Submitted:
25 June 2024
Posted:
26 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Model and Hypothesis
2.1. Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)
2.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Sample Characteristics
3.3. Measuring Instruments
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Model Analysis
4.2. Reliability and Validity Verification
4.3. Structural Model Analysis
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) Hypothesis
5.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Assumptions
6. Research Limitations and Future Work
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adeshola, Ibrahim, and Adeola Praise Adepoju. “The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education.” Interactive Learning Environments (2023): 1-14. [CrossRef]
- Ajlouni, Aseel O., Fatima Abd-Alkareem Wahba, and Abdallah Salem Almahaireh. “Students’ Attitudes Towards Using ChatGPT as a Learning Tool: The Case of the University of Jordan.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies 17.18 (2023). [CrossRef]
- Saif, Naveed, et al. “Chat-GPT; validating Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in education sector via ubiquitous learning mechanism.” Computers in Human behavior 154 (2024): 108097. [CrossRef]
- Rudolph, Jürgen, Shannon Tan, and Samson Tan. “War of the chatbots: Bard, Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Ernie and beyond. The new AI gold rush and its impact on higher education.” Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6.1 (2023).
- Alshahrani, A. “The impact of ChatGPT on blended learning: Current trends and future research directions.” International Journal of Data and Network Science 7.4 (2023): 2029-2040. [CrossRef]
- Abdaljaleel, Maram, et al. “A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT.” Scientific Reports 14.1 (2024): 1983. [CrossRef]
- Strzelecki, Artur. “To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology.” Interactive Learning Environments (2023): 1-14. [CrossRef]
- Rasul, Tareq, et al. “The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions.” Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6.1 (2023). [CrossRef]
- Oranga, Josephine. “Benefits of artificial intelligence (chatgpt) in education and learning: is chat gpt helpful?.” International Review of Practical Innovation, Technology and Green Energy (IRPITAGE) 3.3 (2023): 46-50.
- Menon, Devadas, and K. Shilpa. ““Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users’ intention to Use the Open AI’s ChatGPT using the UTAUT model.” Heliyon 9.11 (2023). [CrossRef]
- Xing, JiaMan, and Qianling Jiang. “Factors influencing user experience in AI chat systems–a satisfaction study based on factor analysis and linear regression.” Kybernetes (2024). [CrossRef]
- Haglund, Jakob Hasselqvist. “Students Acceptance and Use of ChatGPT in Academic Settings.” Uppsala Universitet (2023).
- Chu, Tsai-Hsin, and Yi-Ying Chen. “With good we become good: Understanding e-learning adoption by theory of planned behavior and group influences.” Computers & Education 92 (2016): 37-52. [CrossRef]
- Tosuntaş, Ş. Betul, Engin Karadağ, and Sevil Orhan. “The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology.” Computers & Education 81 (2015): 169-178. [CrossRef]
- Park, Sung Youl. “An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 12.3 (2009): 150-162.
- Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.” Management science 35.8 (1989): 982-1003.
- Rogers, Everett M., Arvind Singhal, and Margaret M. Quinlan. “Diffusion of innovations.” An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Routledge, 2014. 432-448.
- Hameed, Mumtaz Abdul, Steve Counsell, and Stephen Swift. “A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 29.3 (2012): 358-390. [CrossRef]
- Puklavec, Borut, Tiago Oliveira, and Aleš Popovič. “Unpacking business intelligence systems adoption determinants: An exploratory study of small and medium enterprises.” Economic and business review 16.2 (2014): 5. [CrossRef]
- Li, Xiaolin, et al. “Decision factors for the adoption and continued use of online direct sales channels among SMEs.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12.1 (2011): 4. [CrossRef]
- Wu, Jen-Her, and Shu-Ching Wang. “What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.” Information & management 42.5 (2005): 719-729. [CrossRef]
- Gefen, David. “What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: Linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness.” Journal of Management Information Systems 21.1 (2004): 263-288. [CrossRef]
- Moore, Gary C., and Izak Benbasat. “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation.” Information systems research 2.3 (1991): 192-222. [CrossRef]
- Wonglimpiyarat, Jarunee, and Napaporn Yuberk. “In support of innovation management and Roger’s Innovation Diffusion theory.” Government Information Quarterly 22.3 (2005): 411-422. [CrossRef]
- Dillon, Andrew, and Michael G. Morris. “User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models.” (1996).
