Students Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Educatio

Innovative Higher Education (2024) 49:223–245
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1
Students’ Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Education:

An Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology
Artur Strzelecki1
Accepted: 9 November 2023 / Published online: 30 November 2023

© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
AI-powered chat technology is an emerging topic worldwide, particularly in areas
such as education, research, writing, publishing, and authorship. This study aims
to explore the factors driving students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher educa-
tion. The study employs the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT2) theoretical model, with an extension of Personal innovativeness, to ver-
ify the Behavioral intention and Use behavior of ChatGPT by students. The study
uses data from a sample of 503 Polish state university students. The PLS-SEM
method is utilized to test the model. Results indicate that Habit has the most signifi-
cant impact (0.339) on Behavioral intention, followed by Performance expectancy
(0.260), and Hedonic motivation (0.187). Behavioral intention has the most signifi-
cant effect (0.424) on Use behavior, followed by Habit (0.255) and Facilitating con-
ditions (0.188). The model explains 72.8% of the Behavioral intention and 54.7% of
the Use behavior variance. While the study is limited by the sample size and selec-
tion, it is expected to be a starting point for more research on ChatGPT-like technol-
ogy in university education, given that this is a recently introduced technology.
Keywords ChatGPT · Technology acceptance · Higher education
Introduction
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into various sectors of society has
become a prominent focal point of academic inquiry and application, with education
standing out as a particularly noteworthy arena (Nazaretsky et al., 2022a). Historical
traces of AI’s foray into education can be linked to the development of early chat-
bots in the 1960s (Weizenbaum, 1966). However, a marked improvement in AI’s
* Artur Strzelecki
[email protected]
1
Department of Informatics, University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50, 40‑287 Katowice,
Poland
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

224 Innovative Higher Education (2024) 49:223–245
capabilities, particularly in the realm of generative AI, became apparent in last dec-
ade (Adiwardana et al., 2020; Vaswani et al., 2017). Among the torchbearers of this
evolution is ChatGPT, an application of Generative AI with transformative potential
for educational landscapes (OpenAI, 2023).
Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, operates distinctively from traditional AI mod-
els. Instead of merely recognizing patterns and making predictions, it innovatively
produces novel outputs, encompassing text, audio, and video. With its roots in deep
neural network architectures, and further powered by transformer designs, Large
Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or LLaMA harness billions of param-
eters, making strides in various natural language processing tasks (OpenAI, 2023;
Touvron et al., 2023). Notably, educators have leveraged the capabilities of such
LLMs for diverse purposes, ranging from augmenting learning experiences through
dynamic feedback to the facilitation of language acquisition (Cukurova et al., 2023).
However, the infusion of such AI technologies in post-secondary education is not
without challenges. One can point to the surge of interest in AI’s educational poten-
tial over the last decade, juxtaposed with a landscape marked by exaggerated claims
and often inconclusive findings (Bates et al., 2020). Even as a considerable volume
of studies on AI in education emerged in the past years, signifying a booming inter-
est, the actual effects of applications like ChatGPT on higher education institutions
and stakeholders remain enigmatic (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).
Moreover, accompanying this technological fervor are grave concerns about intel-
lectual property, data privacy, potential biases, and equitable access to resources (Li
et al., 2022). The deployment of generative AI in pedagogical contexts begs per-
tinent questions about pedagogy, learning paradigms, authorship, and more (Wil-
liamson et al., 2023; Zembylas, 2023). For instance, as students turn to AI for aca-
demic aid, intricate issues of plagiarism, erasure of original thought, and challenges
to established pedagogies arise (Rudolph et al., 2023). Such developments resonate
with broader ethical considerations surrounding factuality, fairness, transparency,
and more, emphasizing the need for sustainable AI systems in education (Kasneci
et al., 2023). Consequently, there is an urgent and pressing need to explore not just
the promises but also the potential impacts, limitations, and ethical ramifications of
LLM-enabled educational applications (Strzelecki, 2023). Research must tackle the
intricacies of design and implementation, ascertain the appropriateness of such AI
deployments in educational settings, and articulate the overarching principles and
guidelines for ethical utilization (Hahn et al., 2021).
This investigation, therefore, situates itself within this rich tapestry of debates,
possibilities, and challenges. By delving deeper into the matrix of technology adop-
tion, artificial intelligence, and the nuances presented by applications like ChatGPT,
we aim to contribute to a more informed, equitable, and constructive discourse that
respects both the transformative potential of AI and the foundational tenets of edu-
cation in the twenty-first century.
ChatGPT, a chatbot tool, uses artificial intelligence to facilitate human-like
conversations (Vaswani et al., 2017). This innovative natural language process-
ing tool is capable of providing assistance with various tasks, including email
composition, essay writing, and coding. OpenAI developed ChatGPT, which was
13
Innovative Higher Education (2024) 49:223–245 225
officially launched on November 30, 2022, and has since attracted a great deal of
attention (OpenAI, 2023).
Despite its impressive capabilities, ChatGPT is currently in research and feed-
back- gathering phase, and it is freely accessible to the public for usage. How-
ever, a paid subscription version called ChatGPT Plus was launched on February
1st, 2023, offering improved response times, priority access to new improvements
and features. Milmo (2023) reports that ChatGPT has become the fastest-grow-
ing application in history, with approximately 100 million users actively engaged
within two months of its release, as per Forbes. Along with the ability to answer
basic queries, the model offers a variety of functions, including generating AI art
prompts, coding, and crafting essays. Both supervised and reinforcement learning
techniques are employed to fine-tune the language model, with human AI trainers
participating in conversations where they perform the roles of both user and AI
assistant. Despite its many strengths, ChatGPT has limitations such as difficulty
answering questions that have a specific wording and a lack of quality control,
which can lead to erroneous responses (Altman, 2023).
ChatGPT in university education presents challenges to the academic commu-
nity wherever ChatGPT is available (Teubner et al., 2023). While some academ-
ics embrace the development, others oppose its use for fear that it may facilitate
cheating or academic misconduct. Proponents argue that adapting to the technol-
ogy and designing policies for academic integrity will equip students with the
necessary skills and ethical mindset to operate in an AI environment. The chatbot
generates coherent and informative text, and can be accessed in many countries
(Liebrenz et al., 2023). Academics are at loggerheads over the use of AI-gener-
ated bots in educational settings. Some academics promote a framework for its
appropriate use, whereas others, like Hsu (2023), advocate an outright ban. The
escalating debate underscores a need for reshaping curricula in higher education
to embrace more critical thinking, ethical perspectives, creativity, problem-solv-
ing, and future-proof solutions, preparing students for an AI-influenced profes-
sional landscape.
Though ChatGPT has swiftly gained popularity as a cutting-edge tool in natural
language processing, research into how it’s perceived and utilized by university stu-
dents remains sparse. This shortfall is significant because discerning how students
engage with AI aids is crucial for their efficacious deployment in educational con-
texts. Consequently, a deeper understanding is needed regarding factors that shape
students’ attitudes towards ChatGPT, their perceptions of its usefulness, and the dif-
ficulties they encounter while using it. By closing this research gap, we can gain a
clearer perspective on how best to weave ChatGPT into the fabric of our education
system, facilitating student learning and academic triumph.
This paper seeks to fill that research void by examining the acceptance and appli-
cation of ChatGPT among university students. We delve into the determinants that
foster or inhibit its acceptance and utilization, utilizing the "Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology 2" (UTAUT2) model by Venkatesh et al. (2012)
as our theoretical framework. We’ve expanded this model by integrating "Personal
Innovativeness"—a construct introduced by Agarwal and Prasad (1998) in the IT
domain, viewing it as a potential precursor within the model.
13
We begin by outlining the origins of ChatGPT and summarizing the controversy

