The Impact of the Usage of Generative AI on Academic Engagement of Students: A Case Study at a College of Education in Ghana

This study investigated the impact of generative AI usage on academic engagement among students at a selected College of Education in Ghana. The study aimed to examine the kinds of generative AI tools, identify the different ways students utilize these GenAI in their learning, and assess the overall influence on their academic engagement by employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. This design was chosen to provide a comprehensive understanding through both quantitative and qualitative data.
Ninety-four students participated in the quantitative phase via purposive sampling and completed a survey examining the types of generative AI tools they use and the effects on their academic engagement. Additionally, twelve students were interviewed to gather in-depth qualitative insights that could not be captured by the survey.
Findings
Revealed that generative AI positively influences students’ academic engagement and improves their learning environment. It serves as an effective tool to enhance learning and engagement. However, findings from some respondents via qualitative interview reveal that, excessive reliance on generative AI also poses risks by encouraging laziness and overdependence, less creativity and immersive engagement due to easy access to the AI tools, which may affect academic integrity.
The implication for this study is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT spark curiosity by offering instant feedback, tailored learning journeys, and interactive experiences that turn complex concepts into manageable insights.
The study highlights generative AI as a double-edged tool: while it empowers students with efficiency, creativity, and deeper engagement, it also risks encouraging shortcuts, dependency, and ethical breaches. Ensuring responsible and ethical integration of AI is therefore vital, with academic integrity anchored in fairness, honesty, and originality remaining at the heart of scholarly practice.

Academic Engagement, Enhanced Learning, Generative AI

1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/249577 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ai, H. (2017). Providing graduated corrective feedback in an intelligent computer-assisted language learning environment. ReCALL, 29(3), 313–334. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ali, A., & Eshaq, M. (2023). Using Artificial Intelligence for enhancing Human Creativity. Journal of Art, Design and Music, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.55554/2785-9649.1017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bulawan, A. A., Tilos, F. G., Bulawan, A., Samonte, J., Alejo, K., & Carasicas, M. (2023). The lived experiences of students in learning with technology: A descriptive phenomenological research study. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 3(4), 438–441. https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/arclist/list3.4/id-1445 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chau, P. Y. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, developments, and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 290. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/290 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Duggal, P. (2023). AI in education: Boon or bane for learning motivation? International Journal of Education and Learning, 12(2), 101–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Estrellado, C. J. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in the Philippine Educational Context: Circumspection and future inquiries. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 13(4), 16. https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.13.04.2023.p13704 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Farrelly, T., & Baker, N. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Implications and considerations for higher education practice. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(8), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), Article 421. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., Singh, R. P., & Suman, R. (2022). Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications for marketing: A literature-based study. International Journal of Intelligent Networks, 3, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin.2022.08.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J. (1996). A motivational model of microcomputer usage. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Johnson, B. (2023, January 5). NYC schools ban ChatGPT over academic dishonesty fears. The New York Times. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kadaruddin, K. (2023). Empowering education through generative AI: Innovative instructional strategies for tomorrow’s learners. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 4(2), 618–625. https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v4i2.215 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, S. (2012). Learning by design: A cultural history of learning and technology. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lai, M., Hwang, G., & Chen, C. (2020). The effect of learning analytics and AI-enhanced learning environments on student engagement: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 157, 103911. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lee, J. (2023). Image generator AI in higher education: Emerging opportunities and challenges. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Education, 11(2), 55–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. International Journal of Management in Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Liu, G. L., Darvin, R., & Ma, C. (2024). Exploring AI-mediated informal digital learning of English (AI-IDLE): A mixed-method investigation of Chinese EFL learners’ AI adoption and experiences. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Nagender, Y., & Patil, K. H. (2017). WhatsApp auto responder using natural language processing and AI. International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology, 8(5), 15–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Norman, E. W., & Fraenkel, J. R. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Okoye, M., & Mante, D. (2024). The nexus between artificial intelligence and STEM education: Research on AI applications in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1851–1861. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Opoku, M. O., & Enu-Kwesi, F. (2019). Relevance of the technology acceptance model (TAM) in information management research: A review of selected empirical evidence. Research Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2019.1028 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Oravec, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence implications for academic cheating: Expanding the dimensions of responsible human-AI collaboration with ChatGPT and Bard. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 213–237. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Piaget, J. (1973). The child and reality: Problems of genetic psychology. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Rodrigues, M., Silva, R., Franco, M. A. P. B., & Oliveira, C. (2024). Artificial intelligence: Threat or asset to academic integrity? A bibliometric analysis. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-09-2023-1666 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Sanusi, I. T., Ayanwale, M. A., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Investigating the moderating effects of social good and confidence on teachers’ intention to prepare school students for artificial intelligence education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12250-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Sok, P., & Heng, C. (2023). ChatGPT and academic writing: Student perceptions in Cambodian universities. Asian Journal of Education, 14(3), 245–259. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007a). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660710834453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Comparative Study on the Thermal and Electrical Conductivity of Common Materials
• Thickness Dependent Thermoelectric Properties of Pb0.4In0.6Se Thin Films Deposited by Physical Evaporation Technique
• Optimization of a Patch Antenna Using Genetic Algorithm
• Kinematic Constraints On Brown Dwarf Atmospheric Variability And Evidence For Bimodal Formation From Multi-Survey Analysis
• Reservoir Characterization through the Application of Petrophysical Evaluation of Well Logs of Animaux Field, Niger Delta Basin, Nigeria