- Rahardja, Untung, Taqwa Hariguna, and Qurotul Aini. “Understanding the Impact of Determinants in Game Learning Acceptance: An Empirical Study.” International Journal of Education and Practice 7.3 (2019): 136-145.
- Yuen Kum Fai, et al. Factors influencing autonomous vehicle adoption: an application of the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Vol.33, no. 5, pp. 505-519, Oct, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, Chandan Kumar, et al. “What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT.” Interactive Technology and Smart Education (2023). [CrossRef]
- Romero Rodríguez, José María, et al. “Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness.” (2023). [CrossRef]
- Foroughi, Behzad, et al. “Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2023): 1-20. [CrossRef]
- Raman, Raghu, et al. “University students as early adopters of ChatGPT: Innovation Diffusion Study.” (2023). [CrossRef]
- Enriquez, Benicio Gonzalo Acosta, et al. “Analysis College Students’ attitude towards the use of ChatGPT in their academic activities: Effect of intent to use, verify information and responsible use.” (2023). [CrossRef]
- Valova, Irena, Tsvetelina Mladenova, and Gabriel Kanev. “Students’ Perception of ChatGPT Usage in Education.” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications 15.1 (2024).
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alias, N.; Othman, M.S.; Ahmed, I.A.; Zeki, A.M.; Saged, A.A. Social Media Use, Collaborative Learning and Students’ academic Performance: A Systematic Literature Review of Theoretical Models. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2017, 95,5399–5414.
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technologyinnovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [CrossRef]
- V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quart., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003. [CrossRef]
- Faqih, Khaled MS. “The influence OF perceived usefulness, social influence, internet self-efficacy and compatibility ON USERS’INTENTIONS to adopt e-learning: investigating the moderating effects OF culture.” IJAEDU-International E-Journal of Advances in Education 5.15 (2020): 300-320.
- Al-Rahmi, Waleed Mugahed, et al. “Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use E-learning systems.” Ieee Access 7 (2019): 26797-26809. [CrossRef]
- Ma, Xiaoyue, and Yudi Huo. “Are users willing to embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the factors on the acceptance of chatbots from the perspective of AIDUA framework.” Technology in Society 75 (2023): 102362. [CrossRef]
- Andersson, Mattias, and Tom Marshall Olsson. “ChatGPT as a Supporting Tool for System Developers: Understanding User Adoption.” (2023).
- B. C. Hardgrave, F. D. Davis, and C. K. Riemenschneider,“Investigating determinants of software developers’intentions to follow methodologies,”J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 123–151, 2003. [CrossRef]
- Y. H. Lee,“Exploring key factors that affect consumers to adopt ereading services,” M.S. Thesis, Dept. Inf. Service Economy, Huafan Univ.,New Taipei City, Taiwan, 2007.
- Hussein Saleh Zolait, Ali, Minna Mattila, and Ainin Sulaiman. “The effect of User’s Informational-Based Readiness on innovation acceptance.” International Journal of Bank Marketing 27.1 (2009): 76-100. [CrossRef]
- Jackson, Cynthia M., Simeon Chow, and Robert A. Leitch. “Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system.” Decision sciences 28.2 (1997): 357-389. [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, Ritu, and Jayesh Prasad. “The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies.” Decision sciences 28.3 (1997): 557-582. [CrossRef]
- Almaiah, Mohammed Amin, et al. “Measuring institutions’ adoption of artificial intelligence applications in online learning environments: Integrating the innovation diffusion theory with technology adoption rate.” Electronics 11.20 (2022): 3291. [CrossRef]
- Zolkepli, Izzal Asnira, and Yusniza Kamarulzaman. “Social media adoption: The role of media needs and innovation characteristics.” Computers in human behavior 43 (2015): 189-209. [CrossRef]
- Teerawongsathorn, Jidapa. Understanding the Influence Factors on the Acceptance and Use of ChatGPT in Bangkok: A Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Diss. Mahidol University, 2023.