surrounding its use. Then we proceed to explain how we’ve extended the UTAUT2
model to evaluate students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT. A specifically modi-
fied measurement scale tailored for ChatGPT in university settings is also presented.
Following this, we share the results of our analysis, deploying a structural equation
modeling using the partial least squares method and the model estimation. In this
section, we also engage in a rich discussion of our findings, highlighting the unique-
ness and contributions of our study. We wrap up by addressing the limitations of our
study and recommending avenues for future exploration.
Literature Review
The literature indicates a burgeoning interest in the application of ChatGPT within

higher education, spanning general, and scientific educational domains. Studies
highlight its potential in personalizing learning and enhancing engagement but cau-
tion against uncritical adoption due to biases and academic integrity concerns (Kas-
neci et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023). Cotton et al. (2023) and Tlili et al. (2023)
discuss maintaining academic integrity, while Williamson et al. (2023) encourage
more research into AI’s educational impact. Naumowa (2023) stresses critical think-
ing in using AI, whereas Hsu (2023), Ivanov and Soliman (2023), Lim et al. (2023),
Crawford et al. (2023), Sullivan et al. (2023), and Cooper (2023), explore the ethical
and practical implications, calling for ethical guidelines and theoretical frameworks.
The role of ChatGPT in academic authorship raises concerns about integrity and
recognition of contribution. Van Dis et al. (2023) recognize its benefits in democra-
tizing knowledge but call for debates on authorship and accountability. The potential
impact of AI on academia and the need for ethical use policies is discussed by Lund
et al. (2023), while Thorp (2023) cautions against naming AI as a co-author. Perkins
(2023) advises HEIs to update academic integrity policies to consider AI tools. Con-
versations with ChatGPT reveal its capabilities and limitations, particularly in areas
like plagiarism and misuse in education (Eysenbach, 2023). Interviews explore its
potential in improving content creation and academic research, with a focus on ethi-
cal implications (Lund & Wang, 2023; Pavlik, 2023). These dialogues with Chat-
GPT underscore the importance of evaluating its impact on academia and the media
critically.
Methodology
The acceptance and use of technology has become a significant topic of interest
in recent years, as individuals increasingly rely on technology for daily tasks. One
of the most prominent theories used to explain and predict technology accept-
ance is the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” (UTAUT)
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT “synthesizes the concepts and user experiences
that provide the foundation for theories on the user acceptance process of an
information system” (Yu et al., 2021). UTAUT was constructed by integrating
13
and synthesizing eight pre-existing models of information technology acceptance.

The model includes constructs such as "Performance expectancy”, “Social influ-
ence”, "Effort expectancy”, and Facilitating conditions”, which have been found
to significantly influence "Behavioral intention” to use a technology. Addition-
ally, individual differences such as age, gender, voluntariness of use and experi-
ence are considered moderators of the four constructs in the UTAUT model.
Recently, UTAUT was modified to create UTAUT2, which includes three
new constructs of “Hedonic motivation”, “Price value”, and “Habit” (Venkatesh
et al., 2012). UTAUT2 is a prominent theoretical model that aims to understand
the factors that influence individuals’ adoption and use of new technologies in
organizational and personal contexts (Tamilmani et al., 2021). Developed through
extensive empirical research, UTAUT2 provides a comprehensive framework for
researchers and practitioners to identify key factors that influence the acceptance
and use of technology. In the realm of higher education the UTAUT2 model is
used to identify factors affecting students’ or teachers’ intentions to use different
technology tools such as e-learning systems (Raza et al., 2022), mobile applica-
tions (Ameri et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2015), immersive virtual and augmented
reality (Bower et al., 2020; Faqih & Jaradat, 2021), and learning management
software (Alotumi, 2022; Jakkaew & Hemrungrote, 2017; Kumar & Bervell,
2019). Recent studies also examine how these factors can be affected by different
contextual factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Osei et al., 2022; Zacharis
& Nikolopoulou, 2022), and how they can be utilized to improve the design and
implementation of educational technology tools.
Our study argues that “Performance expectancy”, “Effort expectancy”, "Social
influence”, "Facilitating conditions”, “Hedonic motivation”, Price value” and
“Habit” can significantly influence students’ “Behavioral intention” to use a Chat-
GPT technology in higher education. We proposed to extend a well-established
UTAUT2 theory, by adding also “Personal innovativeness” as a factor influencing
“Behavioral intention” to use ChatGPT technology. Personal innovativeness (PI)
has been acknowledged as important factor that impact technology adoption and
usage (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). A number of scholars “have suggested that per-
sonality traits, such as personal innovativeness, play a significant role in technol-
ogy adoption in the domain of Information Technology (IT)” (Farooq et al., 2017;
Sitar-Taut & Mican, 2021). Personal innovativeness reflects a person’s tendency
to independently experiment with and implement new IT developments, and is
seen as a stable and context-specific characteristic that strongly influences accept-
ance and adoption of IT (Dajani & Abu Hegleh, 2019; Twum et al., 2022).
The goal of our research is to examine the influence of seven UTAUT2 factors
and PI on students’ behavioral intention to use ChatGPT and its effectiveness in
assisting them with their studies. The study will define each factor and explore
how students’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s use influence their continued usage.
Performance expectancy (PE) “influences individuals’ behavioral intention to
adopt new technology. It refers to the extent to which individuals believe that
using a system will help them attain gains in job performance or enhance their
performance in learning processes” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In this study PE
13
pertains to how much these students think that utilizing ChatGPT can boost their
academic results or efficiency. We hypothesize that:
H1: “Performance expectancy will have a direct positive influence on the Behav-
ioral intention to use ChatGPT in higher education by students.”
Effort expectancy (EE) is defined “as the degree of ease or effort associated with
the use of technology” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). EE consists of constructs such as
perceived ease of use, complexity, and ease of use. Research has shown that EE is a
critical predictor of technology acceptance, and it has a direct impact on individuals’
“Behavioral intention” to use technology. In this study, EE would denote how much
students feel that interacting with ChatGPT is easy and demands minimal effort.
Hence, it is proposed that:
H2: “Effort Expectancy will have a direct positive influence on the Behavioral
intention to use ChatGPT in higher education by students.”
Social influence (SI) is defined “as the extent to which important others, such as
family and friends, believe that an individual should use a particular technology”
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). The influence of social circles, including family members,
teachers, co-workers, elders, friends, and peers, has been shown to positively impact
users’ intention to use a technology. In this research, SI indicates the extent to which
students perceive that peers, instructors, or other key figures in their social circle
endorse or motivate them to engage with ChatGPT. We hypothesize that:
H3: “Social influence will have a direct positive influence on the Behavioral
Facilitating conditions (FC) refer to “the level of accessibility to resources and

