Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education?

A study of students’ acceptance and use of
technology

Artur Strzelecki

To cite this article: Artur Strzelecki (2023): To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A
study of students’ acceptance and use of technology, Interactive Learning Environments, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

Published online: 08 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of

students’ acceptance and use of technology
Artur Strzelecki
Department of Informatics, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

ChatGPT is an AI tool that assisted in writing, learning, solving assessments Received 4 April 2023
and could do so in a conversational way. The purpose of the study was to Accepted 29 April 2023
develop a model that examined the predictors of adoption and use of
KEYWORDS
ChatGPT among higher education students. The proposed model was ChatGPT; higher education;
based on a previous theory of technology adoption. Seven predictors technology acceptance
were selected to build a model that predicted the behavioral intention
and use behavior of ChatGPT. The partial-least squares method of
structural equation modeling was used for data analysis. The model was
found to be reliable and valid, and the results were based on a self-
reported data of 534 students from a Polish state university. Nine out of
ten proposed hypotheses were confirmed by the results. Habit was found
to be the best predictor of behavioral intention, followed by performance
expectancy and hedonic motivation. The dominant determinant of use
behavior was behavioral intention, followed by personal innovativeness.
The research highlighted the need for further examination of how AI
tools could be adopted in learning and teaching.

Introduction
ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot released by OpenAI, is equipped with a large language model that
enables it to generate original text in response to prompts given by users. This technology, launched
in November of last year, is available for free through an OpenAI account (OpenAI, 2023). However,
the rise of generative AI, of which ChatGPT is an example, has raised concerns about its potential
impact on various industries and institutions. One potential application of ChatGPT is in the realm
of higher education, where it presents an opportunity to reconsider the purpose of assessment
and how it can enhance learning. Rather than simply turning to software for assessment, institutions
can use ChatGPT to teach critical thinking, writing, and the role of AI in today’s world. In this way,
ChatGPT is considered as a valuable tool in innovative and inclusive teaching, learning, and assess-
ment that aligns with a transformative relationship with knowledge.
To explore the ChatGPT’s potential applications in higher education, different areas can be dis-
cussed as software is producing fake citations (Cooper, 2023), developing assignments (Sullivan
et al., 2023), supporting essay writing (Crawford et al., 2023), and encouraging critical reflection
on AI’s use in society (van Dis et al., 2023). As universities weigh the implications of AI chats,
some academic teachers have already incorporated it into their assignments to expose its limitations
and challenge the technology. Universities are considering how ChatGPT may impact higher edu-
cation teaching and learning in the future, as the possibilities of this technology are vast and poten-
tially game-changing (Lim et al., 2023).
By reviewing current published peer-reviewed papers about the usage of ChatGPT in higher edu-
cation and academia, several emerging topics can be identified. These include the usage of ChatGPT

CONTACT Artur Strzelecki [email protected]

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. STRZELECKI

in general education (Cotton et al., 2023), although most of the ongoing discussion is focused on its
use in medical education (Gilson et al., 2023). Some researchers have interviewed ChatGPT and asked
about its influence on education (Lund & Wang, 2023), while others have raised concerns and
benefits in academic research, writing, publishing, authorship, and other general fields (Perkins,
2023). Some of the papers consist only of letters, commentaries, or editorials and may not have
gone through a formal review process. This is because utilizing of ChatGPT in academia and
higher education is relatively new and is still being explored.
We have observed a research gap in the current literature, which primarily focuses on academic
teachers and scientists’ views on ChatGPT and its future. However, we recognize that students are
crucial stakeholders who wish to incorporate ChatGPT into their higher education process. As the
AI tool was launched recently, there is limited knowledge regarding students’ acceptance of this
new technology and its use. Therefore, we propose to conduct a study to investigate students’
acceptance of this technology, its predictors, and the level of acceptance. To measure technology
acceptance, we propose to employ components of a well-established “Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology (UTAUT2)” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012).
We are aware that some may believe that everything has been said about the application of the
UTAUT2 theory. However, recent studies show that the UTAUT2 model is being used to test new
technologies introduced into higher education, such as animation (Dajani & Abu Hegleh, 2019),
lecture capture system (Farooq et al., 2017), e-learning platforms (Zacharis & Nikolopoulou, 2022),
mobile devices (Hoi, 2020) and learning management systems (Raza et al., 2022; Zwain, 2019). There-
fore, we have chosen to use this theoretical foundation to develop a proposition that explains the
acceptance and usage of ChatGPT by students.
The study is organized as follows. The introduction section provides preliminary information
about the creation of ChatGPT and the debates surrounding its use in academia and education.
The method section details the UTAUT2 model and its implementation to assess students’ accep-
tance and utilization of ChatGPT in university education. We also present a modified measurement
scale specifically for ChatGPT in university education. In the next section, we demonstrate the results
of the structural modeling equation using the partial least squares method, as well as the theoretical
model estimation, followed by a discussion of our findings. Finally, we emphasize the novelty and
contribution of this study in this section.

