.
com [22] highlighted some concerning aspects of AI tool
usage. This study revealed that approximately half of college students confessed to using AI tools like ChatGPT for
cheating or plagiarism. Despite being aware of the potential
negative consequences, the study also found that one in five
students continued to use these tools.
It is important to consider potential drawbacks and concerns associated with the use of ChatGPT. An article [23]
in 2024 revealed students’ apprehensions regarding the
accuracy of information provided by ChatGPT, raising concerns about potential academic dishonesty. This highlights
the need for careful consideration and monitoring when
integrating ChatGPT into educational settings. However,
numerous studies indicate that students actively employ
ChatGPT for their learning purposes. Authors in [7] emphasized that ChatGPT could assist students in developing various skills, including reading, writing, information analysis,
Page 3 of 17
476
critical thinking, problem-solving, generating practice problems, and research. The findings of a study [24] concurred
with this view, highlighting that students eagerly take
advantage of this tool in multiple areas, such as reviewing
concepts from academic articles, obtaining general information, seeking further elaborations, and using it as a quick
reference tool for their studies or broader knowledge fields
[25–28].
In recent years, several studies have explored the potential of ChatGPT in assisting students with their writing skills
and enhancing their learning experiences [29]. A study [30]
demonstrated the effectiveness of ChatGPT in supporting
students’ writing development, particularly in terms of
fostering diverse forms of expression. Through engaging
in paraphrasing activities facilitated by ChatGPT, students
were able to illustrate their ideas and arrive at independent
conclusions, thereby enhancing their creative thinking abilities. The process of reviewing the responses and feedback
generated by ChatGPT also proved valuable in improving
students’ comprehension, linguistic skills, and critical thinking [25, 27, 31–33]. These findings highlight the benefits of
incorporating paraphrasing activities into students’ writing
routines. Spanos’ study [34] further explored the potential
of ChatGPT by examining student interactions with the AI
as part of their learning process. This research built upon
Bloom’s six cognitive processes of learning (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and
creating) and the taxonomy’s four types of knowledge
(factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) as
established by [35–37]. The findings highlighted students’
ability to acquire knowledge at various levels through their
interactions with ChatGPT. Additional studies by [38, 39]
supported these findings, showing that dialogues with ChatGPT improved students’ conceptual knowledge and critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, students’ metacognitive
knowledge was enhanced as they compared their responses
to those generated by ChatGPT. The reviewed studies collectively highlight the potential of GenAI-ChatGPT as a tool
for enhancing knowledge acquisition, critical thinking, and
metacognitive development among students. However, they
also underscore the challenges inherent in the implementation of such tools. These studies provide a framework for
our current research, which aims to bridge the knowledge
gap in students’ learning.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Our study delves deeper into students’ perceptions and attitudes towards GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their learning, particularly in the context of writing assignments. The literature
review reveals ongoing debates on issues such as plagiarism and the potential for over-reliance on AI to undermine
SN Computer Science
476
Page 4 of 17
students’ critical thinking skills and evaluation abilities. In
response to these debates, our study was conducted using an
online questionnaire and student interviews to gain a more
nuanced understanding of students’ experiences and reactions to using GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
The goal of this study is to provide valuable insights into
students’ responses to the feedback or answers generated
by GenAI-ChatGPT tools. These insights aim to empower
instructors to effectively integrate ChatGPT into curriculum
design and guide students toward achieving optimal learning outcomes.
The study explores the role of generative AI tools, such
as ChatGPT, in student learning by addressing five key
research questions derived from the literature review. These
questions focus on understanding (1) the purposes for which
students use ChatGPT, (2) their experiences and perceptions
of its usefulness, (3) their overall satisfaction, and (4) their
attitudes toward its integration into learning processes.
The study addresses the following research questions:
Q1 For what purposes do students use generative AI tools
like ChatGPT in their learning?
Q2 How do students experience the use of generative AI
tools like ChatGPT in their learning?
Q3 How useful do students perceive generative AI tools
like ChatGPT to be in facilitating their learning?
Q4 How satisfied are students with the use of generative AI
tools like ChatGPT in their learning?
Q5 What are students’ attitudes and reactions toward the
use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT in their learning?
To systematically investigate these aspects, the study formulates and tests two hypotheses. The first hypothesis examines whether students’ ratings of user experience, perceived
usefulness, and satisfaction significantly exceed neutral
benchmarks, while the second investigates whether these
perceptions vary across different schools. These hypotheses are tested using a mixed-methods approach, combining
quantitative analyses with qualitative insights from student
interviews, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the
phenomenon.
To address these questions, the study tests the following
hypotheses:
H1 Students’ mean ratings of user experience, perceived
usefulness, and overall satisfaction with ChatGPT will be
SN Computer Science
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
significantly higher than the average mean on a 5-point Likert scale.
H2 There will be significant differences in students’ perceptions of user experience, perceived usefulness, and overall
satisfaction across different schools.
Mixed Research Methods
During the 2023-24 academic year, a mixed-methods
approach was employed to voluntarily gather feedback
on students’ perceptions and satisfaction of using GenAIChatGPT tools for learning. With the purpose of methodological triangulation [40], the data was collected and
analyzed through mixed methods (i.e. both qualitative and
quantitative data collection instruments, procedures and
data analysis). The key advantages of methodological triangulation are to enhance the richness of the information
obtained, improve the validity and reliability of the findings
and eventually provide an in-depth understanding of the
phenomenon under study [40]. It further helps to provide
more comprehensive data and to enhance understanding of
the phenomenon [41].
Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis
The study began with an online survey to collect data on students’ user experiences with ChatGPT and their feedback.
A customized questionnaire, based on previous research
by [24, 42, 43], was created for this study. The questionnaire consisted of three main parts: the first collected information about the participants’ study program, the second
asked questions related to our research goals, and the third
allowed for open comments. A 5-point scale, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree) to
5 (strongly agree), was used to understand students’ perceptions of using GenAI-ChatGPT tools. This scale helped us
assess their opinions in a detailed way.
All students were invited to participate in this online
questionnaire on the topic of using GenAI-ChatGPT tools
in their learning. The internal consistency of these questionnaires was assessed using a Cronbach’s Alpha test. A Cronbach’s alpha value higher than 0.7 indicated a high level
of internal consistency. The three scales demonstrated high
internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.854,
0.920, and 0.937, respectively. The collected data was analyzed using SPSS software, employing descriptive analysis
and one-sample t-tests.
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
Page 5 of 17
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Subsequent to the quantitative online survey, the results were
further informed with a qualitative study involving focus
groups, which explored students’ perceptions and concerns
regarding the use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools. Interviews
with the focus groups were semi-structured, using openended questions in order to gain a deeper understanding
of students’ experiences and thoughts about using GenAIChatGPT tools in their learning. Semi-structured interviews
were suitable in this case because probing and open-ended
questions were needed in the focus group in order to know
the independent thoughts of each individual in a group [44].
The qualitative data allowed us to thoroughly explore and
analyze how students perceive GenAI-ChatGPT as a learning tool and provided a comprehensive evaluation of our
research objectives.
A subset of 14 students out of the total 1,963 participants
was selected for the focus group interview section, providing deeper insights into their experiences and reactions. 14
full-time students from the nursing and business studies disciplines were selected for the interviews to delve deeper into
their learning experiences with GenAI-ChatGPT tools and
their reactions to the generated responses.
Table 1 Thematic analysis of qualitative data
Themes
Sub-themes
(1) Purposes of the
a. Ideas generation
utilization of AI tools
b. Support learning experiences
for learning
(2) User experience
about using GenAIChatGPT tools for
learning
a. Be cautious to verify the authenticity,
accuracy and reliability of information
generated by GenAI-ChatGPT
b. Take a proactive approach and avoid
plagiarism
c. Take a conservative approach towards
verifying the accuracy of GenAI-ChatGPT response
(3) Usefulness of
a. Positive reception: Facilitate learning
GenAI-ChatGPT tools b. Areas of improvements
in facilitating learning
(4) Overall satisfaction a. A valuable resource for generating
about using GenAIideas for assignments
ChatGPT tools for
b. A dependable tool for generating sumlearning
maries of notes during revision
(5) Students’ attitudes a. Take cautious to avoid plagiarism and
and reactions towards maintain academic integrity
the utilization of
b. Concern for the authenticity and reliGenAI-ChatGPT tools ability of information generated
in their learning
c. Employ critical thinking
d. Improve learning skills
e. Facilitate self-directed learning
476
Nine students from Business Administration Schools
were selected to participate in two focus groups interviews on 30 April 2024. Whereas, two and four students
from School of Nursing and Health Sciences were selected
to participate in two focus groups interview on 16 and 25
April 2024 respectively. Each focus group interview was
lasted for nearly 60 min and the entire process was audiorecorded. These recordings were transcribed with the intention to organize the disorderliness of ordinary dialogs [45].