support needed to accomplish a task” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In university educa-
tion settings, FC emphasize the importance of having access to technical and reli-
able infrastructure, knowledge, training, and support, which can impact students’
willingness to use educational systems. FC in this context means the extent to which
students feel they can access the AI tool even with its popularity, coupled with their
access to technical assistance and training for ChatGPT. The subsequent hypotheses
are stated:
H4: “Facilitating conditions will have a direct positive influence on the Behavio-
ral intention to use ChatGPT in higher education by students.”
H5: “Facilitating conditions will have a direct positive influence on the ChatGPT
Use behavior in higher education by students.”
Hedonic motivation (HM) refers “to the pleasure or enjoyment derived from
using a technology, and its effect on the intention of users has been found to be sta-
tistically significant” (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The findings of various studies sug-
gest that users are more likely to continue using a technology if they experience
13
pleasure or enjoyment while using it. In this context, HM denotes how much stu-
dents perceive ChatGPT as fun or pleasurable to engage with, and their enjoyment
in exploring new AI technological tools. Hence, it is proposed that:
H6: “Hedonic motivation will have a direct positive influence on the Behavioral
Price value (PV) is “an individual’s trade-off between the perceived benefits of
using the system and its monetary cost” (Venkatesh et al., 2012). PV refers to the
cost students bear when purchasing access to the online services used for learning.
Hence, it is proposed that:
H7: “Price value will have a direct positive influence on the Behavioral intention
to use ChatGPT in higher education by students.”
Habit (HT) is defined “as the extent to which an individual tends to perform
behaviors automatically because of prior learning and experiences with the technol-
ogy” (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Venkatesh et al. (2012) and Limayem et al. (2007)
have explained HT as a perceptual construct, and it has been found to be a significant
predictor of “Behavioral intention” and technology use (Tamilmani et al., 2019). In
the context of the study, HT pertains to how deeply students have ingrained the use
of ChatGPT into their academic habits. This encompasses aspects like how often
they use it, how long they engage with it, and how seamlessly ChatGPT fits into
their academic processes. The subsequent hypotheses are stated:
H8: “Habit will have a direct positive influence on the Behavioral intention to use
ChatGPT in higher education by students.”
H9: “Habit will have a direct positive influence on the ChatGPT Use behavior in
higher education by students.”
The connection between Personal Innovativeness (PI) and acceptance and usage
of technology has been thoroughly investigated in the literature (Slade et al., 2015).
This characteristic can be interpreted “as a willingness to adopt the latest techno-
logical gadgets or a propensity for risk-taking, which may be associated with trying
out new features and advancements in the IT domain” (Farooq et al., 2017). Within
the scope of the study, personal innovativeness relates to the degree of eagerness
students show in adopting cutting-edge tech tools such as ChatGPT, as well as their
belief in their capacity to learn and excel in new technological skills.
H10: “Personal innovativeness will have a direct positive influence on the Behav-
ioral intention to use ChatGPT in higher education by students.”
Behavioral intention (BI) is a fundamental concept in the study of technology

adoption and use behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Davis, 1986; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
It refers to “individuals’ willingness and intention to use a particular technology
for a specific task or purpose” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012). In the context of
13
this study, BI is investigated to understand students’ willingness to use ChatGPT