Method
In this study, we are utilizing components of the well-established “Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT2)” developed by Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2012). UTAUT identifies
seven predictors of technology usage and intention to use, including “Performance Expectancy”,
“Effort Expectancy”, “Social Influence”, “Facilitating Conditions”, “Hedonic Motivation”, “Price
Value”, and “Habit”. We propose to modify the list of predictors by removing “Price Value”, as
the current use of ChatGPT is free for everyone. Although a ChatGPT Plus version is available for
$20 per month, it provides benefits such as faster response time and priority access to new features.
Nonetheless, the ChatGPT remains free for everyone at present. We would like to introduce “Personal
Innovativeness” as an additional predictor in the model as described by Agarwal and Prasad (1998).
In this study, we define “Personal Innovativeness” as an individual’s willingness and capacity to
adopt and utilize ChatGPT in their higher education process, which involves a proactive and, at
times, risk-taking approach to innovation, openness to change, and eagerness to learn new things.

Hypothesis development
Performance expectancy “refers to the degree to which an individual expects that using a particular
technology will improve their performance in achieving specific tasks or goals” (Davis, 1989; Venka-
tesh & Davis, 2003). El-Masri and Tarhini (2017) found that “Performance expectancy” plays a crucial
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

role in the adoption of educational systems within academic settings. This notion is supported by
several studies that have shown the significant influence of “Performance expectancy” on learners’
“Behavioral intention” to embrace innovative educational technologies. For example, Kumar and
Bervell (2019) demonstrated this relationship in the context of Google Classroom, while Arain
et al. (2019) and Raman and Don (2013) explored it in the context of mobile learning and learning
management systems, respectively. In the context of a study testing the acceptance and usage of
ChatGPT by students in higher education, “Performance expectancy” would refer to the extent to
which students believe that using ChatGPT would enhance their academic performance or pro-
ductivity. Followed hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Performance expectancy has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention

Effort expectancy “refers to the degree to which an individual expects that using a particular tech-
nology will be free of effort” (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Venkatesh & Davis, 2003). Recent research has
highlighted the substantial impact of “Effort expectancy” on learners’ “Behavioral intention” to
adopt various educational technologies. For example, studies conducted by Hu et al. (2020) and
Raza et al. (2022) found that Effort Expectancy played a significant role in the adoption of mobile
learning and learning management systems, respectively. Similarly, Jakkaew and Hemrungrote
(2017) identified the influence of Effort Expectancy in the context of specific platforms like Google
Classroom. “Effort expectancy” in the context of a study would describe the degree to which stu-
dents believe that ChatGPT is simple to use and requires little effort to interact with. Followed
hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Effort expectancy has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention

Social influence “refers to the degree to which an individual perceives that people who are impor-
tant to them think they should use a particular technology” (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;
Venkatesh & Davis, 2003). Numerous studies have established that “Social influence” plays a vital
role in determining users’ “Behavioral intention” to adopt technology in education. This has been
demonstrated in various contexts, including mobile learning (Nikolopoulou et al., 2020), e-learning
platforms (Samsudeen & Mohamed, 2019), and learning management systems (Ain et al., 2016).
“Social influence” in this study refers to how much students believe their colleagues, teachers, or
other influential members of their social environment are supporting or encouraging them to use
ChatGPT. Followed hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Social influence has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention

Facilitating conditions “refers to the degree to which an individual perceives that the necessary
resources and support are available to use a particular technology effectively” (Taylor & Todd, 1995;
Venkatesh & Davis, 2003). Studies have demonstrated that “Facilitating conditions” is a crucial deter-
minant of both learners’ “Behavioral intention” and “Use behavior” and is recognized as one of the
most significant factors in determining an individual’s technology usage. Additionally, “Facilitating
conditions” has been identified as a critical factor in the adoption of various educational technol-
ogies, such as mobile learning (Kang et al., 2015), e-learning platforms (Osei et al., 2022), and aug-
mented reality (Faqih & Jaradat, 2021) in higher education. “Facilitating conditions” would refer
to how much students believe they have access to the AI tool despite its high demand, as well as
their availability of technical support and ChatGPT training. Followed hypotheses are proposed:
H4: Facilitating conditions has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention

H5: Facilitating conditions has direct and significant impact on Use behavior

Hedonic motivation “refers to the degree to which an individual is motivated to use a particular
technology for its inherent enjoyment, pleasure, or novelty” (van der, 2004; Venkatesh & Xu,, 2012).
Research has indicated that “Hedonic motivation” plays a crucial role in technology adoption in
4 A. STRZELECKI

various educational contexts. For instance, Dajani and Abu Hegleh (2019) found that “Hedonic
motivation” was a significant factor in animation usage among university students, while Azizi
et al. (2020), Twum et al. (2022), and Zwain (2019) reported its influence on the adoption of
mobile learning, e-learning platforms, and learning management systems, respectively. “Hedonic
motivation” in this setting would refer to the degree to which students find ChatGPT entertaining
or enjoyable to use, as well as the degree to which they enjoy discovering new technological AI
tools. Followed hypothesis is proposed:
H6: Hedonic motivation has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention

Habit “refers to the degree to which an individual’s use of a particular technology is automatic or
ingrained as a routine behavior” (Limayem et al., 2007; Venkatesh & Xu, 2012). Research has estab-
lished that Habit plays a crucial role in determining students’ “Behavioral intention” to use technol-
ogy in tertiary education. This is especially true in the context of mobile learning, as evidenced by
studies conducted by Ameri et al. (2020) and Yu et al. (2021). Similarly, Zacharis and Nikolopoulou
(2022) identified the influence of Habit on the adoption of e-learning platforms, while Alotumi
(2022) found Habit to be a crucial factor in the utilization of specific platforms like Google Classroom.
Regarding a study, “Habit” can be defined as the level to which students have established a regular
and consistent pattern of using ChatGPT as part of their academic routine. This may include factors
such as frequency of use, duration of use, and the degree to which ChatGPT has become integrated
into their workflow. Followed hypothesis is proposed:
H7: Habit has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention

H8 Habit has direct and significant impact on Use behavior

Personal innovativeness “refers to an individual’s willingness and ability to adopt and use new
technology in their daily life” (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). Studies examining the adoption of various
educational technologies have shown that Personal innovativeness is an essential addition to the
UTAUT2 model in higher education contexts. For example, Twum et al. (2022) found that Personal
innovativeness significantly influences the adoption of e-learning platforms. Similarly, Dajani and
Abu Hegleh (2019) identified Personal innovativeness as a crucial factor in the usage of animation
among university students, while Farooq et al. (2017) found it to be a determinant in the adoption
of lecture capture systems. Additionally, Sitar-Taut and Mican (2021) found that Personal innovative-
ness plays a vital role in the adoption of mobile learning during social distancing. In the study’s
context, personal innovativeness would pertain to the level of willingness among students to
embrace innovative technological tools like ChatGPT and their perceived ability to acquire and
master new technological skills. Followed hypothesis is proposed:
H9: Personal innovativeness has direct and significant impact on Use behavior

Behavioral intention “refers to an individual’s subjective likelihood or intention to use a particular

technology in the future” (Davis, 1986; Venkatesh & Xu,, 2012). “Behavioral intention” would refer to
the degree to which students intend to use ChatGPT in the higher education process.
It is a significant indicator of actual technology use and is influenced by the other UTAUT2 model
constructs. Use behavior “refers to the actual usage of a technology by an individual, after having
formed behavioral intentions towards its use” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2012). Use behavior in this
study refers to the frequency, duration, and patterns of usage as well as the degree to which students
actually use ChatGPT in their academic work. The use behavior is also be influenced by habit.
This study has included “Study year” and “Gender” as moderating variables that may affect the
relationships between the model predictors and the “Behavioral intention” and “Use behavior” of
ChatGPT. We have chosen to use only two moderators in the model due to the difficulty in measur-
ing the original moderator “Experience”, given the short time that ChatGPT has been available to
users. “Gender” is employed in a similar manner to the original theory, but we have substituted
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

“Age” with “Study Year”. We will not inquire about respondents’ specific age but rather their study
year and level. Our theoretical model is presented in Figure 1, which includes seven predictors, six of
which are originally from the UTAUT2 model, and an additional external variable, “Personal
Innovativeness”.

Measurement scale
The method used for data collection involved the use of a seven-point Likert scale that provided
respondents with options ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. To measure use
behavior, a 7-options scale was utilized with response options ranging from “never” to “several
times a day”. To standardize model estimation for each option, we have established a numerical
metric scale ranging from 1 to 7. This scale is defined as follows: “Never” corresponds to 1, “Once
a month” corresponds to 2, “Several times a month” corresponds to 3, “Once a week” corresponds
to 4, “Several times a week” corresponds to 5, “Once a day” corresponds to 6, and “Several times a
day” corresponds to 7. A detailed presentation of the measurement scale and descriptive statistics is
available in Table 1.
We utilized a total of 30 items, 18 of which were adapted from Venkatesh et al.’s (2003, 2012)
studies that developed the UTAUT and UTAUT2 models. The original items from these studies

Figure 1. A proposition for ChatGPT acceptance and use model.

6 A. STRZELECKI

pertained to “using the system” and “using mobile Internet”, respectively. We modified these items
to refer to “using ChatGPT” in this study. “Performance expectancy” consists of four items that are
oriented towards using ChatGPT “in studies”. Similarly, “Effort expectancy” contains 4 items, “Social
influence” has 3 items as per UTAUT2, “Facilitating conditions” has 4 items, and “Behavioral inten-
tion” has 3 items. These variables were initially introduced in the 2003 version of UTAUT. Addition-
ally, “Hedonic motivation” has 3 items and “Habit” has 4 items, as per the UTAUT2 version from
2012. “Use behavior” is measured with a 7-option scale, and only 1 item was utilized in this
study. Venkatesh et al.’s (2012) original study did not provide details on how “Use behavior” was
measured. In this study, the use of ChatGPT was measured on a 7-option scale ranging from

Table 1. Measurement scale and factor loadings.