The transcription was made in Chinese. Given it would be
time-consuming and meticulous to conduct a conversational
analysis [45], a simplified notation system (which was
based on Poland’s [46] alternative abbreviated instructions
and Silverman’s [45] simplified transcription symbols) was
selected as the transcription method.
After the transcription, the qualitative data was interpreted through a thematic analysis (see Table 1). Thematic
analysis was adopted, because it is a common research skill
shared across qualitative analyses, and it has an advantage
of being highly flexible in terms of identifying themes and
pattern out of the qualitative data [47]. According to [47],
thematic analysis was conducted via six steps: (1) familiarizing with the qualitative data, (2) generating initial codes,
(3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining
Initial Codes
✓ Generating ideas for assignments/projects
✓ Drawing
✓ Seeking clarification on accounting concepts
✓ Addressing internship-related issues
✓ Practicing English language
✓ Preparing questionnaires for business cases and interviewers
✓ Summarizing articles/large volume of information
✓ Preparing questions for revision/self-assessment
✓ Verifying the correctness of information generated by GenAI-ChatGPT
✓ Employing cross-referencing approach
✓ Relying on their own cognitive sense / clinical sense / lecturer notes
✓ Employing various methods to identify unreliable or inauthentic
information
✓ Perceiving responses from GenAI-ChatGPT as incorrect or superficial
✓ Using additional sources (such as Google search, lecture notes and
previous clinical experience)
✓ Providing timely feedback
✓ Providing summary to enhance understanding after lectures
✓ Need to enhance information accuracy and appropriateness
✓ Useful for general subjects such as Management and Core Values.
✓ Not as beneficial for specific subjects such as Accounting / Nursing
courses.
✓ Setting prompts
✓ Cross-referencing
✓ Reviewing works/assignments multiple times
✓ Rephrasing answers based on their own writing before submission
✓ Adding personal touch to the content
✓ Verifying facts and sources from Google search
✓ Improving skills in reading, questioning, expression, paraphrasing,
writing, quick response, analysis, evaluation, consolidation and creativity
SN Computer Science
476
Page 6 of 17
SN Computer Science
and naming themes, and (6) producing a report. Steps 1–3
were performed independently by each author. Then, all
themes, sub-themes and codes were reviewed, discussed
and agreed among all authors (i.e. Steps 4–5). Lastly, the
qualitative analysis report was produced (i.e. Step 6) based
on the following five key themes:
(1) Purposes of the utilization of AI tools for learning;
(2) User experience about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for
learning;
(3) Usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in facilitating
learning;
(4) Overall satisfaction about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools
for learning; and.
(5) Students’ attitudes and reactions towards the utilization
of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their learning.
Results and Discussion
The survey was conducted from 17 November 2023 to 31
January 2024, inviting 28,054 students from full-time, parttime, and distance learning courses to participate. Participation was entirely voluntary, and a total of 2,887 students
responded, yielding a response rate of 10.3%. This response
rate is consistent with rates observed in large-scale online
surveys, particularly in educational research involving
diverse student populations [48, 49]. The absolute sample
size of 2,887 respondents is substantial and provides a
robust dataset for quantitative analysis. For many statistical
analyses, a sample of this magnitude is sufficient to detect
meaningful effects and ensure reliable results. Furthermore,
the demographic characteristics of respondents closely align
with those of the larger student population, enhancing the
generalizability of the findings and ensuring that diverse
perspectives are represented.
The distribution of respondents was proportionate among
the schools (see Table 2). The majority of respondents were
full-time students (78%) and were enrolled in undergraduate programs (61%). Notably, nearly 70% of the respondents
reported using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning during
the 2023–2024 academic year, highlighting the widespread
adoption of these tools among students.
Table 2 Respondents’ distribution by schools
School
Arts and Social Sciences
Business and Administration
Education and Languages
Science and Technology
Nursing and Health Sciences
LiPACE
Total respondents
SN Computer Science
No. of response (%)
466 (16%)
648 (22%)
277 (10%)
517 (18%)
514 (18%)
465 (16%)
2,887 (100%)
(2025) 6:476
A significant majority of respondents (68% or 1,963
individuals) expressed a preference for using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for their learning. This preference was most
pronounced among full-time students, with 56% (1,601
individuals) indicating their use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
Distance learning students also showed a notable interest,
with 9% (270 individuals) utilizing GenAI-ChatGPT tools
for their learning. Among part-time students, 3% (92 individuals) reported using GenAI-ChatGPT tools. The data
suggests that GenAI-ChatGPT tools is a preferred tool for
learning, particularly among full-time students.
The 1,963 respondents who reported using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning were asked to specify which tools
they used. More than half of the respondents reported using
the HKMU ChatGPT Web Portal (56%) and Poe (52%), followed by Microsoft Bing Chat (15%). Some respondents
also reported using other AI tools currently available in the
market.
Interestingly, students demonstrated high awareness of
other GenAI tools available in the market, with students
reporting use of 44 different GenAI tools, including Open
AI, Chatbots, writing tools, image generators, and translation tools.
The study utilized questionnaires focusing on three main
aspects: user experience, usefulness, and overall satisfaction. The overall mean score was 3.93 (see Table 3), which
exceeded the average mean score of the 5-point Likert scale
(mean = 3.00).
Statistical Analysis and Results.
One-Tailed t-Tests.
To test H1, one-tailed t-tests were conducted to compare
the mean scores for each aspect—user experience, usefulness, and overall satisfaction—against the average mean
of the Likert scale (Mean = 3.00). The results, summarized
in Table 4, revealed statistically significant differences
between the mean scores and the test value of 3.00. Specifically, the mean scores for user experience (Mean = 4.0062,
t = 81.949, p < 0.001), usefulness (Mean = 3.8251, t = 55.319,
p < 0.001), and overall satisfaction (Mean = 3.9816,
t = 71.005, p < 0.001) were all significantly higher than the
average mean. These findings indicate that students had a
positive user experience with GenAI-ChatGPT tools, perceived them as useful for their learning, and expressed overall satisfaction with their use, addressing research questions
(Q2, Q3, and Q4), respectively.
The large t-values and p-values < 0.001 underscore
the robustness of these findings, suggesting that students’
positive perceptions of GenAI-ChatGPT tools are not only
statistically significant but also practically meaningful.
Notably, user experience received the highest mean score
(Mean = 4.0062), followed closely by overall satisfaction
(Mean = 3.9816) and usefulness (Mean = 3.8251). This
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
Page 7 of 17
476
Table 3 Descriptive statistics
N = 1963 students indicated that they have used the GenAI/ ChatGPT for their learning
Table 4 Results of one-tailed t-test
Scale
Mean
Std. Deviation t
User Experience
Usefulness
Overall satisfaction
4.0062
3.8251
3.9816
81.949
55.319
71.005
Sig.
(right
tailed)
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mean
Square
2.913
0.409
F
Sig.
7.117
0.000
Mean
Square
3.935
0.525
F
Sig.
7.489
0.000
Mean
Square
3.372
0.496
F
Sig.
6.804
0.000
0.54401
0.66085
0.61251
Table 5 Result of one-way ANOVA
User_experience
Sum of
df
Squares
Between Groups
14.565
5
Within Groups
1179.140 2881
Total
1193.705 2886
Usefulness
Sum of
df
Squares
Between Groups
19.675
5
Within Groups
1513.779 2881
Total
1533.454 2886
Overall_satisfaction
Sum of
df
Squares
Between Groups
16.862
5
Within Groups
1427.994 2881
Total
1444.855 2886
hierarchy of scores may reflect students’ prioritization of
ease of use and satisfaction over perceived utility, a finding
that aligns with prior research on technology adoption in
educational contexts [50, 51].
One-Way ANOVA.
To test H2, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in students’
perceptions of GenAI-ChatGPT tools across schools. The
results, summarized in Table 5, revealed p-values < 0.05
for all three scales—user experience, perceived usefulness,
and overall satisfaction—indicating significant variation
in mean scores across schools. This suggests that students’
experiences with GenAI-ChatGPT tools may differ depending on their school of enrollment, addressing Q2, Q3, and
Q4. The F-values further confirmed that the between-group
differences were statistically significant.
The ANOVA results highlight the influence of contextual
factors, such as school-specific curricula, teaching methods,
or disciplinary focus, on students’ perceptions of GenAIChatGPT tools. For example, students in schools with a
stronger emphasis on independent learning or technical disciplines may have found GenAI-ChatGPT tools particularly
useful for concept clarification and refining written work,
while those in schools with a focus on collaborative or creative tasks may have valued its role in problem-solving and
generating ideas.