in their studies.
H11: “Behavioral intention to use will have a direct positive influence on the
ChatGPT Use behavior in higher education by students.”
Use behavior (UB) aims to explain user technology acceptance and usage
behavior. According to the model, actual use refers to the extent to which users
actually use a technology for a specific task or purpose. The original study by
Venkatesh et al. (2012) did not provided how the actual use was measured. In this
study use of ChatGPT was measured on seven items scale from “never” to “sev-
eral times a day”.
Venkatesh et al. (2016) recommended using UTAUT2 as a fundamental model
to establish hypotheses regarding the connections between proposed variables
and user adoption of technology. Additionally, Dwivedi et al. (2019) noted that
previous research in this field typically utilized only a portion of the UTAUT2
model and frequently neglected moderators. To address this issue, the current
study employed a modified version of UTAUT2 and did not incorporate age, gen-
der, and experience as moderators.
Our study utilized a research model (Fig. 1) which included seven constructs
from the UTAUT2 scale (Venkatesh et al., 2012). This scale is commonly
employed to evaluate the acceptance of technology. To further enhance our
model, we integrated the PI variable from Agarwal and Prasad’s (1998) research.
The data was collected using a seven-point Likert scale, where respondents could
choose from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". The scale for measuring use
Personal
innovativeness
Performance H1
expectancy
H11
H2 H10
Effort expectancy Behavioral intention Use behavior
H3
Social influence
H4 H9
Facilitating conditions H5 H7 H8
Hedonic motivation H6 Price value Habit
Fig. 1 An extended UTAUT2 model for ChatGPT – proposition
13
behavior was 7-options from “never” to “several times a day”. and Descriptive
statistics and measurement scale are in Appendix Table 3.
Sample Characteristics
First, a pilot study was carried out using a representative sample of 36 students (18
female and 18 male) from the first cycle study level to test the scales developed for
this study before administering them to the targeted audience. The reliability and
validity criteria were met for each construct, and discriminant validity was con-
firmed (Hair et al., 2013). In terms of determining the final sample size, according to
Hair et al. (2022), studies conducted with the PLS-SEM method require a minimum
sample size of 189 to detect R 2 values of at least 0.1 with a significance level of 5%.
Moreover, Arnold (1990) suggested that a statistical power of at least 95% is com-
monly sought after in social science research.
As of December 31, 2021, there were 1,218,200 students in universities in Poland.
To calculate the sample size of population size 1,218,200, with confidence level at
95% and margin of error 5%, we use the following formula provided by Yamane
(1967) “n = (z^2 * p * (1-p)) / e^2, where n is the sample size, z is the z-score associ-
ated with the confidence level, which is 1.96 for a 95% confidence level, p is the esti-
mated proportion of the population with the desired characteristic”. Since we don’t
have an estimate, we use 0.5 to get the maximum sample size and e is the margin of
error, which is 0.05. Plugging in the values we get a minimum sample size of 385.
The questionnaire was distributed through a web survey created on Google
Forms. A total of 13,388 students from the University of Economics in Katowice,
Poland, were invited to participate via email in the period of 13th to 21st March
2023. To ensure unbiased data, the students were assured of the confidentiality, vol-
untary participation, and anonymity of their responses. After removing 3 responses
with a variance of zero, 503 valid responses were collected, which is enough,
according to a minimal sample size calculation.
The sample size consists of 268 males (53.3%), 212 females (42.1%), and 23
(4.6%) who were unwilling to disclose their gender. With regard to the diversification
of study experience, 25 students (5%) are in their first year, 162 (32.2%) are in their
second year, and 192 (38.2%) are in their third year of the bachelor’s degree program.
Additionally, 52 students (10.3%) are in their first year and 64 (12.7%) are in their
second year of the master’s degree program, while 8 (1,6%) are PhD students.
Results
We implemented the PLS-SEM technique using the path weighting approach via
SmartPLS 4 software (Version 4.0.9.2), adopting the standard initial weights with a
limit of 3000 iterations to estimate our model (Ringle et al., 2022). Additionally, to
determine the statistical significance of the PLS-SEM outcomes, we applied boot-
strapping with 5000 samples, which is a nonparametric statistical method. In the
assessment of constructs specified reflectively, we scrutinized the indicator loadings,
13
noting that a loading greater than 0.7 indicates the construct explains over half of the
indicator’s variance, signifying an acceptable degree of item reliability. Loadings are
presented in Appendix Table 3 and exceed the lower bond except the FC4, which was
removed from additional processing within the model and is not taken into account.
Composite reliability is a criterion for evaluating reliability, where results from 0.70
to 0.95 demonstrate reliability levels that are acceptable to good (Hair et al., 2022).
Cronbach’s alpha measures internal consistency reliability and uses similar thresholds
as composite reliability (ρc). An additional reliability coefficient ρA is built on Dijk-
stra and Henseler (2015), with ρA providing an exact and consistent alternative. The
assessment of the measurement models’ convergent validity is achieved by calculating
the average variance extracted (AVE) from all the items linked to a specific reflective
variable. An AVE threshold of 0.50 or higher is considered acceptable (Sarstedt et al.,
2022). All measurement instruments have met the quality criteria (Table 1).
The Henseler et al. (2015) heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) is the pre-
ferred method for PLS-SEM discriminant validity analysis. A threshold of 0.90 is recom-
mended since a high HTMT result suggests a difficulty with discriminant validity, when the
constructs are conceptually similar. If they are more distinct, a limit of 0.85 should be used
(Henseler et al., 2015). All the values in are below a 0.85 threshold (Appendix Table 4).
The subsequent stage involves an assessment of the coefficient of determina-
tion (R2), which gauges the amount of variance accounted for in each construct and
hence the model’s explanatory capability. The coefficient of determination, denoted
as R2, varies from 0 to 1, with higher figures denoting a stronger degree of explained
variance. According to Hair et al. (2011), R2 values can generally be interpreted as
weak (0.25), moderate (0.50), or substantial (0.75). When evaluating the magnitude
of an independent variable’s impact, f 2 values are categorized as large (0.35), medium
(0.15), or small (0.02), and are used as standard reference points. Should the effect size
fall below 0.02, it is indicative of a negligible effect (Sarstedt et al., 2022).
PLS-SEM findings are illustrated in Fig. 2, with standardized regression coef-
ficients shown on the path relationships and R2 values presented in the variables’
squares. The primary observation reveals that HT has the most prominent impact
(0.339) on BI, followed by PE (0.260), and HM (0.187), explaining 72.8% of
Table 1 Model measurement instruments

Cronbach’s alpha Reliability Composite AVE
coefficient reliability
Behavioral intention 0.871 0.881 0.921 0.796

Effort expectancy 0.906 0.920 0.934 0.780
Facilitating Conditions 0.815 0.819 0.890 0.731
Habit 0.874 0.914 0.912 0.721
Hedonic motivation 0.863 0.951 0.915 0.785
Performance expectancy 0.900 0.903 0.930 0.770
Personal Innovativeness 0.876 0.893 0.915 0.730
Price value 0.955 0.958 0.971 0.917
Social influence 0.934 0.936 0.958 0.883
13
Personal
innovativeness
Performance H1 β=.260
expectancy
β=.086 H11
β=.424
H2 β=.079 R2=.728 H10 R2=.547
Effort expectancy Behavioral intention Use behavior
H3 β=.093
Social influence
β=-.023 β=.255
H4 β=.339 H9
β=.188
Facilitating conditions H5 β=.083 H7 H8
Hedonic motivation H6 β=.187 Price value Habit
Fig. 2 An extended UTAUT2 model for ChatGPT – results
the "Behavioral intention" variance (as indicated by the R2 value). SI (0.093), PI
(0.086), PV (0.083), and Effort expectancy (0.079) have positive effect on Behavio-
ral intention, however there is no f 2 effect size for these relationships. Conversely, BI
has the most significant effect (0.424) on UB, with HT (0.255) and FC (0.188) fol-
lowing suit. These three variables account for 54.7% of the "Use behavior" variance.
Table 2 presents results of the significance testing for the path coefficients within the
structural model and the verification of the hypotheses.
Table 2 Path coefficients in the structural model and the results of the significance tests
Hypothesis Path Path coefficient T statistics f2 Signif-
ficant at
p < .05
1 PE—> BI 0.260 6.670 0.102 Yes