- Ghaniabadi, Mahdieh. Factors that impact users’ attitudes toward chatbots and their intentions to use chatbot in online services. Diss. Vilniaus universitetas., 2024.
- Yu, Chengcheng, Jinzhe Yan, and Na Cai. “ChatGPT in higher education: factors influencing ChatGPT user satisfaction and continued use intention.” Frontiers in Education. Vol. 9. Frontiers Media SA, 2024. [CrossRef]
- Gould, Robert. “Variability: One statistician’s view.” (2004).
- Siegler, Robert S. “Cognitive variability.” Developmental science 10.1 (2007): 104-109. [CrossRef]
- Grover, Purva, et al. “Perceived usefulness, ease of use and user acceptance of blockchain technology for digital transactions–insights from user-generated content on Twitter.” Enterprise Information Systems 13.6 (2019): 771-800. [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly, 2001, 351-370.
- Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2),2000, 186-204. [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, Hans. “User acceptance of hedonic information systems.” MIS quarterly (2004): 695-704.
- Atombo, Charles, et al. “Perceived enjoyment, concentration, intention, and speed violation behavior: Using flow theory and theory of planned behavior.” Traffic injury prevention 18.7 (2017): 694-702. [CrossRef]
- Balog, Alexandru, and Costin Pribeanu. “The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A structural equation modelling approach.” Studies in Informatics and Control 19.3 (2010): 319-330.
- Teerawongsathorn, Jidapa. Understanding the Influence Factors on the Acceptance and Use of ChatGPT in Bangkok: A Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Diss. Mahidol University, 2023.
- Kumar, M. Sendhil, and Dr S. Gokula Krishnan. “Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and behavioral Intension to Use (BIU): Mediating effect of Attitude toward Use (AU) with reference to Mobile wallet Acceptance and Adoption in Rural India.” (2020).
- Roca, Mónica De La, et al. “The impact of a chatbot working as an assistant in a course for supporting student learning and engagement.” Computer Applications in Engineering Education (2024): e22750. [CrossRef]
- S.-C. Chang and F.-C. Tung, “An empirical investigation of students’behavioral intentions to use the online learning course websites,”Brit.J. Educ. Technol., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 71–83, 2008. [CrossRef]
- Maheshwari, Greeni. “Factors influencing students’ intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context.” Education and Information Technologies (2023): 1-29. [CrossRef]
- Abdaljaleel, Maram, et al. “Factors Influencing Attitudes of University Students towards ChatGPT and its Usage: A Multi-National Study Validating the TAME-ChatGPT Survey Instrument.” (2023). [CrossRef]
- Dempere, Juan, et al. “The impact of ChatGPT on higher education.” Dempere J, Modugu K, Hesham A and Ramasamy LK (2023) The impact of ChatGPT on higher education. Front. Educ 8 (2023): 1206936. [CrossRef]
- Robledo, Dave Arthur R., et al. “Development and Validation of a Survey Instrument on Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) Regarding the Educational Use of ChatGPT among Preservice Teachers in the Philippines.” International Journal of Information and Education Technology 13.10 (2023).
- Ho, Andrew, et al. “HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses fall 2012-summer 2014.” Available at SSRN 2586847 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2586847.
- Kizilcec, René F., Chris Piech, and Emily Schneider. “Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses.” Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. 2013. [CrossRef]
- Hill, Phil. “Emerging student patterns in MOOCs: A (revised) graphical view.” (2013).