The findings from the qualitative and quantitative
methods were complementary, providing a comprehensive understanding of students’ experiences with GenAIChatGPT tools. While the quantitative analysis highlighted
statistically significant differences in perceptions across
schools, the qualitative data offered deeper insights into
the nuances of these variations. For instance, students from
some schools emphasized GenAI-ChatGPT tools’ utility for
clarifying complex concepts, solving technical problems,
and generating creative ideas. These differences suggest that
the perceived value of GenAI-ChatGPT tools is closely tied
to the specific learning needs and contexts of students in
different schools.
Moreover, qualitative responses revealed that students’
user experience was influenced by factors such as ease of
use, response accuracy, and the ability to customize interactions. Similarly, perceived usefulness was often linked to
the tool’s ability to save time, enhance understanding, and
support diverse learning tasks. Overall satisfaction was frequently associated with the tool’s reliability, accessibility,
SN Computer Science
476
Page 8 of 17
and alignment with students’ academic goals. These qualitative insights enrich the quantitative findings and underscore
the importance of considering contextual factors when integrating generative AI tools into educational practices.
Purposes of the Utilization of AI Tools for Learning
The study sought to understand the various purposes for
which students utilized GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their
learning process. Participants were given the option to
select multiple purposes based on their usage patterns.
Over half of the respondents (50%) reported using these
tools for idea generation, suggesting that GenAI-ChatGPT
tools effectively facilitate creative thinking. Additionally, a
significant number of participants (39%) used AI tools for
information collection, and 33% used them for translation
purposes, underscoring the value of these tools in accessing
and understanding information.
The study also found that GenAI-ChatGPT tools were
frequently used for writing-related tasks. For instance, 23%
of the participants used these tools for language editing,
indicating the usefulness of AI in enhancing written work.
Similarly, 23% of the respondents used the tools for drafting
outlines, which aids in organizing thoughts and structuring
written assignments. A smaller percentage of respondents
(11%) used the tools for paraphrasing original texts, while
9% used them to write specific sections of their texts.
Themes from the qualitative interview confirmed students’ use of ChatGPT from quantitative data. Interviews
with the participants revealed that business and nursing students primarily used GenAI-ChatGPT tools for idea generation. Further to that, qualitative helped to understand
students’ use of ChatGPT habit. Business students reported
using these tools for a wider range of purposes, including drawing, seeking clarification on accounting concepts,
addressing internship-related issues, practicing language
learning through chatbot interactions, and preparing questionnaires for business cases and interviews. This demonstrates the versatility and adaptability of GenAI-ChatGPT
tools in supporting academic endeavors.
Some students also highlighted the value of the summary
function offered by GenAI-ChatGPT tools. They reported
uploading lengthy articles and requesting the tool to provide summaries, thereby saving time by avoiding the need
to read through the entire text. This feature illustrates how
GenAI-ChatGPT tools can assist students in efficiently
digesting large volumes of information.
Furthermore, they found GenAI-ChatGPT tools useful
for preparing multiple-choice questions and quiz questions
for self-assessment during the revision process. This application enhances students’ understanding and retention of
course materials.
SN Computer Science
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
These findings align with previous studies [13, 52, 53],
which found that GenAI-ChatGPT tools are widely adopted
for various writing-related tasks in the educational context.
The consistent findings across studies reinforce the recognition of GenAI-ChatGPT’s effectiveness and its ability to
cater to the diverse needs of students across disciplines. In
addition, their usage of AI tools is further examined and
categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy (see Table 6).
While both business and nursing students reported that they
normally used the AI tools to support their learning, their
usage is mainly for the development of lower-order thinking
skills, which include:
1. Remembering (e.g., summarizing learning materials
and revising for course assessments);
2. Understanding (e.g., understanding course knowledge
and checking grammar in assignments);
3. Applying (e.g., applying knowledge to address problems in the internship and practicing English).
The use of AI tools does not only facilitate lower-order
thinking; both business and nursing students reported that
they would use AI tools to generate new ideas or brain
storm ideas for their assignments. Business students would
also use AI tools for drawing and designing questionnaires.
These findings indicate that students use AI tools to develop
their higher-order thinking skills, mainly focusing on creating or producing new ideas. However, they seldom use AI
tools for evaluation and analysis. The reason for not using AI
tools in the higher-order thinking is multi-factorial. Based
on current study, further exploratory research is needed to
address the learning behavior in higher-level thinking. Was
the behavior come with intention to use AI tool while hindered by factors such as information accuracy or intension
not to use for some other reasons.
In conclusion, the interviews with business and nursing
students revealed the multifaceted applications of GenAIChatGPT beyond idea generation. The tool’s adaptability
in supporting learning experiences, as demonstrated by
its use in drawing, seeking clarification, addressing realworld challenges, practicing language skills, summarizing
articles, and preparing assessment questions, contributes to
the growing body of evidence highlighting the widespread
adoption and effectiveness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in various writing-related tasks within the educational domain.
User Experience about Using GenAI-ChatGPT Tools
for Learning
A significant majority of respondents (over 70%) reported a
positive experience, finding the tools to be interesting (78%),
effective for their learning (77%), and user-friendly (72%).
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
Page 9 of 17
Table 6 Usages of AI tools: categorization based on Bloom’s taxonomy
Bloom’s taxonomy - Cognitive process dimension
1) Create: Produce new or original work
(Design, assemble, construct, develop, formulate, author, investigate or invent)
2) Evaluate: Justify a stand or decision
(Appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value or evaluate)
3) Analyse: Draw connection among ideas
(Differentiate, organize, relate, compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, experiment, question or test)
4) Apply: Use information in new situation
(Execute, implement, solve, use, demonstrate, interpret, operate, sketch or
employ)
5) Understand: Explain ideas and concepts
(classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select,
translate or paraphrase)
6) Remember: Recall facts and basic concepts
(define, duplicate, list, memorize, repeat, reproduce, recall or state)
Self-reported Used Cases
Business Students
✓ Generating new ideas for assignments / projects
✓ Drawing
✓ Designing questionnaires for
business cases and interviews
No data
No data
Nursing Students
✓ Drafting or brainstorming new ideas
in assignment writing
No data
No data
No data
✓ Applying knowledge to address
internship-related issues
✓ Practicing English language
✓ Seeking clarification on account- ✓ Understanding
ing concepts
course content
✓ Checking grammar
in assignment writing
✓ Summarizing business articles
✓ Summarizing
/ cases
course content
✓ Preparing questions for revisions ✓ Remembering
/ self-assessments
course content
✓ Doing revision of
written tests / exams
Table 7 User experience about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning
User Experience about Using GenAI-ChatGPT Tools
Interesting
Helpful and effective for learning
Easy to use
Amazed by the capabilities of GenAI-ChatGPT tools
Able to use it appropriately to avoid plagiarism
Able to determine the authenticity of information generated from GenAI-ChatGPT tools
Able to understand my questions
Better than other search engines like Google
Provide information / organize seminars about GenAI-ChatGPT tools by HKMU
Need to be improved
Overall
Additionally, more than 60% of respondents expressed
admiration for the capabilities of GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
In terms of academic integrity, a substantial proportion
of respondents (over 60%) indicated their ability to use the
tools appropriately to avoid plagiarism. Nearly 60% also
stated their capability to determine the authenticity of information generated by the GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
Despite the overall positive feedback, 77% of respondents suggested that GenAI-ChatGPT tools still required
further refinement. Almost half of the respondents (43%)
reported difficulties in having their queries understood by
these tools, and 50% did not consider them superior to other
search engines. Over 50% of respondents expressed a desire
for the university to provide more information and seminars about GenAI-ChatGPT tools to enhance their learning
experience.
476
N
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
Mean
4.23
4.26
4.17
3.94
4.09
3.88
3.80
3.69
3.73
4.28
4.00
Std. Deviation
0.707
0.720
0.761
0.837
0.846
0.874
0.843
0.950
0.937
0.760
0.544
The user experience was further explored through a
5-point Likert scale. As indicated in Table 6, the overall
mean score for students’ perception of the user experience with GenAI-ChatGPT tools was 4.00. A one-sample
t-test revealed a significant difference between the mean
score of 4.00 and the hypothetical mean of 3.00 (t = 81.949,
p = 0.000) (see Table 7). This indicates that students’ perception of the user experience with GenAI-ChatGPT tools was
significantly higher than the average.