2 EE—> BI 0.079 2.061 0.010 Yes
3 SI—> BI 0.093 2.880 0.021 Yes
4 FC—> BI -0.023 0.580 0.001 No
5 FC—> UB 0.188 5.442 0.056 Yes
6 HM—> BI 0.187 4.566 0.047 Yes
7 PV—> BI 0.083 2.346 0.015 Yes
8 Habit—> BI 0.339 11.845 0.260 Yes
9 Habit—> UB 0.255 5.506 0.075 Yes
10 PI—> BI 0.086 2.847 0.016 Yes
11 BI—> UB 0.424 9.384 0.171 Yes
13
Discussion
Our study enhances the knowledge around student perceptions of ChatGPT’s applica-
tion in tertiary education. Although existing literature on this subject is scarce, particu-
larly regarding higher education, our results hold considerable importance for broaden-
ing discussions about the deployment of AI-driven chat tools in academic settings. We
utilized the UTAUT2 scale to evaluate the acceptance and utilization of ChatGPT, with
all eight external variables satisfying the established standards for reliability and validity.
Our study confirms that three UTAUT2 constructs: “Performance expectancy”, “Habit”,
and “Hedonic motivation” are positively connected to “Behavioral intention”, consistent
with Zwain (2019) study on users’ acceptance of learning management systems.
Our research affirms the strong association between “Performance expectancy”
and “Habit”, which is consistent with previous studies by Venkatesh et al. (2012)
and Lewis et al. (2013) on how emerging technologies are accepted in higher educa-
tion. Within the framework of ChatGPT, an AI-powered conversation platform, stu-
dents demonstrate a high level of comfort in adopting new technology, and the fre-
quency of their usage contributes to the development of routine actions. “Habit” was
found to have a significant positive impact on “Behavioral intention” in a majority of
UTAUT2-based studies in higher education. For instance, it has been shown to posi-
tively influence acceptance and use of lecture caption systems (Farooq et al., 2017),
mobile learning during social distancing (Sitar-Taut & Mican, 2021), and Google
Classroom platform for mobile learning (Alotumi, 2022; Jakkaew & Hemrungrote,
2017; Kumar & Bervell, 2019). Nevertheless, our results are not the same as those of
Twum et al. (2022), who found no direct effect of “Habit” on “Behavioral intention”
to use e-learning, and Raman & Don (2013) and Ain et al. (2016), who found no
direct impact of “Habit” on “Behavioral intention” to use learning management sys-
tems. Consistent with the original UTAUT2 model, our study confirms the significant
relationship between Habit and Use behavior.
In our study, “Performance expectancy” emerged as the second-best indicator of
“Behavioral intention”. These findings are consistent with other studies that have dem-
onstrated a notable and affirmative correlation between “Performance expectancy” and
“Behavioral intention” in areas such as mobile learning (Arain et al., 2019), e-learning
platforms (Azizi et al., 2020; Nikolopoulou et al., 2020), and learning management soft-
ware (Raman & Don, 2013). In addition, “Performance expectancy”, as an original vari-
able in the UTAUT theory, has been shown to be a significant predictor of “Behavioral
intention” in studies such as Raffaghelli et al.’s (2022) exploration of students’ acceptance
of an early warning system in higher education and Mehta et al.’s (2019) investigation of
the influence of values on e-learning adoption. According to our findings, students with
high "Performance expectancy" are more likely to adopt useful technology like ChatGPT.
Our study found that “Hedonic motivation” has a positive impact on “Behavioral
intention” to use ChatGPT. This finding is in line with earlier studies on the use of
emerging technologies in higher education, including Google Classroom (Kumar &
Bervell, 2019), animation (Dajani & Abu Hegleh, 2019), mobile technologies (Hu
et al., 2020), blended learning (Azizi et al., 2020), and augmented reality technol-
ogy (Faqih & Jaradat, 2021). However, our findings contradict those of studies that
13
examined the use of learning management systems (Ain et al., 2016) and blackboard
learning systems (Raza et al., 2022).
“Effort expectancy”, “Social influence” and “Price value” have been found to have
a positive and significant effect on “Behavioral intention”, despite having f2 values
that are lower than 0.02. With respect to “Effort expectancy”, students’ responses
had the highest mean values among all the variables, indicating that the AI-powered
chat technology is widely used and there are no problems when using ChatGPT.
This demonstrates that using this technology in higher education requires very little
effort and does not affect “Behavioral intention”. Research has shown comparable
outcomes on the application of mobile learning while social distancing (Sitar-Taut
& Mican, 2021), using Google Classroom (Alotumi, 2022; Kumar & Bervell, 2019),
mobile learning (Ameri et al., 2020; Arain et al., 2019; Kang et al., 2015; Nikolopou-
lou et al., 2020) e-learning platform (El-Masri & Tarhini, 2017; Twum et al., 2022)
and learning management system (Ain et al., 2016; Zwain, 2019).
“Social influence” has a very low impact on the “Behavioral intention” to use Chat-
GPT. The likelihood of adopting the AI-enabled chat is higher among early adopters who
have a higher level of education and are less swayed by external factors. Our study found
no social pressure on the adoption of ChatGPT, possibly due to it being a new technology
not yet widely adopted. Nonetheless, as academic institutions develop regulations regard-
ing AI tools such as ChatGPT, the factor of "Social Influence" might gain significance.
Previous studies have found “Social influence” to have a significant effect on “Behavioral
intention” in areas such as mobile learning (Kang et al., 2015) and e-learning systems (El-
Masri & Tarhini, 2017), while others did not find such significance, such as in the study of
Alotumi (2022) or Kumar & Bervell (2019) on Google Classroom acceptance.
Likewise, “Price value” has a minimal effect on the “Behavioral intention”
to use ChatGPT. This may be because the use of ChatGPT is currently free of
charge during the tool’s research preview. Although the ChatGPT plus version
with the latest GPT-4 language model is available for $20 per month, the differ-
ence in the ChatGPT’s use, powered by the GPT-3.5 version, for everyday student
tasks is unlikely to be noticeable. However, students may perceive “Price value”
as learning value since they need to invest time and effort into learning new tech-
nology. In the future, ChatGPT may no longer be offered as a free preview, and
“Price value” could have a more significant impact. Previous studies have found
“Price value” to have a significant effect on “Behavioral intention” in areas such
as lecture caption systems (Farooq et al., 2017) and blended learning (Azizi et al.,
2020), while others did not find this significance in areas like mobile learning
(Nikolopoulou et al., 2020) and e-learning (Osei et al., 2022).
From the UTAUT2 model, the last construct, “Facilitating conditions”, has
been found to have no significant effect on “Behavioral intention, but it did have a
significant effect on “Use behavior”, as the original UTAUT2 model contains this
relationship. Previous studies on the adoption of animation (Dajani & Abu Hegleh,
2019) and Google Classroom in higher education (Alotumi, 2022; Kumar &
Bervell, 2019) have usually found that “Facilitating conditions” have no effect. On
the contrary, it was found that “Facilitating conditions” have a significant impact
on “Behavioral intention” in areas such as mobile learning (Yu et al., 2021) and
augmented reality technology in higher education (Faqih & Jaradat, 2021).
13
“Personal innovativeness” is the fourth variable that has been found to have a
minimal positive effect on “Behavioral intention”, due to f 2 lower than 0.02. This
finding could be since students have not fully experimented with ChatGPT and
may have insufficient knowledge on how to use it. In previous studies, personal
innovativeness was found to have a significant effect on “Behavioral intention”
in areas such as animation (Dajani & Abu Hegleh, 2019), lecture capture systems
(Farooq et al., 2017), mobile learning during social distancing in higher educa-
tion (Sitar-Taut & Mican, 2021), and e-learning (Twum et al., 2022).
In this model, “Behavioral intention” is explained by 72.8%, which is considered a
substantial explanatory power. Moreover, “Behavioral intention” has a direct and signif-
icant impact on “Use behavior” and model explains “Use behavior” by 54.7%, which is
considered a moderate explanatory power. The explained variances were higher than in
a study conducted by Maican et al. (2019) on communication and collaboration applica-
tions in academic environments, as well as in a study conducted by Hoi (2020) on how
the mobile devices are accepted and used for language learning by students.
Recent research delves into the increasing discourse around the integration and
application of AI-driven tools in education. There are suggested initiatives to bol-
ster educators’ proficiency in navigating multiple AI-enhanced educational plat-
forms. For example, educators have opportunities to undergo specialized train-
ing modules to familiarize themselves with platforms that assess student essays
(Nazaretsky et al., 2022a). Similarly, there are specific platforms tailored for edu-
cators that can be introduced in educational settings to elevate the learning expe-
rience (Cukurova et al., 2023). There are also tools designed to gauge the degree
to which educators embrace AI-driven utilities and address potential issues like
trustworthiness, the lack of human-like attributes, and clarity in AI’s decision-
making patterns (Nazaretsky et al., 2022b).
Our investigation pivots to a different facet of the educational journey, cen-
tering on students’ acceptance and utilization of generative AI utilities. This
research’s value lies in shedding light on determinants shaping the embrace of
such AI-driven tools. It’s pertinent to mention that ChatGPT doesn’t have adap-
tive capabilities and isn’t tailored for academic use, indicating a need for more
research on its potential role in learning environments.
Practical Implications
ChatGPT might assist with personalized learning and the adaptation of AI in education.
For students, the role of ChatGPT can be highlighted as an efficient and tailored tool for
information acquisition, conceptual understanding, language learning, and task facilita-
tion. It can be perceived as a digital assistant capable of providing immediate, personal-
ized feedback and guidance. It can serve as a grammar checker, content recommender,
and query solver across a spectrum of disciplines and languages. ChatGPT’s ability to
present complex concepts in simpler terms for better comprehension can also be high-
lighted, along with its potential to make abstract educational materials more accessible.
Additionally, it can has a role as a research facilitator, providing swift access to relevant
information and a strategic roadmap for research studies.
13
The transformative potential of ChatGPT for learning, indicating its capability