Construct Item Items Loading Mean St.dev. Adapted from
Performance PE1 “I believe that ChatGPT is useful in my studies” 0.905 5.147 1.696 Venkatesh et al.
expectancy (2003, 2012)
PE2 “Using ChatGPT increases your chances of 0.870 4.702 1.789
achieving important things in your studies”
PE3 “Using ChatGPT helps you get tasks and projects 0.895 5.548 1.619
done faster in your studies”
PE4 “Using ChatGPT increases your productivity in your 0.867 4.873 1.857
studies”
Effort expectancy EE1 “Learning how to use ChatGPT is easy for me” 0.870 5.687 1.507 Venkatesh et al.
EE2 “My interaction with ChatGPT is clear and 0.893 5.629 1.450 (2003, 2012)
understandable”
EE3 “I find ChatGPT easy to use” 0.895 5.821 1.400
EE4 “It is easy for me to become skillful at using 0.912 5.732 1.427
ChatGPT”
Social influence SI1 “People who are important to me think I should 0.939 3.944 1.580 (Venkatesh & Xu,
ChatGPT” 2012)
SI2 “People who influence my behavior believe that I 0.943 3.903 1.590
should use ChatGPT”
SI3 “People whose opinions I value prefer me to use 0.937 3.897 1.629
ChatGPT”
Facilitating FC1 “I have the resources necessary to use ChatGPT” 0.853 3.944 1.580 Venkatesh et al.
conditions (2003, 2012)
FC2 “I have the knowledge necessary to use ChatGPT” 0.903 3.903 1.590
FC3 “ChatGPT is compatible with technologies I use” 0.829 3.897 1.629
FC4 “I can get help from others when I have difficulties 0.595 3.944 1.580
using ChatGPT” (dropped)
Hedonic HM1 “Using ChatGPT is fun” 0.955 5.819 1.537 (Venkatesh & Xu,
motivation 2012)
HM2 “Using ChatGPT is enjoyable” 0.962 5.756 1.505
HM3 “Using ChatGPT is very entertaining” 0.729 5.210 1.716
Habit HT1 “The use of ChatGPT has become a habit for me” 0.893 5.819 1.537 (Venkatesh & Xu,
HT2 “I am addicted to using ChatGPT” 0.846 5.756 1.505 2012)
HT3 “I must use ChatGPT” 0.783 5.210 1.716
HT4 “Using ChatGPT has become natural for me” 0.890 5.819 1.537
Behavioral BI1 “I intend to continue using ChatGPT in the future” 0.905 5.371 1.789 (Venkatesh & Xu,
Intention 2012)
BI2 “I will always try to use ChatGPT in my studies” 0.832 3.383 1.912
BI3 “I plan to continue to use ChatGPT frequently” 0.939 4.433 2.048
Personal PI1 “I like experimenting with new information 0.914 5.752 1.591 (Agarwal &
innovativeness technologies” Prasad, 1998)
PI2 “If I heard about a new information technology, I 0.910 5.379 1.667
would look for ways to experiment with it”
PI3 “Among my family/friends, I am usually the first to 0.823 5.363 1.784
try out new information technologies”
PI4 “In general, I do not hesitate to try out new 0.786 5.288 1.767
information technologies”
Use Behavior UB1 “Please choose your usage frequency for ChatGPT: 1.000 3.435 1.597 (Venkatesh & Xu,
Never; Once a month; Several times a month; 2012)
Once a week; Several times a week; Once a day;
Several times a day”
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

“never” to “several times a day”. Finally, the remaining four items were adapted from Agarwal and
Prasad’s (1998) study. Before administering the new scales developed for this study to the targeted
audience, a pilot study was conducted with 36 students (18 women and 18 men) from the bachelor
study program to test their efficacy. Each construct met the reliability and validity criteria, and dis-
criminant validity was confirmed (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2013).

Sample characteristic
For a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), choosing the right sample size is
crucial to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the findings. In PLS-SEM studies, the sample size is not
fixed and is dependent on a number of variables, including the model’s complexity, the number of
latent variables and indicators, the magnitudes of the effects, and the desired level of statistical
power (Hair et al., 2013). While others recommend that the sample size to indicator ratio should
be at least 5:1 or 10:1, some researchers recommend a minimum sample size of 100–200 obser-
vations (Kock, 2018). For this study, a significant sample size of 300 observations is required
because there are 30 indicators in use (Table 1).
The questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms and sent directly to the email addresses of
students at the University of Economics in Katowice, Poland, at the beginning of March 2023. The
survey remained open for one week. A total of 534 valid responses were collected, resulting in a
response rate of 3.99%. The sample consisted of 229 female students (42.9%), 282 male students
(52.8%), and 23 students who preferred not to disclose their gender (4.3%). The sample size was
diverse in terms of academic progress, with 29 students from the first year (5.4%), 170 students
from the second year (31.8%), and 200 students from the third year (37.5%) of the bachelor’s
degree program. The sample also included 57 students from the first year (10.7%) and 69 students
from the second year (12.9%) of the master’s degree program and nine PhD candidates (1.7%).