As presented in Table 6, a notable aspect of these perceptions was the high level of perceived helpfulness and
effectiveness of these tools for learning, with a significantly
higher mean score (mean = 4.26) compared to other aspects.
This suggests that students found these tools to be a significant contributor to their learning process.
SN Computer Science
476
Page 10 of 17
Other aspects of the user experience also received high
mean scores. Specifically, students found the tools interesting (mean = 4.23), easy to use (mean = 4.17), and effective
in maintaining academic integrity by avoiding plagiarism
(mean = 4.09). However, students also expressed a desire
for improvements in the authenticity and reliability of the
generated content and the comprehensibility of human
input prompts, as indicated by relatively high mean scores
(mean = 4.28).
The remaining items assessing user experience received
lower scores, but still remained above the average level,
contributing positively to the overall user experience. Onesample t-tests were conducted to evaluate the significance of
these mean scores, revealing statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between each of these mean scores and the
test value of 3.00. This affirms the students’ positive perceptions of their user experience with GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
The findings suggest that the majority of students had a
positive perception of their user experience with GenAIChatGPT tools in the context of learning. They found these
tools interesting, helpful, and easy to use, demonstrating
their potential to enhance the learning process. However, the
respondents also highlighted areas for improvement, such
as enhanced understanding of user queries and the need for
further development. The students’ desire for more information and seminars indicates their interest in gaining a deeper
understanding of GenAI-ChatGPT tools to maximize their
learning outcomes.
To further understand these perceptions, interviews were
conducted with students. Business students emphasized
the importance of verifying the correctness of information
generated by GenAI-ChatGPT tools, employing a crossreferencing approach. They compared the information provided by the tool with other sources such as search engines,
handouts, and lecture materials. This cautious approach
was driven by their experiences with the tool, where they
encountered incorrect terms or information [54–56].
Business students also relied on their cognitive sense and
employed various methods to identify unreliable or inauthentic information. They checked the accuracy of their
lecture notes and verified the information through other
credible websites or conducting Google searches. This
proactive approach was fostered by their experiences and
the realization that marks could be deducted if the Turnitin
AI detector identified that the assignments were completed
with the assistance of GenAI-ChatGPT tools without proper
acknowledgement. The phenomenon was observed also in
nursing students who would double confirm results generated from AI tools. The picture may explain the results
of current study that use of AI tool was predominantly in
lower-level thinking - to summarize and remember of material from which information accuracy was safeguarded. As
SN Computer Science
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
reported in other studies, information accuracy in healthcare
fields still has room for improvement. Reason to explain the
lack of use of AI tool in higher-level thinking in certain discipline merits further research.
The quantitative data reflected student’s high desire in
improvement of ChatGPT, which was supplemented by the
qualitative data. Nursing students, in particular, exhibited
a conservative approach toward the accuracy of GenAIChatGPT’s responses when used in nursing subjects. They
perceived the responses provided by GenAI-ChatGPT
tools as incorrect or superficial. These findings align with
other studies that have raised concerns about GenAI-ChatGPT tools generating incorrect citations, incorrect content
[55–60], and superficial content [61, 62]. Nursing students
also reported a tendency to verify GenAI-ChatGPT tools
responses using additional sources such as Google search,
lecture notes, and previous clinical experiences. Plagiarism
concerns were also mentioned, as reported in other studies
[55, 58, 59, 63, 64].
These findings stand in contrast to the conclusions drawn
by [64], whose study suggested that students tended to
rely solely on GenAI-ChatGPT tools without verifying the
authenticity of the generated content. In our study, however,
business and nursing students exhibited a greater level of
caution and alertness. This difference can be attributed to
the students’ awareness of the potential inaccuracy of certain
GenAI-ChatGPT tools models’ feedback on assignments,
which was explicitly communicated to them. Consequently,
they developed a proactive approach to ensure the credibility and integrity of their work.
In conclusion, while students recognized the benefits of
using GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their learning process, they
did not fully depend on it. The majority of students exhibited
confidence in their ability to avoid plagiarism and determine
the authenticity of information generated by GenAI-ChatGPT tools. These findings emphasize the significance of
students’ critical thinking skills and their commitment to
ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information they
incorporate into their academic work.
Usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT Tools in Facilitating
Learning
The findings indicate that a significant majority of students
(71%) found these tools to be beneficial, making their learning more convenient. Nearly two-thirds of students (65%)
reported that GenAI-ChatGPT tools positively impacted
their study habits and learning approaches, underscoring the
significance of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in their educational
journey (62%).
The practicality of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in facilitating learning was recognized by a majority of respondents.
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
Page 11 of 17
Table 8 One-sample t-test of user experience about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning
T-Test Value = 3
t
df
Sig.
Mean Difference
(1-Tailed)
User Experience
81.949
1962
0.000
1.00621
Table 9 Usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in facilitating learning
Usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT Tools
Made learning more convenient
Had a positive impact on my study habits and learning approach
Able to provide good explanation
To a great extent important to learning process
Have broadened knowledge about subject area
Helped understand complex concepts in studies effectively
Able to provide well-structured answers
Enhanced academic writing skills
Strongly recommend it as a learning tool to peers
Provided support and guidance comparable to that of a human tutor or instructor
Overall
Notably, 64% of students indicated that the tools provided
good explanations, 61% reported that the tools broadened
their knowledge about the subject area, and 60% stated that
the tools assisted in understanding complex concepts effectively. Over half of the respondents acknowledged that the
tools could provide well-structured answers and enhance
their academic writing skills, leading them to recommend
these tools as a learning resource to their peers.
However, students’ opinions diverged regarding the
GenAI-ChatGPT tools’ ability to provide support and
guidance comparable to that of a human tutor or instructor. Specifically, only 30% of the respondents agreed that
GenAI-ChatGPT tools could offer support and guidance on
par with a human instructor, indicating room for improvement in replicating human-like guidance and support.
As indicated in Table 8, the overall mean score for students’ perception of the usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools
was 3.82. A one-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the
significance of this mean score, revealing a significant difference between the mean score of 3.82 and the hypothetical
mean of 3.00 (t = 55.319, p = 0.000) (see Table 9). This indicates that the usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in learning and assignment writing was significantly higher than the
average.
As presented in Table 8, two notable aspects of these perceptions were the high levels of perceived convenience and
positive impact on study habits and learning approaches.
These aspects stood out prominently, with significantly
higher mean scores (mean = 4.15 and mean = 4.01, respectively) compared to other aspects. This suggests that students found these tools to be a significant contributor to
their learning process.
N
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
476
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
0.9821
1.0303
Mean
4.15
4.01
3.98
3.94
3.93
3.93
3.74
3.74
3.79
3.06
3.82
Std. Deviation
0.740
0.766
0.830
0.801
0.836
0.860
0.876
0.918
0.873
1.118
0.661
Other aspects of the usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT
tools also received high mean scores. Specifically, students
found the tools to provide good explanations (mean = 3.98),
perceived them as important to the learning process
(mean = 3.94), and found them helpful in broadening their
knowledge about the subject area and understanding complex concepts effectively (mean = 3.93). However, students
also expressed a desire for improvements in the tools’ ability
to provide well-structured answers and enhance academic
writing skills, as indicated by relatively lower mean scores
(mean = 3.79, mean = 3.74, and mean = 3.74, respectively).
The lowest mean score was associated with the statement that GenAI-ChatGPT tools could provide support and
guidance comparable to that of a human tutor or instructor (mean = 3.06), just slightly above the average value of 3.
This indicates that students desired the presence of a human
tutor rather than relying solely on GenAI-ChatGPT tools to
replace the tutor’s role.
To further understand these perceptions, interviews were
conducted with students from business and nursing schools.
The students recognized effective communication between
instructors and students as a means to facilitate learning [65].
Such communication enhances student learning, academic
performance, and engagement. GenAI-ChatGPT tools have
the potential to provide timely feedback to students, emphasizing the importance of enhancing information accuracy
and its appropriate use in nursing education. In the current
study, students expressed higher confidence in the accuracy
of information if the sources used by GenAI-ChatGPT tools
were limited to trustworthy ones.
Perceived usefulness and convenient to use are key determinants of technology adoption according to Technology
SN Computer Science
476
Page 12 of 17
SN Computer Science
Table 10 One-sample t-test of usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in facilitating learning
T-Test Value = 3
t
df
Sig.
