Actionable companion · Feedback & scaffolding
From AI evidence to responsible practice: Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: A smart education perspective
AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not findings or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.
Evidence and context
Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Verify the participants, intervention and comparator before applying this study in a new setting.
Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:
AI-powered chatbots hold great promise for enhancing learning experiences and outcomes in today's rapidly evolving education system. However, despite the increasing demand for such technologies, there remains a significant research gap regarding the factors influencing users' acceptance and adoption of AI-powered chatbots in educational contexts. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the factors that shape users' attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards adopting ChatGPT for smart education systems. This research employed a quantitative research approach, data were collected from 458 of participants through a structured questionnaire designed to measure various constructs related to technology acceptance, including perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, feedback quality, assessment quality, subject norms, attitude towards use, and behavioral intention to use ChatGPT. Structural model analysis (SEM) Statistical techniques were then utilized to examine the relationships between these constructs. The findings of the study revealed that Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness emerged as significant predictors of users' attitudes towards ChatGPT for smart education. Additionally, feedback quality, assessment quality, and subject norms were found to positively influence users' behavioral intentions to use ChatGPT for smart educational purposes. Moreover, users' attitudes towards use and behavioral intentions were significantly proved for the actual adoption of ChatGPT. However, a few hypotheses, such as the relationship between trust in ChatGPT and perceived usefulness, were not supported by the data. This study contributes to the existing body information systems applications for the determining factor of technology acceptance in smart education context.
What kind of evidence is this?
Conversational & pedagogical agents · Survey / observational study
Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.
Study methods · source passage
AI-powered chatbots hold great promise for enhancing learning experiences and outcomes in today's rapidly evolving education system. However, despite the increasing demand for such technologies, there remains a significant research gap regarding the factors influencing users' acceptance and adoption of AI-powered chatbots in educational contexts. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the factors that shape users' attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards adopting ChatGPT for smart education systems. This research employed a quantitative research approach, data were collected from 458 of participants through a structured questionnaire designed to measure various constructs related to technology acceptance, including perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, feedback quality, assessment quality, subject norms, attitude towards use, and behavioral intention to use ChatGPT. Structural model analysis (SEM) Statistical techniques were then utilized to examine the relationships between these constructs. The findings of the study revealed that Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness emerged as significant predictors of users' attitudes towards ChatGPT for smart education. Additionally, feedback quality, assessment quality, and subject norms were found to positively influence users' behavioral intentions to use ChatGPT for smart educational purposes. Moreover, users' attitudes towards use and behavioral intentions were significantly proved for the actual adoption of ChatGPT. However, a few hypotheses, such as the relationship between trust in ChatGPT and perceived usefulness, were not supported by the data. This study contributes to the existing body information systems applications for the determining factor of technology acceptance in smart education context.
Limitations and uncertainty · source passage
While this study provides key findings related to the acceptability and adoption of ChatGPT in smart educational settings, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. Firstly, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to response biases such as social desirability or recall bias. Future research could employ additional measures to mitigate these biases, such as observational methods or behavioral tracking.
Design the system before the pilot
Define whether the agent asks questions, gives hints, explains or assesses. Test hallucinated feedback, excessive praise, misleading confidence and responses when the learner is confused. A conversational interface alone does not establish autonomous agency.
- Give feedback on the learner’s reasoning, then fade hints. Record whether the learner can complete the next task without that scaffold.
- Use common rubrics, blind scoring where feasible and a fresh unaided reasoning task. Document permissible assistance and avoid treating AI-detector scores as proof of misconduct.
A 90-day district pilot
- Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
- Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
- Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
- Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.
The board decision brief
Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.
Attribution and reuse
Abeer S. Almogren; Waleed Mugahed Al-Rahmi; Nisar Ahmed Dahri. Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: A smart education perspective. Heliyon (2024-05-25). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31887
Companion prepared 2026-11-01. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.