Results
To estimate the model, we used the PLS-SEM algorithm with the weighting path scheme in SmartPLS
4 software (Version 4.0.9.1) with a maximum of 3000 iterations and default initial weights, and
employed bootstrapping, a nonparametric procedure, running 5000 samples, to determine the stat-
istical significance of the PLS-SEM results, as recommended by Ringle et al. (2022). Reflectively
specified constructs were analyzed using the indicator loadings, and an indicator loading above
0.7 suggested that the construct accounted for more than 50% of the variance in the indicator, indi-
cating an acceptable level of item reliability. Table 1 presents the loadings, which exceed the lower
bond. Item FC4 with the question “I can get help from others when I have difficulties using ChatGPT”
was removed from further processing in the model because it was vague due to too low loadings
value. It was not considered, leaving the model with 29 items used to estimate the model.
Composite reliability is a standard for evaluating reliability, with results ranging from 0.70 to 0.95
indicating acceptable to good levels of reliability (Hair et al., 2022). Internal consistency reliability was
measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which uses similar thresholds as composite reliability (ρc).
Another reliability coefficient ρA, based on Dijkstra (2010), was also used to provide an exact and
consistent alternative. The average variance extracted (AVE) from all items linked to a specific reflec-
tive variable was used to assess the convergent validity of the measurement models, and an AVE
threshold of 0.50 or higher was deemed acceptable (Sarstedt et al., 2022). Composite reliability, Cron-
bach’s alpha, reliability coefficient, and AVE met the quality criteria presented in Table 2.
To analyze discriminant validity in PLS-SEM, the preferred method is the heterotrait–monotrait
ratio of correlations (HTMT) introduced by Henseler et al. (2015). A HTMT threshold of .90 is rec-
ommended to ensure discriminant validity, particularly when constructs are conceptually similar,
whereas a threshold of .85 is more appropriate for more distinct constructs. In Table 3, all values
fall below the .85 threshold, indicating good discriminant validity.
8 A. STRZELECKI

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.

Cronbach’s alpha Reliability coefficient Composite reliability AVE
Behavioral intention 0.872 0.882 0.922 0.797
Effort expectancy 0.915 0.927 0.940 0.797
Facilitating Conditions 0.827 0.830 0.897 0.743
Habit 0.879 0.915 0.915 0.730
Hedonic motivation 0.867 0.951 0.917 0.790
Performance expectancy 0.907 0.909 0.935 0.782
Personal Innovativeness 0.882 0.896 0.919 0.740
Social influence 0.934 0.936 0.958 0.883

Table 3. HTMT values.

BI EE FC HT HM PE PI SI UB
BI
EE .636
FC .629 .798
HT .767 .376 .384
HM .740 .744 .760 .412
PE .841 .596 .595 .613 .725
PI .621 .597 .610 .402 .639 .586
SI .612 .420 .489 .503 .462 .583 .407
UB .748 .538 .559 .629 .496 .577 .516 .451
Note: PE: performance expectancy; EE: effort expectancy; SI: social influence; FC: facilitating conditions; HM: hedonic motivation;
PV: price value; HT: habit; PI: personal innovativeness; BI: behavioral intention; UB: use behavior.

The coefficient of determination (R2) is then assessed to determine the explanatory power of each
construct and the overall model. R 2 ranges from 0 to 1, and higher values indicate larger explanatory
power. As a general rule of thumb, R 2 values of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 are considered weak, moderate,
and substantial, respectively (Hair et al., 2011). To determine the effect size of a variable, f 2 values of
0.35, 0.15, and 0.02 correspond to large, medium, and small effects, respectively, and values below
0.02 suggest an absence of impact (Sarstedt et al., 2022).
Figure 2 displays the results of the PLS-SEM analysis, with standardized regression coefficients
indicating the relationships between the variables and R 2 values presented within the circles. The
analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of “Behavioral intention” was “Habit” having a coeffi-
cient of .351, followed by “Performance expectancy” (.261) and “Hedonic motivation” (.221), which
together accounted for 73.4% of the variance in “Behavioral intention”. Positive effect on “Behavioral
intention” were also observed for “Social influence” (.099), “Effort expectancy” (.085), and “Personal
innovativeness” (.086), but these relationships did not have a significant f 2 effect size. Conversely,
“Behavioral intention” had the most significant impact (.415) on “Use behavior”, followed by
“Habit” (.251) and “Facilitating conditions” (.179), accounting for 56.3% of the variance in “Use
behavior”. The only hypothesis that was not supported is H4, as we did not confirm the effect of
“Facilitating conditions” on “Behavioral intention”. The significance tests for the structural
model’s path coefficients and hypotheses confirmation are presented in Table 4.
We have incorporated moderating relationships of “Gender” and “Study year” into the model,
which were hypothesized a priori and specifically tested. The results of the moderating effect of
“Gender” and “Study year” are presented in Table 5. The findings reveal that none of the two mod-
erating variables had a significant impact on the tested relationships between predictors and depen-
dent variables.