Mean Difference
(1-Tailed)
Usefulness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools
55.319
1962
0.000
0.82511
Table 11 Overall satisfaction about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning
Overall Satisfaction about Using GenAI-ChatGPT Tools
Helpful and effective for learning
Easy to use
Amazed by the capabilities of ChatGPT / AI tools
Able to use it appropriately to avoid plagiarism
Able to understand my questions
Made learning more convenient
Had a positive impact on my study habits and learning approach
Able to provide good explanation
To a great extent important to learning process
Have broadened knowledge about subject area
Able to provide well-structured answers
Enhanced academic writing skills
Overall satisfied
Overall
Acceptance Model [66]. Perceived usefulness is the essence
of building up one’s attitude and intention to the use of
brand new technology [24]. When using ChatGPT to write
assignment, nursing students generated idea with ChatGPT,
and follow-up prompt was used to shape the ChatGPT output. Further, students were satisfied with making summary
by using ChatGPT, given the data entered were from lecture
notes, perceived as reliable to them. Students reported that
the clear summary enhanced their understanding of extensive lecture content, which resulted in better efficiency of
learning.
Personalized responses to students can further facilitate
learning [67]. The study by [68] demonstrated that personalized chatbot interactions led to better academic performance
compared to generic feedback. Timely feedback allows for
the quick identification of knowledge gaps and areas requiring clarification, facilitating in-depth exploration of specific
topics, such as case scenarios and the management of certain
patient types in nursing education. Given ensured information accuracy, some studies have suggested incorporating
GenAI-ChatGPT tools into teaching and learning activities,
such as classroom sessions or simulations, in nursing education to promote active learning [69, 70].
In conclusion, the study underscores the generally positive reception of GenAI-ChatGPT tools among students,
emphasizing their potential as valuable resources for academic purposes. However, it also highlights the need for
continuous refinement and addressing areas of improvement
to meet students’ evolving expectations and requirements.
SN Computer Science
N
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
(2025) 6:476
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
0.7959
0.8544
Mean
4.26
4.17
3.94
4.09
3.80
4.15
4.01
3.98
3.94
3.93
3.74
3.74
4.02
3.98
Std. Deviation
0.720
0.761
0.837
0.846
0.843
0.740
0.766
0.830
0.801
0.836
0.876
0.918
0.744
0.613
Overall Satisfaction about Using GenAI-ChatGPT
Tools for Learning
The findings indicate that a significant majority of students
(65%) expressed satisfaction with their experience of using
these tools for learning. As presented in Table 10, the overall
mean score for the satisfaction with GenAI-ChatGPT tools
was 3.98. A one-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the
significance of this mean score, revealing a significant difference between the mean score of 3.98 and the hypothetical mean of 3.00 (t = 71.005, p = 0.000) (see Tables 11 and
12). This indicates that the overall satisfaction with GenAIChatGPT tools in learning and assignment writing was significantly higher than the average.
When examining the specific components of overall
satisfaction, students were asked about their satisfaction
with various aspects of the tools. The responses indicated
a high level of satisfaction (mean = 4.02) in various areas.
Notably, items related to the tools being helpful and effective for learning received high mean scores (mean = 4.26),
suggesting that students found the tools valuable in facilitating their learning process. Additionally, the ease of use
(mean = 4.17), the tools’ ability to make learning more convenient (mean = 4.15), and their positive impact on study
habits and learning approaches (mean = 4.01) were all
highly rated. These findings imply that students were satisfied with GenAI-ChatGPT tools in facilitating their learning
and assignment writing.
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
Page 13 of 17
Table 12 One-sample t-test of overall satisfaction about using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning
T-Test Value = 3
t
df
Sig.
Mean Difference
(1-Tailed)
Overall Satisfaction
71.005
1962
0.000
To further understand these perceptions, interviews were
conducted with students from business and nursing schools.
Nursing students found GenAI-ChatGPT tools to be a valuable resource for generating ideas for their assignments.
Instead of relying solely on provided paragraphs, they
wrote their essays based on the ideas provided by GenAIChatGPT tools. Similarly, business students shared a similar
perspective. While they found GenAI-ChatGPT tools useful
for general subjects such as management and core values,
they did not find them as beneficial for specific subjects like
Accounting, as the responses provided were often superficial and lacked the depth necessary for their assignments.
This study found that business and nursing students
expressed overall satisfaction with GenAI-ChatGPT as a
valuable tool for generating ideas in writing assignments
and as a convenient and dependable tool for generating
summaries of notes during revision. These findings align
with previous studies conducted by [24, 43, 71, 72]. However, both groups of students expressed concerns about the
reliability of the responses generated by GenAI-ChatGPT
tools. Although the use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools was not
extensive among these students, they exhibited positive attitudes towards embracing this novel technology. To encourage better adoption of GenAI-ChatGPT tools among these
students, it is necessary to provide continuous education and
guidance on their use, addressing topics such as usage guidelines and plagiarism issues. Additionally, efforts should be
made to advance the tool to address concerns related to data
security and reliability.
In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate a high
level of overall satisfaction among students regarding the
use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning. The tools were
found to be helpful, effective, and convenient, thereby making a positive impact on students’ study habits and learning approaches. These findings highlight the usefulness and
effectiveness of GenAI-ChatGPT tools in enhancing the
learning experience for students.
Students’ Attitudes and Reactions Towards the
Utilization of GenAI-ChatGPT Tools in their Learning
To gain further insight into the students’ reactions to the
responses and feedback generated by GenAI-ChatGPT
tools, interviews were conducted with students from both
business and nursing schools. During these interviews,
0.98162
476
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
0.9545
1.0087
students elaborated on their learning process and how they
utilized the tools.
Both groups of students mentioned that they were able to
effectively use GenAI-ChatGPT tools to avoid plagiarism.
They described their approach, which involved setting the
prompts, cross-referencing information from Google search
to verify facts, and reviewing their work multiple times to
rephrase the answers or their own writing before submission. The students expressed a sense of caution and mentioned being apprehensive about their assignments being
flagged by AI plagiarism detectors. As a result, they took
extra precautions to ensure that their work appeared original
and authentic.
By setting specific prompts and cross-referencing information, students demonstrated their active engagement
with the GenAI-ChatGPT tools. They used the generated
responses as a basis for their own writing, incorporating
their own ideas and adding a personal touch to the content.
This process allowed them to strike a balance between utilizing the AI-generated content and maintaining their own
originality.
Business students reported using GenAI-ChatGPT tools
for a variety of purposes, including seeking clarification
on business concepts, summarizing articles, addressing
internship-related issues, and practicing language learning.
However, they also expressed concerns about the authenticity and reliability of the information provided by these
tools, particularly in relation to business cases or statistics
and figures. In response to these concerns, students reported
verifying the data from GenAI-ChatGPT tools using other
sources, such as Google search or company websites. This
demonstrates a cautious approach to the use of these tools,
highlighting the importance of critical thinking and information literacy skills in the digital age [13, 23, 30].
Many nursing students reviewed their assignments multiple times and rephrased answers to ensure originality,
driven by the fear of detection by AI plagiarism detectors.
The cautious attitude exhibited by the students in our study
highlights their awareness of the limitations and potential
pitfalls of relying solely on GenAI-ChatGPT-generated content. By employing critical thinking skills and cross-referencing information from multiple sources, students aimed
to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information they
incorporated into their work. The findings suggest that students are cognizant of the need for proper validation and
SN Computer Science
476
Page 14 of 17
verification, which is essential for maintaining academic
integrity and ensuring the quality of their assignments.
Regardless of the perceived risk, students carried positive attitude towards future trend on use of ChatGPT tools.
Positive attitudes can positively influence the adoption of
new technology [73, 74]. Those factors could contribute to
their positive attitude of using the technology. Promotion
and education on use of ChatGPT tools can bring about better adoption [75, 76], by reinforcing perceived benefit and
minimizing perceived risk.
During the utilization of GenAI-ChatGPT tools, students reported perceiving improvements in various learning
skills. These encompassed reading skills, questioning skills,
expression skills, quick reaction skills, analyzing/evaluating
skills, consolidating skills, and creating skills.
Business students frequently mentioned that GenAIChatGPT tools provided prompt feedback, which compelled
them to read quickly and comprehend the meaning, leading
to enhancements in their quick reaction and analytical abilities. In cases where the feedback or response generated by
GenAI-ChatGPT tools did not meet their expectations, students engaged in rephrasing and modified their prompts to
align with their desired answers and intended direction. Following the generation of a response, students expressed the
need to review and consolidate the main points while infusing their own creativity to present the information in a fresh
manner, rather than merely copying from GenAI-ChatGPT
tools. Consequently, they contemplated whether the investment of time in this rephrasing task was worthwhile.