to create tailored content, interactive learning experiences, and customized assess-
ments can be stressed, thereby offering a more individualized learning pathway.
The use of AI technologies such as ChatGPT to supplement traditional educational
strategies could result in a dynamic learning ecosystem that caters to each learn-
er’s unique needs and learning styles. It can provide individualized attention that
human instructors, due to time and resource constraints, may not be able to. There
can be underscored the potential of ChatGPT as a creative tool to stimulate criti-
cal thinking, enhance metacognition, and foster innovative problem-solving skills
among students. By aiding in tasks such as organizing and summarizing informa-
tion, developing essays, and creating tests based on study material, ChatGPT could
be instrumental in promoting deeper learning.
However, there should be issued a note of caution about the ethical implications,
data security, and potential overreliance on AI technologies. This emphasizes the
importance of using AI as a tool, not as a replacement for human teachers, indicat-
ing that the criticality of human judgment and contextual understanding must remain
integral to the educational process. The integration of AI technologies like ChatGPT
in education, when done responsibly and ethically, can create enriched, personalized,
and adaptive learning experiences. However, it requires concerted effort to ensure its
appropriate use, involving iterative feedback loops between ChatGPT, human instruc-
tors, and students, along with careful attention to the potential challenges and pitfalls.
Limitations
The questionnaire was circulated during a turbulent phase related to AI, with each
month profoundly influencing the tool’s evolution. Those who began using ChatGPT
early in its rollout are viewed as pioneers. Additionally, factors like specific times
in the academic year, like assignment submissions or the specific subject of study,
might affect how the tool is used. The study is also limited by the sample selection,
which consisted only of students from one state university in Poland. However, the
sample was diverse in terms of study experience. We did not consider different study
programs as a moderating variable. It is possible that different study programs, such
as IT, business, management, and finance, have different levels of AI chat use.
Conclusions
The study aimed to test students’ acceptance of ChatGPT using the UTAUT2 frame-
work, which is extensively used in technology acceptance research. The study con-
firmed the significant impact of “Habit”, “Performance Expectancy”, and “Hedonic
Motivation” on “Behavioral Intention” to use ChatGPT by students. Since ChatGPT
use in higher education is not yet explored, there are many recommendations for
future studies. For example, future studies can test the scale used in this study and
further develop it in the future.
13
Appendix
238
Table 3 Measurement scale and factor loadings, means and standard deviation (SD)
Construct Item Items Loading Mean SD Source
13
PE1 “I believe that ChatGPT is useful in my studies” 0.902 5.143 1.695 (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
PE2 “Using ChatGPT increases your chances of achieving important things in your studies” 0.859 4.698 1.788
PE3 “Using ChatGPT helps you get tasks and projects done faster in your studies” 0.887 5.545 1.619
PE4 “Using ChatGPT increases your productivity in your studies” 0.859 4.873 1.859
Effort expectancy EE1 “Learning how to use ChatGPT is easy for me” 0.857 5.684 1.507
EE2 “My interaction with ChatGPT is clear and understandable” 0.883 5.626 1.450
EE3 “I find ChatGPT easy to use” 0.887 5.819 1.400
EE4 “It is easy for me to become skillful at using ChatGPT” 0.904 5.730 1.428
Social influence SI1 “People who are important to me think I should ChatGPT” 0.910 5.755 1.591
SI2 “People who influence my behavior believe that I should use ChatGPT” 0.910 5.384 1.665
SI3 “People whose opinions I value prefer me to use ChatGPT” 0.816 5.364 1.786
Facilitating conditions FC1 “I have the resources necessary to use ChatGPT” 0.774 5.286 1.768
FC2 “I have the knowledge necessary to use ChatGPT” 0.937 3.944 1.582
FC3 “ChatGPT is compatible with technologies I use” 0.941 3.903 1.592
FC4 “I can get help from others when I have difficulties using ChatGPT” (dropped) 0.623 3.897 1.630
Hedonic motivation HM1 “Using ChatGPT is fun” 0.841 5.948 1.405
HM2 “Using ChatGPT is enjoyable” 0.899 5.586 1.501
HM3 “Using ChatGPT is very entertaining” 0.823 5.149 1.570
Price value PV1 “ChatGPT is reasonably priced” 0.623 4.962 1.732
PV2 “ChatGPT is good value for the money” 0.956 5.817 1.538