Discussion
Our research adds to the current understanding of how ChatGPT is perceived by students. Although
there is limited literature on this topic, particularly in the context of higher education, our findings
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

Figure 2. The results for ChatGPT acceptance and use model.

have significant implications for expanding the conversation on the use of AI chat technology as an
academic aid. We utilized the core constructs from UTAUT2 scale and “Personal innovativeness” to
evaluate the acceptance and usage of ChatGPT, and all seven external variables met the reliability
and validity standards. Our results confirm that three variables – “Performance expectancy”,
“Habit”, and “Hedonic motivation” – are positively associated with “Behavioral intention”, aligning
with El-Masri and Tarhini (2017) study on users’ acceptance of e-learning system.

Table 4. Path coefficients and the results of the significance tests.

Hypothesis Path Coefficient P values f2 Confirmed
H1 Performance expectancy → Behavioral intention .261 .000 .100 Yes
H2 Effort expectancy → Behavioral intention .085 .028 .011 Yes
H3 Social influence → Behavioral intention .099 .002 .023 Yes
H4 Facilitating Conditions → Behavioral intention −.005 .906 .000 No
H5 Facilitating Conditions → Use behavior .179 .000 .051 Yes
H6 Hedonic motivation → Behavioral intention .221 .000 .064 Yes
H7 Habit → Behavioral intention .351 .000 .287 Yes
H8 Habit → Use behavior .251 .000 .074 Yes
H9 Personal Innovativeness → Behavioral intention .069 .026 .010 Yes
H10 Behavioral intention → Use behavior .415 .000 .162 Yes
10 A. STRZELECKI

Table 5. Moderating effects.

Path Coefficient P values f2 Moderating effect
Study year x Habit → Behavioral intention .032 .192 .003 No
Study year x Habit → Use behavior −.044 .196 .005 No
Study year x Facilitating Conditions → Behavioral intention .029 .391 .002 No
Study year x Hedonic motivation → Behavioral intention −.055 .118 .005 No
Gender x Habit → Behavioral intention .007 .775 .000 No
Gender x Habit → Use behavior −.029 .334 .002 No
Gender x Hedonic motivation → Behavioral intention .005 .911 .000 No
Gender x Facilitating Conditions → Behavioral intention −.020 .615 .001 No

Our study confirms the previous findings of Venkatesh and Xu, (2012) and Yu et al. (2021) regard-
ing the strong association between “Performance expectancy” and “Habit” in the acceptance of
emerging technologies in higher education. Specifically, in the context of AI-powered chat technol-
ogy like ChatGPT, our results indicate that students are comfortable adopting new technologies and
that their frequency of use contributes to the development of habitual behavior. The majority of
technology acceptance studies in higher education have also found that “Habit” has a significant
positive impact on “Behavioral intention”. For example, studies have shown that “Habit” positively
influences the acceptance and use of learning management system (Zwain, 2019) and e-learning
adoption (Osei et al., 2022). However, our findings differ from those of Ain et al. (2016), who discov-
ered no direct impact of “Habit” on “Behavioral intention” to use learning management systems, as
well as Twum et al. (2022), who discovered no direct effect of “Habit” on “Behavioral intention” to
use e-learning. Our study also proves the significant relationship between “Habit” and “Use behav-
ior”, consistent with the original UTAUT2 model.
We found that “Performance expectancy” is the second strongest predictor of “Behavioral inten-
tion”. These results are consistent with previous research that has demonstrated a positive corre-
lation between “Performance expectancy” and “Behavioral intention” in various contexts, such as
learning management software (Raza et al., 2022), and mobile learning (Kang et al., 2015). Moreover,
“Performance expectancy” has been identified as a significant predictor of “Behavioral intention” in
other studies, such as Edumadze et al.’s (2022) investigation of students’ perception of using video
conferencing tools and Wong et al.’s (2015) study on the intention to use interactive whiteboards.
Our findings suggest that students are more likely to adopt functional technologies like ChatGPT
when they have high levels of “Performance expectancy”.
Our study showed that there is a positive relationship between “Hedonic motivation” and
“Behavioral intention” to use ChatGPT. Students perceive AI chat as enjoyable and entertaining,
possibly because of the dialogue-based interface that interacts with users and allows for various
types of conversations within the boundaries set by the ChatGPT authors. It is consistent with
earlier studies on the adoption of new technologies in higher education, such as massive online
open courses (Tseng et al., 2022) and e-learning platforms (Samsudeen & Mohamed, 2019). On
the other hand, our findings are contradictory to studies that examined the use of Google Classroom
(Alotumi, 2022) and in e-learning adoption (Mehta et al., 2019).
Our study shows that both “Effort expectancy” and “Social influence” have a significant positive
effect on “Behavioral intention”, although their f 2 values are less than 0.02. Among all the variables,
“Effort expectancy” received the highest mean values in students’ responses, indicating a wide-
spread use of AI-powered chat technology and no issues with interacting with ChatGPT. This
finding suggests that the effort required to use this technology in higher education is low and
does not affect “Behavioral intention”. Similar results have been reported in studies on the use of
e-learning platforms during social distancing (Zacharis & Nikolopoulou, 2022) and Microsoft Power-
Point use in higher education (Chávez Herting et al., 2023). As early adopters and quick learners, stu-
dents often find new technologies easy to use and quickly become skilled at using them.
The impact of “Social influence” on the “Behavioral intention” to use ChatGPT is low, according to
our study. The use of the AI-powered chat is more likely among early adopters who have a well-
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