Nursing students reported enhanced reading and questioning skills when upon using GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
GenAI-ChatGPT tools output used in nursing subjects may
be incorrect or superficial. Students would need to advance
skills in prompt setting and doing follow-up prompts. Reading skill was enhanced upon repeatedly reading the output and double checking with other sources. Questioning
skill was also enhanced when doing follow-up prompt. For
superficial or non-specific GenAI-ChatGPT output, students
would attempt to generate multiple prompts, one after each
output, to refine the GenAI-ChatGPT output. Furthermore,
students would use the GenAI-ChatGPT chatbot to generate
quizzes to facilitate revision. Following that, answers of the
quizzes would be generated with chatbot for performance
evaluation.
The study also revealed that some students expressed
their intention to primarily use GenAI-ChatGPT tools for
idea generation in writing assignments. Furthermore, students mentioned that they learned new vocabulary and writing styles from the content generated by ChatGPT tools,
suggesting that the tool can be used to improve writing
skills [77]. This suggests that while they recognized the
tool’s value in assisting with idea generation, they were
SN Computer Science
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
cautious about relying on it too heavily for the entirety of
their writing process. This cautious approach aligns with the
findings of the study [71], which revealed that students used
GenAI-ChatGPT tools to research and generate content,
thereby enhancing their critical thinking skills.
These observations illustrate how the use of GenAIChatGPT tools can impact various learning skills. Students
not only benefit from the prompt feedback and quick reactions facilitated by the tool but also engage in critical thinking and creative synthesis as they rephrase and consolidate
information. While GenAI-ChatGPT tools offers valuable
support, students’ awareness of the need to balance their
reliance on the tool with their individual efforts highlights
the importance of developing self-directed learning skills.
Through interviews conducted with business and nursing
students, this study provided a detailed exploration of their
perceptions regarding the use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools.
The findings indicate that students have shown a positive
attitude towards embracing this new technology, which can
be attributed to factors such as promotion and education on
the use of GenAI-ChatGPT tools. Students have recognized
the value of these tools in facilitating quick thinking and
response. However, they have also expressed a keen understanding of the importance of analyzing information for
accuracy and reliability during their learning process. It is
crucial for students to exercise caution when utilizing these
tools, considering their limitations, and emphasizing the
significance of verifying information from multiple sources.
Contributions, Practical Implications and
Future Research
This study uses triangulation to better understand student’s
perception and satisfaction of using GenAI-ChatGPT tools
for learning. It makes contribution to knowledge by providing a comprehensive analysis of student perceptions
regarding their user experience with GenAI-ChatGPT tools,
revealing several significant findings. Despite areas identified for improvement, particularly in authenticity, reliability, and comprehensibility, the tools were highly praised
for their effectiveness in supporting learning, user-friendliness, and novelty. The positive perceptions were further
validated by statistically significant differences between the
mean scores and the test value, offering valuable insights for
the development and refinement of GenAI-ChatGPT tools
to better meet student needs and expectations. Through
interviews with business and nursing students, the study
explored their perceptions of GenAI-ChatGPT tools. Students demonstrated a positive attitude towards this new
technology, recognizing its value in facilitating quick thinking and response. However, they also acknowledged the
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
importance of analyzing information for accuracy and reliability, emphasizing the need for caution and verification
of information from multiple sources when utilizing these
tools.
The findings carry significant implications for educational
institutions and instructors aiming to integrate AI tools into
the learning environment. By reflecting on student perceptions and feedback, instructors can better understand how
to leverage the potential of AI tools like GenAI-ChatGPT
to foster various learning skills, including critical thinking,
writing, and analytical abilities and develop higher-order
thinking skills. At the same time, it is crucial to promote
ethical and responsible practices when utilizing AI-generated content. Therefore, the development of best practices
and guidelines for the integration of GenAI-ChatGPT tools
and other AI tools in education should be further elaborated
and reinforced. There are some limitations in this study,
including self-selection bias, social desirability bias, and
non-response bias. Given that participants who voluntarily
engaged with GenAI-ChatGPT tools may have more favorable attitudes toward technology, it may potentially lead
to self-selection bias. To minimize this bias, participants
were selected from diverse disciplines and varied backgrounds. Additionally, the participants in the focus groups
were selected using convenience sampling. Their attitudes
towards GenAI-ChatGPT tools were unknown before the
semi-structured interviews. Nevertheless, future research
can increase the sample size (particularly for qualitative
research) and use random sampling of students from various
backgrounds to avoid the self-selection bias. Concerning
social desirability bias, participants might provide overly
favorable responses due to perceived expectations of AI
technology. In order to reduce this potential bias, anonymity
and confidentiality were assured in the survey. In addition to
student perception and satisfaction, future research can also
collect data on student performance (such as grade improvement, knowledge retention, and error rate, etc.) and adopt a
pretest-posttest control group design. These objective measures and research designs can provide insights into how
these AI tools can facilitate student performance, promote
positive outcomes and enrich learning experience. Lastly,
non-response bias might arise if those who did not participate or complete the study differ in their perceptions. Email
reminders were sent out to improve the response rate. To
further reduce non-response bias, future research can use
appropriate incentives to encourage participation.
Given that the ChatGPT Web Portal has been launched in
HKMU since 2023, this study serves as a deep and focused
evaluation of such an AI tool to HKMU. ChatGPT was
selected for this study due to its widespread usage, accessibility, and versatility across disciplines, making it highly
relevant to students in higher education. Its robust natural
Page 15 of 17
476
language capabilities and user-friendly design ensure consistent performance and ease of integration for participants.
Its prominence in existing literature provides a strong basis
for benchmarking and contextualizing the study’s findings.
It also helps to avoid the complexities of comparing multiple
tools. As GenAI tools continue to evolve, ongoing research
and development efforts are necessary to ensure ethical and
meaningful student engagement, thus preparing students for
success in an AI-enabled world.
Author Contributions Joey Ng, Mavis Tong, Eva YM Tsang, Kevin
Chu and William Tsang contributed to the design and implementation
of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the
manuscript. In particular, Eva YM Tsang contributed to the quantitative study. Joey Ng and Kevin Chu contributed to the qualitative study
of Business students; Mavis Tong and William Tsang contributed to
the qualitative study of Nursing students.
Funding Not Applicable.
Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are
available from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of Hong Kong Metropolitan University (HKMU).
Declarations
Compliance with Ethical Standards Informed consent is obtained as
the research involved human participants.
- Research Involving Human: Yes.
- Informed Consent: Obtained.
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Irfan M, Murray LIAM, Ali S. Insights into student perceptions:
investigating artificial intelligence (AI) tool usability in Irish
higher. Education at the University of Limerick; 2023.
Wang Q, Huang C, Quek CL, Yang H. Students’ perceptions of
artificial intelligence-enhanced teaching and learning. Br J Edu
Technol. 2020;51(3):914–29.
McCarthy J, Minsky ML, Rochester N, Shannon CE. A proposal
for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Magazine. 2006;27(4):12–4.
Malik T, Dwivedi Y, Kshetri N, Hughes L, Slade EL, Jeyaraj A,
Kar AK, Baabdullah AM, Koohang A, Raghavan V. So what if
ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI
for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag. 2023;71:102642.
Hodges CB. How teaching happens: seminal works in teaching
and teacher effectiveness and what they mean in practice. Routledge; 2022.
Kohnke L, Moorhouse BL, Zou D. ChatGPT for Language teaching and learning. RELC J. 2023;54. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​1​7​7​​/​0​0​​3​3​
6​8​8​2​2​3​1​1​6​2​8​6​8.
Kasneci E, Sessler K, Küchemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva
D, Fischer F, Gasser U, Groh G, Günnemann S, Hüllermeier
E, et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges
SN Computer Science
476
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Page 16 of 17
of large Language models for education. Learn Individ Differ.
2023;103:102274.
Ray PP. ChatGPT: a comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope.
Internet Things Cyber-Physical Syst. 2023;3:121–54.
Hill-Yardin EL, Hutchinson MR, Laycock R, Spencer SJ. A chat
(GPT) about the future of scientific publishing. Brain Behav
Immun. 2023;110:152–4.
Huang J, Tan M. The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. Am J Cancer Res.
2023;13:1148.
Mollick ER, Mollick L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: five strategies, including
prompts. SSRN Electron J. 1–26.
Owens B. (2023). How Nature Readers are Using ChatGPT.
Nature ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​n​​a​t​u​​r​e​.​c​​o​m​/​​a​r​t​​i​c​l​​e​s​/​​d​4​1​5​​8​6​​-​0​2​3​-​0​0​5​0​0​-​8
Črček N, Patekar J. Writing with AI: university students’ use of
ChatGPT. J Lang Educ. 2023;9(4):128–38. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​7​3​
2​​3​/​j​​l​e​.​2​0​2​3​.​1​7​3​7​9.