- Sánchez, R. Arteaga, Virginia Cortijo, and Uzma Javed. “Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes.” Computers & Education 70 (2014): 138-149. [CrossRef]
- Hair Jr, Joseph F., Barry J. Babin, and Nina Krey. “Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and recommendations.” Journal of Advertising 46.1 (2017): 163-177. [CrossRef]
- Lee, Seyoung, and Gain Park. “Exploring the impact of ChatGPT literacy on user satisfaction: The mediating role of user motivations.” Cyberpsychology, behavior, and Social Networking 26.12 (2023): 913-918. [CrossRef]
- Ali, Faizan, et al. “An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research.” International journal of contemporary hospitality management 30.1 (2018): 514-538. [CrossRef]
- Hair, Joe F., et al. “An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.” Journal of the academy of marketing science 40 (2012): 414-433.
- Abd-El-Fattah, Sabry M. “Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming.” Journal of applied quantitative methods 5.2 (2010): 365-368.
- Byrne, Barbara M. Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, 2013.
- Kline, Rex B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications, 2023.
- Jo, Hyeon. “Understanding AI tool engagement: A study of ChatGPT usage and word-of-mouth among university students and office workers.” Telematics and Informatics 85 (2023): 102067. [CrossRef]
- Yu, Chengcheng, Jinzhe Yan, and Na Cai. “ChatGPT in Higher Education: Factors Influencing ChatGPT User Satisfaction and Continued Use Intention.” Frontiers in Education. Vol. 9. Frontiers, 2024. [CrossRef]
- Ngo, Thi Thuy An, et al. “ChatGPT for Educational Purposes: Investigating the Impact of Knowledge Management Factors on Student Satisfaction and Continuous Usage.” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2024). [CrossRef]
- Teerawongsathorn, Jidapa. Understanding the Influence Factors on the Acceptance and Use of ChatGPT in Bangkok: A Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Diss. Mahidol University, 2023.
- Faqih, Khaled MS. “The influence OF perceived usefulness, social influence, internet self-efficacy and compatibility ON USERS’INTENTIONS to adopt e-learning: investigating the moderating effects OF culture.” IJAEDU-International E-Journal of Advances in Education 5.15 (2020): 300-320.
- Alyoussef, Ibrahim Youssef. “The Impact of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on Knowledge Management Using Integrated Innovation Diffusion Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model.” Education Sciences 13.6 (2023): 531. [CrossRef]
- Kotni, VV Devi Prasad, et al. “Adoption of ChatGPT in Higher Education-Application of IDT Model, Testing and Validation.” 2023 3rd International Conference on Technological Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICTACS). IEEE, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Strzelecki, Artur. “To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology.” Interactive Learning Environments (2023): 1-14. [CrossRef]




| Items | Description | N | % | Cumulative% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 392 | 57.9 | 57.9 |
| Female | 285 | 42.1 | 100 | |
| Age | 18 | 44 | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| 19-24 | 309 | 45.64 | 52.14 | |
| 25-29 | 243 | 35.89 | 88.04 | |
| 30-35 | 81 | 11.96 | 100 | |
| Degree | Undergraduate | 375 | 55.39 | 55.39 |
| Postgraduate | 201 | 29.69 | 85.08 | |
| Doctor | 101 | 14.92 | 100 | |
| Specialization | Science and Engineering | 273 | 40.32 | 40.32 |