educated background and are not influenced by external factors. Because ChatGPT is a relatively new
technology and has not yet gained widespread adoption, our findings imply that there is no social
pressure to adopt it. However, as universities develop policies regarding the use of AI tools like
ChatGPT, “Social influence” may become more relevant. Previous studies have shown “Social
influence” to be a significant factor in “Behavioral intention” in areas such as mobile devices (Hoi,
2020) and mobile learning (Ameri et al., 2020), while other studies such as Kumar and Bervell
(2019) or Alotumi (2022) on Google Classroom acceptance did not find such significance.
Our study found that the “Facilitating conditions” had no significant impact on “Behavioral inten-
tion”. Although this construct initially included an item FC4, which was removed from the model
because its loading was below the expected value of 0.7, it still did not have a significant effect on
“Behavioral intention”. However, it did have a significant impact on “Use behavior” as per the original
UTAUT model. Our findings suggest that students find ChatGPT’s interface easy to use, and it is available
in several languages, requiring only prompts to operate. No additional resources or devices are necess-
ary, and it works independently. Prior research on the adoption of technology has also reported that
“Facilitating conditions” have no effect on “Behavioral intention” (Ameri et al., 2020; Arain et al., 2019).
“Personal innovativeness”, was found to have a slightly positive effect on “Behavioral intention”,
although its f 2 value was less than 0.02. This result suggests that students may have limited experi-
ence with ChatGPT and may not be familiar enough with using it. The model we used explains 73.4%
of the variation in “Behavioral intention”, indicating a substantial explanatory power. Furthermore,
“Behavioral intention” has a significant and direct impact on “Use behavior”, which is explained by
the model to a moderate extent of 56.3%.
The uniqueness of this study is its emphasis on ChatGPT, a recently developed language model
that has not been extensively investigated in the context of higher education. The scarcity of pre-
vious studies on ChatGPT, particularly regarding its use and acceptance in higher education, empha-
sizes the novelty of this research. Consequently, the outcomes of this study could significantly
contribute to the understanding of ChatGPT adoption and utilization in higher education and
assist in developing effective educational applications for this technology.

Conclusion
The objective of this research was to investigate the acceptance of ChatGPT among students and
validate the significant influence of “Habit”, “Performance Expectancy”, and “Hedonic Motivation”
on the “Behavioral Intention” to use ChatGPT. However, this research is limited by the fact that the
sample was drawn from only one state university in Poland, although it was diverse in terms of stu-
dents’ academic backgrounds. Since ChatGPT use in higher education is still an emerging area of
research, future studies can further evaluate the scale employed in this study and improve it for
future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Artur Strzelecki is associate professor at the Informatics Department, University of Economics in Katowice, Poland. In
2013 he has received his Ph.D. from the University of Economics in Katowice in management. In 2021 he has received
his D.Sc. from the University of Economics in Katowice in management and quality sciences. His research centers in
search engines, e-commerce, higher education and social media.

Data statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.
12 A. STRZELECKI

ORCID
Artur Strzelecki http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3487-0971