Heaven WD. (2023). ChatGPT is going to change education, not
destroy it. Technol Rev ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​t​​e​c​h​​n​o​l​o​​g​y​r​​e​v​i​​e​w​.​​c​o​m​​/​2​0​2​​3​
/​​0​4​/​​0​6​/​1​​0​7​1​​0​5​9​​/​c​h​​a​t​g​​p​t​-​c​​h​a​​n​g​e​​-​n​o​t​​-​d​e​​s​t​r​​o​y​-​e​d​u​c​a​t​i​o​n​-​o​p​e​n​a​i​/
Malesic J. (2023). What ChatGPT can’t teach my writing students. The Atlantic. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​t​​h​e​a​​t​l​a​n​​t​i​c​​.​c​o​​m​/​i​​d​e​a​​s​/​a​r​​c​h​​i​v​e​​/​2​
0​2​​3​/​0​​2​/​w​​r​i​t​​i​n​g​​-​e​d​u​​c​a​​t​i​o​​n​-​l​a​​n​g​u​​a​g​e​​-​e​m​​p​a​t​​h​y​-​a​​i​-​​c​h​a​t​g​p​t​-​a​g​e​/​6​7​2​
9​9​9​/
Marcus G. (2022). The dark risk of large language models. Wired.​
h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​w​​i​r​e​​d​.​c​o​​m​/​s​​t​o​r​​y​/​l​​a​r​g​​e​-​l​a​​n​g​​u​a​g​​e​-​m​o​​d​e​l​​s​-​a​​r​t​i​f​i​c​i​a​l​-​i​n​
t​e​l​l​i​g​e​n​c​e​/
Marche S. (2022). The college essay is dead. The Atlantic. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​
/​w​w​w​​.​t​​h​e​a​​t​l​a​n​​t​i​c​​.​c​o​​m​/​t​​e​c​h​​n​o​l​o​​g​y​​/​a​r​​c​h​i​v​​e​/​2​​0​2​2​​/​1​2​​/​c​h​​a​t​g​p​​t​-​​a​i​-​​w​r​
i​t​​i​n​g​​-​c​o​​l​l​e​​g​e​-​​s​t​u​d​​e​n​​t​-​e​s​s​a​y​s​/​6​7​2​3​7​1​/
Malinka K, Perešíni M, Firc A, Hujňák O, Januš F. On the educational impact of ChatGPT: is artificial intelligence ready to obtain
a university degree? ArXiv. 2023. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​4​​8​5​5​​0​/​A​​r​X​i​v​
.​2​3​0​3​.​1​1​1​4​6.
Rigolino RE. (2023, January 31). With ChatGPT, we’re all editors
now. Inside Higher Ed. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​i​​n​s​i​​d​e​h​i​​g​h​e​​r​e​d​​.​c​o​​m​/​v​​i​e​w​s​​/​2​​
0​2​3​​/​0​1​/​​3​1​/​​c​h​a​​t​g​p​​t​-​w​​e​-​m​u​​s​t​​-​t​e​​a​c​h​-​​s​t​u​​d​e​n​​t​s​-​b​e​-​e​d​i​t​o​r​s​-​o​p​i​n​i​o​n
Willems J. (2023). ChatGPT at Universities – The Least of Our
Concerns. SSRN. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​p​a​p​​e​r​​s​.​s​​s​r​n​.​​c​o​m​​/​s​o​​l​3​/​​p​a​p​​e​r​s​.​​c​f​​m​?​a​​b​s​t​r​​a​
c​t​​_​i​d​​= ​4​3​3​4​1​6​2
Best Colleges. Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. of%20College%20Students%20
Say%20Using%20AI%20on%20Schoolwork%20Is,in%205%20
use%20them%20anyway; 2023. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​b​​e​s​t​​c​o​l​l​​e​g​e​​s​.​c​​o​m​/​​r​
e​s​​e​a​r​c​​h​/​​c​o​l​​l​e​g​e​​-​s​t​​u​d​e​​n​t​s​-​a​i​-​t​o​o​l​s​-​s​u​r​v​e​y​/​#​:​~​:​t​e​x​t​= ​H​a​l​f​%​2​0.
Intelligent.com. (2023). One-third of college students used chatgpt for schoolwork during the 2022-23 academic year. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​
w​w​​.​i​​n​t​e​​l​l​i​g​​e​n​t​​.​c​o​​m​/​o​​n​e​-​​t​h​i​r​​d​-​​o​f​-​​c​o​l​l​​e​g​e​​-​s​t​​u​d​e​​n​t​s​​-​u​s​e​​d​-​​c​h​a​​t​g​p​t​​-​f​
o​​r​-​s​​c​h​o​​o​l​w​​o​r​k​-​​d​u​​r​i​n​​g​-​t​h​​e​-​2​​0​2​2​​-​2​3​-​a​c​a​d​e​m​i​c​-​y​e​a​r​/
Nugroho A, Andriyanti E, Widodo P, Mutiaraningrum I. Students’
appraisals post-ChatGPT use: students’ narrative after using
ChatGPT for writing. Innovations Educ Teach Int. 2024. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​
o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​0​8​0​​/​1​4​​7​0​3​​2​9​7​​.​2​0​2​​4​.​​2​3​1​9​1​8​4.
Albayati H. Investigating undergraduate students’ perceptions
and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A
user acceptance perspective study. Computers Education: Artif
Intell. 2024;6:100203. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​0​1​6​​/​j​.​​c​a​e​a​i​.​2​0​2​4​.​1​0​0​2​
0​3.
Baidoo-Anu D, Owusu Ansah L. Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. J Artif Intell.
2023;7(1). ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​6​​1​9​6​​9​/​j​​a​i​.​1​3​3​7​5​0​0.
Cao Y, Li S, Liu Y, Yan Z, Dai Y, Yu PS, Sun L. (2023). A comprehensive survey of AI-generated content (AIGC): A history of
SN Computer Science
SN Computer Science
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
(2025) 6:476
generative AI from GAN to ChatGPT. arXiv ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​a​r​x​​i​v​​.​o​r​​g​/​a​b​​s​
/​2​​3​0​3​​.​0​4​2​2​6
Lund BD, Wang T. Chatting about ChatGPT: how May AI and
GPT impact academia and libraries. Libr Hi Tech News. 2023. ​h​t​
t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​2​​1​3​9​​/​s​s​​r​n​.​4​3​3​3​4​1​5.
van Dis EA, Bollen J, Zuidema W, van Rooij R, Bockting CL. ChatGPT:Five priorities for research. Nature.
2023;614(7947):224–6.
Valova I, Mladenova T, Kanev G. (2024). Students’ Perception of
ChatGPT Usage in Education. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl, 15(1).
Emran AQ, Mohammed MN, Saeed H, Abu Keir MY, Alani ZN,
Mohammed Ibrahim F. Paraphrasing ChatGPT answers as a tool
to enhance university students’ academic writing skills. 2024
ASU Int Conf Emerg Technol Sustain Intell Syst (ICETSIS).
2024;Manama, Bahrain(501–505). ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​1​0​9​​/​I​C​​E​T​
S​​I​S​6​​1​5​0​5​​.​2​​0​2​4​.​1​0​4​5​9​3​8​6.
Huang H-W, Li Z, Taylor L. (2020). The effectiveness of using
Grammarly to improve students’ writing skills. Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Distance Education and
Learning. 122–127. Association for Computing Machinery.
Link S, Mehrzad M, Rahimi M. Impact of automated writing
evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing
improvement. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2022;35:605–34.
Wang Y, Luo X, Liu C, Tu Y, Wang N. An integrated automatic
writing evaluation and SVVR approach to improve students’ EFL
writing performance. Sustainability. 2022;14:11586. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​
r​g​/​​1​0​.​3​​3​9​0​​/​s​u​​1​4​1​8​1​1​5​8​6.
Spanos A. (2024). BloomGPT: Using ChatGPT as Learning
Assistant in Relation to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. The Future of Education 14th Edition 2024. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​
c​o​n​​f​e​​r​e​n​​c​e​.​p​​i​x​e​​l​-​o​​n​l​i​​n​e​.​​n​e​t​/​​l​i​​b​r​a​​r​y​_​s​​c​h​e​​d​a​.​​p​h​p​?​i​d​_​a​b​s​= ​6​7​0​2
Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruickshank KA,
Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC. A taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman; 2001.
Chandio MT, Pandhiani SM, Iqbal R. Bloom’s taxonomy:
improving assessment and Teaching-Learning process. J Educ
Educational Dev. 2016;3(2):203–21. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​2​​2​5​5​​5​/​j​​o​
e​e​d​.​v​3​i​2​.​1​0​3​4.
Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview.