Table 3 (continued)
Construct Item Items Loading Mean SD Source
PV3 “At the current price, ChatGPT provides a good value” 0.962 5.753 1.505
Habit HT1 “The use of ChatGPT has become a habit for me” 0.718 5.213 1.717
HT2 “I am addicted to using ChatGPT” 0.940 5.109 1.678
HT3 “I must use ChatGPT” 0.970 5.223 1.671
HT4 “Using ChatGPT has become natural for me” 0.962 5.227 1.642
Behavioral Intention BI1 “I intend to continue using ChatGPT in the future” 0.891 2.966 1.972
BI2 “I will always try to use ChatGPT in my studies” 0.842 1.948 1.501
BI3 “I plan to continue to use ChatGPT frequently” 0.772 1.958 1.490

Personal innovativeness PI1 “I like experimenting with new information technologies” 0.887 3.087 1.965 (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998)
PI2 “If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it” 0.905 5.368 1.790
PI3 “Among my family/friends, I am usually the first to try out new information technologies” 0.831 3.378 1.911
PI4 “In general, I do not hesitate to try out new information technologies” 0.937 4.427 2.047
Use Behavior UB1 “Please choose your usage frequency for ChatGPT: Never; Once a month; Several times a month; 1.000 3.429 1.595 (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
Once a week; Several times a week; Once a day; Several times a day”
239
13
240
13
Table 4 HTMT values
Behavioral Effort expectancy Facilitating Habit Hedonic Performance Personal Price value Social influence
intention Conditions motivation expectancy Innovative-
ness
Effort expectancy 0.623

Facilitating Conditions 0.617 0.788
Habit 0.767 0.376 0.390
Hedonic motivation 0.724 0.721 0.745 0.404
Performance expectancy 0.837 0.571 0.574 0.615 0.712
Personal Innovativeness 0.618 0.579 0.596 0.400 0.613 0.586
Price value 0.598 0.529 0.630 0.414 0.613 0.541 0.438
Social influence 0.608 0.401 0.482 0.512 0.447 0.577 0.402 0.389
Use behavior 0.746 0.527 0.555 0.627 0.482 0.577 0.514 0.443 0.452

Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved
by the Faculty of Informatics and Communication of the University of Economics in Katowice.
Conflicts of Interest The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Adiwardana, D., Luong, M.-T., So, D. R., Hall, J., Fiedel, N., Thoppilan, R., Yang, Z., Kulshreshtha, A.,
Nemade, G., Lu, Y., & Le, Q. V. (2020). Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. http://arxiv.
org/abs/2001.09977
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 Pro-
cesses, 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 Class-
room: Case study-mixed methods research. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10035–
10063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11051-2
Altman, S. (2023). ChatGPT is incredibly limited, but good enough at some things to create a mislead-
ing impression of greatness. it’s a mistake. Twitter. https://twitter.com/sama/status/160173129579241
4720. Accessed 15 May 2023.
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
Arnold, S. F. (1990). Mathematical statistics. Prentice Hall.
Azizi, S. M., Roozbahani, N., & Khatony, A. (2020). Factors affecting the acceptance of blended learning
in medical education: Application of UTAUT2 model. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 367. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02302-2
Bates, T., Cobo, C., Mariño, O., & Wheeler, S. (2020). Can artificial intelligence transform higher educa-
tion? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 42. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s41239-020-00218-x
Bower, M., DeWitt, D., & Lai, J. W. M. (2020). Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to
use immersive virtual reality in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2215–
2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13009
13
Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artifi-
cial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(3), 444–452. 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 integ-
rity 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: Charac-
ter, 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
Cukurova, M., Miao, X., & Brooker, R. (2023). Adoption of artificial intelligence in schools: unveiling
factors influencing teachers’ engagement. In N. Wang, G. Rebolledo-Mendez, N. Matsuda, O. C.
Santos, & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 151–163). https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-031-36272-9_13
Dajani, D., & Abu Hegleh, A. S. (2019). Behavior intention of animation usage among university stu-
dents. 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
Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear
structural equations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 81, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
csda.2014.07.008
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the uni-
fied theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model.
Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
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
Eysenbach, G. (2023). The role of ChatGPT, generative language models, and artificial intelligence in
medical education: A conversation with ChatGPT and a call for papers. JMIR Medical Education, 9,
e46885. https://doi.org/10.2196/46885
Faqih, K. M. S., & Jaradat, M.-I.R.M. (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. https://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 Tech-
nology 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.
Hahn, M. G., Navarro, S. M. B., De La Fuente Valentin, L., & Burgos, D. (2021). A systematic review
of the effects of automatic scoring and automatic feedback in educational settings. IEEE Access, 9,
108190–108198. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3100890
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(1–2), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
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.
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
Hsu, J. (2023). Should schools ban AI chatbots? New Scientist, 257(3422), 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0262-4079(23)00099-4
13
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
Ivanov, S., & Soliman, M. (2023). Game of algorithms: ChatGPT implications for the future of tour-
ism education and research. Journal of Tourism Futures, 9(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JTF-02-2023-0038
Jakkaew, P., & Hemrungrote, S. (2017). The use of UTAUT2 model for understanding student percep-
tions 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). Investigating the determinants of mobile
learning acceptance in korea using UTAUT2. In G. Chen, V. Kumar, Kinshuk, R. Huang, & S. C.
Kong (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (pp. 209–216). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-662-44188-6_29
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh,
G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer,
J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On
opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Dif-
ferences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kumar, J. A., & Bervell, B. (2019). Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Model-
ling the initial perceptions of students. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1793–1817.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09858-z
Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established and emerging
technologies in higher education: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective.
International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22
Li, C., Xing, W., & Leite, W. (2022). Building socially responsible conversational agents using big data
to support online learning: A case with Algebra Nation. British Journal of Educational Technology,
53(4), 776–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13227
Liebrenz, M., Schleifer, R., Buadze, A., Bhugra, D., & Smith, A. (2023). Generating scholarly content
with ChatGPT: Ethical challenges for medical publishing. The Lancet Digital Health, 5(3), e105–
e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00019-5
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 edu-
cators. 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 inten-
tion: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737.
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and
libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new
academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language
models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
74(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Maican, C. I., Cazan, A.-M., Lixandroiu, R. C., & Dovleac, L. (2019). A study on academic staff person-
ality and technology acceptance: The case of communication and collaboration applications. Com-
puters & Education, 128, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.010
Mehta, A., Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B., & Homer, M. (2019). The influence of values on e-learning
adoption. Computers & Education, 141, 103617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103617
Milmo, D. (2023). ChatGPT reaches 100 million users two months after launch. The Guardian. https://
www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/02/chatgpt-100-millio n-users-open-ai-fastest-growing-
app. Accessed 15 May 2023.
Naumova, E. N. (2023). A mistake-find exercise: a teacher’s tool to engage with information innova-
tions, ChatGPT, and their analogs. Journal of Public Health Policy, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 44(2),
173–178. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-023-00400-1
Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022a). Teachers’ trust in AI-powered edu-
cational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Edu-
cational Technology, 53(4), 914–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232
13
Nazaretsky, T., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). An instrument for measuring teachers’ trust in
AI-based educational technology. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 56–66. https://
doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506866
Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., & Lavidas, K. (2020). Acceptance of mobile phone by university stu-
dents for their studies: An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Tech-
nologies, 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/chatg
pt/. Accessed 15 May 2023.
Osei, H. V., Kwateng, K. O., & Boateng, K. A. (2022). Integration of personality trait, motivation and
UTAUT 2 to understand 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
Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial
intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator,
78(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
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
Raffaghelli, J. E., Rodríguez, M. E., Guerrero-Roldán, A.-E., & Bañeres, D. (2022). Applying the
UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of an early warning system in Higher Education.
Computers & Education, 182, 104468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104468
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 blackboard 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.
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in
higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 1–22.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In
C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632).
Springer International Publishing. 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
Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Modeling consumers’ adoption
intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovative-
ness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860–873. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20823
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use
of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
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
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Wamba, S. F., & Dwivedi, R. (2021). The extended unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evalu-
ation. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 102269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2020.102269
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Use of ‘habit’ is not a habit in understanding
individual technology adoption: A review of UTAUT2 based empirical studies. In A. Elbanna,
Y. K. Dwivedi, D. Bunker, & D. Wastell (Eds.), Smart working, living and organising (pp. 277–
294). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04315-5_19
Teubner, T., Flath, C. M., Weinhardt, C., van der Aalst, W., & Hinz, O. (2023). Welcome to the era of
ChatGPT et al. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(2), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12599-023-00795-x
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.adg7879
13
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B.
(2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in edu-
cation. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N.,
Hambro, E., Azhar, F., Rodriguez, A., Joulin, A., Grave, E., & Lample, G. (2023). LLaMA: Open
and efficient foundation language models. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971
Twum, K. K., Ofori, D., Keney, G., & Korang-Yeboah, B. (2022). Using the UTAUT, personal inno-
vativeness and perceived financial cost to examine student’s intention to use E-learning. Jour-
nal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 13(3), 713–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSTPM-12-2020-0168
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
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polo-
sukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach,
R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing
systems (Vol. 30). Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/3f5ee
243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper.pdf
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information tech-
nology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information tech-
nology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1),
157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A
synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–
376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communica-
tion between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.
1145/365153.365168
Williamson, B., Macgilchrist, F., & Potter, J. (2023). Re-examining AI, automation and datafication in edu-
cation. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2167830
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper and Row.
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(4), 1–12. 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.’ Edu-
cation and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12065–12082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11116-2
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research
on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s41239-019-0171-0
Zembylas, M. (2023). A decolonial approach to AI in higher education teaching and learning: Strategies
for undoing the ethics of digital neocolonialism. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 25–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.2010094
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
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Artur Strzelecki is associate professor at the Informatics Department, University of Economics in Kato-
wice, Poland. In 2013 he has received his Ph.D. from the University of Economics in Katowice in man-
agement. In 2021 he has received his D.Sc. from the University of Economics in Katowice in manage-
ment and quality sciences. His research centers in search engines, e-commerce, higher education and
social media.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
[email protected]

Students Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Educatio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Students Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Educatio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Students Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Educatio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovative Higher Education (2024) 49:223–245

Students’ Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Education:

Accepted: 9 November 2023 / Published online: 30 November 2023

Keywords ChatGPT · Technology acceptance · Higher education

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

We begin by outlining the origins of ChatGPT and summarizing the controversy

The literature indicates a burgeoning interest in the application of ChatGPT within

and synthesizing eight pre-existing models of information technology acceptance.

Facilitating conditions (FC) refer to “the level of accessibility to resources and

Behavioral intention (BI) is a fundamental concept in the study of technology

this study, BI is investigated to understand students’ willingness to use ChatGPT

Hedonic motivation H6 Price value Habit

Fig. 1 An extended UTAUT2 model for ChatGPT – proposition

Table 1 Model measurement instruments

Behavioral intention 0.871 0.881 0.921 0.796

Hedonic motivation H6 β=.187 Price value Habit

Fig. 2 An extended UTAUT2 model for ChatGPT – results

1 PE—> BI 0.260 6.670 0.102 Yes

The transformative potential of ChatGPT for learning, indicating its capability

EE3 “I find ChatGPT easy to use” 0.887 5.819 1.400

FC3 “ChatGPT is compatible with technologies I use” 0.941 3.903 1.592

Hedonic motivation HM1 “Using ChatGPT is fun” 0.841 5.948 1.405

HM2 “Using ChatGPT is enjoyable” 0.899 5.586 1.501

HM3 “Using ChatGPT is very entertaining” 0.823 5.149 1.570

Price value PV1 “ChatGPT is reasonably priced” 0.623 4.962 1.732

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

HT2 “I am addicted to using ChatGPT” 0.940 5.109 1.678

HT3 “I must use ChatGPT” 0.970 5.223 1.671

BI3 “I plan to continue to use ChatGPT frequently” 0.772 1.958 1.490

Effort expectancy 0.623

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

You might also like