References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of
information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204
Ain, N., Kaur, K., & Waheed, M. (2016). The influence of learning value on learning management system use. Information
Development, 32(5), 1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915597546
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alotumi, M. (2022). Factors influencing graduate students’ behavioral intention to use Google Classroom: Case study-
mixed methods research. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10035–10063. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-022-11051-2
Ameri, A., Khajouei, R., Ameri, A., & Jahani, Y. (2020). Acceptance of a mobile-based educational application (LabSafety)
by pharmacy students: An application of the UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 419–435.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09965-5
Arain, A. A., Hussain, Z., Rizvi, W. H., & Vighio, M. S. (2019). Extending UTAUT2 toward acceptance of mobile learning in
the context of higher education. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10209-019-00685-8
Azizi, S. M., Roozbahani, N., & Khatony, A. (2020). Factors affecting the acceptance of blended learning in medical edu-
cation: Application of UTAUT2 model. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 367. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02302-2
Chávez Herting, D., Cladellas Pros, R., & Castelló Tarrida, A. (2023). Habit and social influence as determinants of
PowerPoint use in higher education: A study from a technology acceptance approach. Interactive Learning
Environments, 31(1), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799021
Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y
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, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K.-A. (2023). Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and
learning using artificial intelligence (AI). Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(3), https://doi.org/
10.53761/1.20.3.02
Dajani, D., & Abu Hegleh, A. S. (2019). Behavior intention of animation usage among university students. Heliyon, 5(10),
e02536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02536
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and
results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of Use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dijkstra, T. K. (2010). Latent variables and indices: Herman wold’s basic design and partial least squares. In Handbook of
partial least squares (pp. 23–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_2
Edumadze, J. K. E., Barfi, K. A., Arkorful, V., & Baffour Jnr, N. O. (2022). Undergraduate student’s perception of using video
conferencing tools under lockdown amidst COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–
12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2018618
El-Masri, M., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research and Development,
65(3), 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8
Faqih, Khaled M. S., & Jaradat, Mohammed-Issa Riad Mousa. (2021). Integrating TTF and UTAUT2 theories to investigate
the adoption of augmented reality technology in education: Perspective from a developing country. Technology in
Society, 67, 101787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101787
Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-Markovic, M., & Sajid, A. (2017). Acceptance and use of
lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329–
348. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2016-0015
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison
Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural model with unobserved variables and measurement errors.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023). How does ChatGPT perform
on the United States medical licensing examination? The implications of large language models for medical edu-
cation and knowledge assessment. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e45312. https://doi.org/10.2196/45312
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19
(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications,
better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hoi, V. N. (2020). Understanding higher education learners’ acceptance and use of mobile devices for language learning:
A Rasch-based path modeling approach. Computers & Education, 146, 103761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2019.103761
Hu, S., Laxman, K., & Lee, K. (2020). Exploring factors affecting academics’ adoption of emerging mobile technologies-an
extended UTAUT perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4615–4635. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-020-10171-x
Jakkaew, P., & Hemrungrote, S. (2017). The use of UTAUT2 model for understanding student perceptions using Google
Classroom: A case study of Introduction to Information Technology course. 2017 International Conference on Digital
Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904962
Kang, M., Liew, B. Y. T., Lim, H., Jang, J., & Lee, S. (2015). Lecture notes in educational technology. Lecture Notes in
Educational Technology (Issue 9783662441879, pp. 209–216). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44188-6_29
Kock, N. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: An application in tourism and hospitality research. In
Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research (pp. 1–16). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://
doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-699-620181001
Kumar, J. A., & Bervell, B. (2019). Google classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the initial percep-
tions of students. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1793–1817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-
09858-z
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education:
Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of
Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of infor-
mation systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi
Tech News, https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009
Mehta, A., Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B., & Homer, M. (2019, December). The influence of values on E-learning adoption.
Computers & Education, 141, 103617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103617
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an infor-
mation technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192
Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., & Lavidas, K. (2020). Acceptance of mobile phone by university students for their studies:
An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4139–4155. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10639-020-10157-9
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/
Osei, H. V., Kwateng, K. O., & Boateng, K. A. (2022). Integration of personality trait, motivation and UTAUT 2 to under-
stand e-learning adoption in the era of COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 10705–
10730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11047-y
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT
and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2), https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Raman, A., & Don, Y. (2013). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the
UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies, 6(7), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n7p157
Raza, S. A., Qazi, Z., Qazi, W., & Ahmed, M. (2022). E-learning in higher education during COVID-19: Evidence from black-
board learning system. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 1603–1622. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JARHE-02-2021-0054
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS GmbH.
Samsudeen, S. N., & Mohamed, R. (2019). University students’ intention to use e-learning systems. Interactive Technology
and Smart Education, 16(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2018-0092
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market
research (pp. 587–632). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15
Sitar-Taut, D.-A., & Mican, D. (2021). Mobile learning acceptance and use in higher education during social distancing
circumstances: An expansion and customization of UTAUT2. Online Information Review, 45(5), 1000–1019. https://doi.
org/10.1108/OIR-01-2021-0017
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and
student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
14 A. STRZELECKI

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information
Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Tseng, T. H., Lin, S., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, H. X. (2022). Investigating teachers’ adoption of MOOCs: The perspective of
UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674888
Twum, K. K., Ofori, D., Keney, G., & Korang-Yeboah, B. (2022). Using the UTAUT, personal innovativeness and perceived
financial cost to examine student’s intention to use E-learning. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management,
13(3), 713–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-12-2020-0168
van der, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148660
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature,
614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
Venkatesh, M., & Davis, D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27
(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, T., & Xu, (2012). Consumer acceptance and Use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of
acceptance and Use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Goh, P. S. C. (2015). Understanding the intention to use interactive whiteboards: Model develop-
ment and testing. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.806932
Yu, C.-W., Chao, C.-M., Chang, C.-F., Chen, R.-J., Chen, P.-C., & Liu, Y.-X. (2021). Exploring behavioral intention to Use a
mobile health education website: An extension of the UTAUT 2 model. SAGE Open, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/
21582440211055721
Zacharis, G., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2022). Factors predicting university students’ behavioral intention to use eLearning
platforms in the post-pandemic normal: An UTAUT2 approach with ‘learning value.’. Education and Information
Technologies, 27(9), 12065–12082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11116-2
Zwain, A. A. A. (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of users’ acceptance
of learning management system. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.
1108/ITSE-09-2018-0065