| Economics and Management | 225 | 33.23 | 73.56 | |
| Literature and History | 179 | 26.44 | 100 |
| Type of Measure | Acceptable Level If Fit | Values |
|---|---|---|
| Chi-square(χ2) | =or<3(Perfect fit) and (p>.01) | 3184.687/1041 |
| Root-Mean residual (RMR) | Close to 0 (Perfect fit) | .038 |
| Normed Fit index (NFI) | = or >0.90 | .915 |
| Relative Fit Index(RFI) | = or >0.90 | .921 |
| Incremental Fit Index (IFI) | = or >0.90 | .935 |
| Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) | = or >0.90 | .931 |
| Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | = or >0.90 | .938 |
| Root- mean square error of $approximation (RMSEA) | <0.10 indicates a good fit $<0.05 indicates a very good fit. | .046 |
| Coefficients | ||
|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | Tolerance | VIF |
| Relative Advantages(RA) | .681 | 1.469 |
| Perceived Compatibility(PC) | .546 | 1.832 |
| Complexity(CO) | .495 | 2.018 |
| Trialability(TR) | .534 | 1.871 |
| Observability(OB) | .430 | 2.324 |
| Thinking Variability(TV) | .437 | 2.290 |
| Perceived Enjoyment(PE) | .382 | 2.616 |
| Perceived Ease of Use(PEU) | .508 | 1.967 |
| Perceived Usefulness(PU) | .558 | 1.792 |
| Attitude Towards Using(ATU) | .569 | 1.759 |
| behavior Intention to Use(BIU) | .464 | 2.153 |
| RA | PC | CO | TR | OB | TV | PE | PEU | PU | ATU | BIU | AVE | CR | CA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA | .933 | .871 | .964 | .961 | ||||||||||
| PC | .459 | .900 | .810 | .944 | .942 | |||||||||
| CO | .447 | .524 | .866 | .751 | .923 | .922 | ||||||||
| TR | .459 | .476 | .402 | .870 | .757 | .926 | .926 | |||||||
| OB | .366 | .284 | .282 | .316 | .844 | .714 | .909 | .907 | ||||||
| TV | .521 | .396 | .384 | .408 | .532 | .921 | .850 | .957 | .957 | |||||
| PE | .102 | .144 | .247 | .164 | .316 | .131 | .831 | .692 | .899 | .898 | ||||
| PEU | .213 | .382 | .384 | .401 | .356 | .513 | .062 | .732 | .536 | .848 | .821 | |||
| PU | .301 | .423 | .417 | .428 | .354 | .507 | .058 | .672 | .830 | .689 | .916 | .911 | ||
| ATU | .559 | .789 | .664 | .743 | .327 | .457 | .159 | .491 | .549 | .836 | .699 | .919 | .909 | |
| BIU | .582 | .535 | .707 | .617 | .325 | .484 | .447 | .501 | .562 | .581 | .823 | .678 | .913 | .899 |
| Hypothesis | Independent | Relationship | Dependent | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | RA | → | PEU | .513 | .043 | 11.860 | .000 | Accepted |
| H2 | RA | → | PU | .278 | .037 | 7.514 | .000 | Accepted |
| H3 | PC | → | PEU | .211 | .026 | 8.115 | .000 | Accepted |
| H4 | PC | → | PU | .153 | .049 | 3.122 | .005 | Accepted |
| H5 | CO | → | PEU | -.112 | .023 | -4.870 | .000 | Accepted |
| H6 | CO | → | PU | -.022 | .039 | -0.564 | .661 | Rejected |
| H7 | TR | → | PEU | .159 | .024 | 6.625 | .000 | Accepted |
| H8 | TR | → | PU | -.052 | .061 | -0.852 | .524 | Rejected |
| H9 | OB | → | PEU | .191 | .026 | 7.346 | .000 | Accepted |
| H10 | OB | → | PU | .422 | .036 | 11.722 | .000 | Accepted |
| H11 | TV | → | PEU | .174 | .045 | 3.867 | .001 | Accepted |
| H12 | TV | → | PU | -.071 | .059 | -1.203 | .315 | Rejected |
| H13 | PE | → | PEU | .318 | .055 | 5.782 | .000 | Accepted |
| H14 | PE | → | PU | .468 | .041 | 11.415 | .000 | Accepted |
| H15 | PEU | → | PU | .391 | .038 | 10.289 | .000 | Accepted |
| H16 | PEU | → | ATU | .507 | .044 | 11.523 | .000 | Accepted |
| H17 | PU | → | ATU | .251 | .027 | 9.296 | .000 | Accepted |
| H18 | ATU | → | BIU | .447 | .035 | 12.771 | .000 | Accepted |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).