Theory into Pract. 2002;41(4):212–8. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​2​0​7​​/​s​1​​5​
4​3​0​4​2​1​t​i​p​4​1​0​4​_​2.
Lazareva A, Vindbo S, Spanos A. (2024). Student experiences
with using ChatGPT in History classes. In L. G. Chova, C.
González Martínez & J. Lees, editors, INTED 2024, 18th International Technology, Education and Development Conference,
Valencia (Spain), Conference Proceedings (pp. 2335–2342).
Valencia, IATED Academy. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​2​​1​1​2​​5​/​i​​n​t​e​d​.​2​0​2​4​.​
0​6​4​4
Wehus WN. (2024). Learning history with ChatGPT. UiA News.​
h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​u​​i​a​.​​n​o​/​e​​n​g​l​​i​s​h​​/​a​b​​o​u​t​​-​u​i​a​​/​f​​a​c​u​​l​t​y​/​​h​u​m​​a​n​i​​t​i​e​​s​-​a​​n​d​-​e​​d​
u​​c​a​t​​i​o​n​/​​n​e​w​​s​/​l​​e​a​r​​n​i​n​​g​-​h​i​​s​t​​o​r​y​-​w​i​t​h​-​c​h​a​t​g​p​t​.​h​t​m​l
Donkoh S, Mensah J. Application of triangulation in qualitative
research. J Appl Biotechnol Bioeng. 2023;10(1):6–9.
Casey D, Murphy K. Issues in using methodological triangulation
in research. Nurse Res. 2009;16:4, 40–55.
Zhai X. ChatGPT user experience: implications for education.
ResearchGate. 2022. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​2​​1​3​9​​/​s​s​​r​n​.​4​3​1​2​4​1​8.
Singh H, Tayarani-Najaran MH, Yaqoob M. Exploring computer
science students’ perception of ChatGPT in higher education: A
descriptive and correlation study. Educ Sci. 2023;13(9):924. ​h​t​t​p​​
s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​3​​3​9​0​​/​e​d​​u​c​s​c​i​1​3​0​9​0​9​2​4.
Adams WC. (2015).Conducting semi-structured interviews.
Handbook of practical program evaluation. 492–505.
Silverman D. (2024). Interpreting qualitative data. 7th Edition.
London: Sage.
SN Computer Science
(2025) 6:476
46. Poland BD. Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inq. 1995;1(3):290–310.
47. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
48. Yilmaz H, Maxutov S, Baitekov A, Balta N. Student attitudes
towards chat GPT: A technology acceptance model survey. Int
Educational Rev. 2023;1(1):57–83. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​5​​8​6​9​​3​/​i​​e​r​.​1​
1​4.
49. Holtom B, Baruch Y, Aguinis H, Ballinger A, G. Survey response
rates: trends and a validity assessment framework. Hum Relat.
2022;75(8):1560–84. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​1​7​7​​/​0​0​​1​8​7​2​6​7​2​1​1​0​7​0​7​
6​9.
50. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–
39. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​2​​3​0​7​​/​2​4​​9​0​0​8.
51. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q.
2003;27(3):425–78.
52. Jowarder MI. The influence of ChatGPT on social science students: insights drawn from undergraduate students in the united
States. Indonesian J Innov Appl Sci. 2023;3(2):194–200. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​
o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​4​​7​5​4​​0​/​i​​j​i​a​s​.​v​3​i​2​.​8​7​8.
53. Ngo TTA. The perception by university students of the use of ChatGPT in education. Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2023;18(17):4–19.​
h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​3​​9​9​1​​/​i​j​​e​t​.​v​1​8​i​1​7​.​3​9​0​1​9.
54. Extance A. ChatGPT has entered the classroom: how LLMs could
transform education. Nature. 2023;623:474–7. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​n​​a​t​u​​r​
e​.​c​​o​m​/​​a​r​t​​i​c​l​​e​s​/​​d​4​1​5​​8​6​​-​0​2​3​-​0​3​5​0​7​-​3.
55. Sanmarchi F, Bucci A, Nuzzolese AG, Carullo G, Toscano F,
Nante N, Golinelli D. (2023). A step-by-step researcher’s guide
to the use of an AI-based transformer in epidemiology: an exploratory analysis of ChatGPT using the STROBE checklist for
observational studies. J Public Health, 1–36.
56. Savellon M, Baybayan S, Asiri M. Learning satisfaction on the
use of Chatgpt among nursing students in selected higher education institutions in Sulu. J Educ Acad Settings. 2024;1(1):1–16. ​h​
t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​6​​2​5​9​​6​/​t​​3​w​g​s​m​5​5.
57. Cahan P, Treutlein B. A conversation with ChatGPT on the role of
computational systems biology in stem cell research. Stem Cell
Rep. 2023;18(1):1–2.
58. Lubowitz JH. ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, is
impacting medical literature. Arthroscopy. 2023;39(5):1121–2.
59. Stokel-Walker C, Van Noorden R. What ChatGPT and generative
AI mean for science. Nature. 2023;614(7947):214–6.
60. Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science.
2023;379(6630):313. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​1​2​6​​/​s​c​​i​e​n​c​e​.​a​d​g​7​8​7​9.
61. Marchandot B, Matsushita K, Carmona A, Trimaille A, Morel
O. ChatGPT: the next frontier in academic writing for cardiologists or a Pandora’s box of ethical dilemmas. Eur Heart J Open.
2023;3(2). ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​0​9​3​​/​e​h​​j​o​p​e​n​/​o​e​a​d​0​0​7.
62. Moons P, Van Bulck L. ChatGPT: can artificial intelligence Language models be of value for cardiovascular nurses and allied
health professionals. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023;22(7):e55–9. ​h​
t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​0​9​3​​/​e​u​​r​j​c​n​/​z​v​a​d​0​2​2.
63. Abujaber AA, Abd-Alrazaq A, Al-Qudimat AR, Nashwan AJ.
(2023). A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT) analysis of ChatGPT integration in nursing education:
a narrative review. Cureus, 15(11).
Page 17 of 17
476
64. Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh,
S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022). Comparing scientific
abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an
artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and
blinded human reviewers. BioRxiv. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​1​0​1​​/​2​0​​2​2​.​
1​2​.​2​3​.​5​2​1​6​1​0
65. Corn JO, Tagsold JT, Patel RK. The Tech-Savvy teacher: instruction in a 1: 1 learning environment. J Educational Res Pract.
2011;1(1):1–22.
66. Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing
new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management; 1986.
67. Bulger M. Personalized learning: the conversations we’re not
having. Data Soc. 2016;22(1):1–29.
68. Kuhail MA, Alturki N, Alramlawi S, Alhejori K. Interacting with
educational chatbots: A systematic review. Educ Inform Technol.
2023;28(1):973–1018.
69. Sallam M, Salim NA, Barakat M, Ala’a B. (2023). ChatGPT
applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: A descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations. Narra J, 3(1).
70. Tlili A, Shehata B, Adarkwah MA, Bozkurt A, Hickey DT, Huang
R, Agyemang B. What if the devil is my guardian Angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learn
Environ. 2023;10(1):15.
71. Kanabar V. (2023). An Empirical Study of Student Perceptions
When Using ChatGPT in Academic Assignments. In T. Zlateva
& G. Tuparov, editors, Computer Science and Education in Computer Science, 2023;385–398. Springer. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​0​0​7​​/​9​
7​​8​-​3​-​0​3​1​-​4​4​6​6​8​-​9​_​3​0
72. Shoufan A. Exploring students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: thematic
analysis and Follow-Up survey. IEEE Access. 2023;11:38805–18.​
h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​1​​1​0​9​​/​A​C​​C​E​S​S​.​2​0​2​3​.​3​2​6​8​2​2​4.
73. Alfadda HA, Mahdi HS. Measuring students’ use of zoom application in Language course based on the technology acceptance
model (TAM). J Psycholinguist Res. 2021;50(4):883–900.
74. Lee DY, Lehto MR. User acceptance of YouTube for procedural
learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Comput Educ. 2013;61:193–208.
75. Lo CK. What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid
review of the literature. Educ Sci. 2023;13(4):410.
76. Okonkwo CW, Ade-Ibijola A. Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers Education: Artif Intell.
2021;2:100033.
77. Hidayatullah E. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of ChatGPT
to improve English students’ writing skill. Humanities, Education, Applied Linguistics, and Language Teaching: Conference
Series 1. (1);14–19. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​​​/​​/​s​e​m​i​n​​a​​r​.​​u​s​t​​j​o​g​j​​​a​.​​​a​c​​.​​i​d​​/​i​n​​​d​e​x​​.​​p​h​p​/​h​e​a​l
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
SN Computer Science