Factors Influencing the University Students’ Acceptance of ChatGPT in English Academic Writing

ChatGPT is a renowned AI writing tool that offers students various advantages, including personalised assistance, instant responses, and comprehensive feedback. While ChatGPT has demonstrated great acceptance among university students, little research has been conducted on factors influencing their acceptance of this tool. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate factors influencing university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in English academic writing in Malaysia and those that influenced students’ behavioural intention most. This study adopted the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to discover whether university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT was influenced by performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. This research employed a quantitative approach with a cross-sectional survey design. A 22-question survey was distributed online to students studying at one public university in Malaysia, and a total of 297 completed responses were finally collected. Pearson’s correlation tests, a stepwise multiple regression, and a simple linear regression were used to analyse the data. The findings revealed that social influence, effort expectancy, and performance expectancy influenced university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in their English academic writing but not facilitating conditions. In addition, social influence was found to be the most influencing factor on the students’ behavioural intention to use ChatGPT, and students’ behavioural intention had a moderate predictive effect on the actual use of ChatGPT. These findings offer valuable insights on the role of these factors in influencing the students’ readiness and openness in accepting ChatGPT in their English academic writing.

ChatGPT, UTAUT, Technology Acceptance, Academic Writing, University Students

1. Abas, M. A., Arumugam, S. E., Yunus, M. M., & M. Rafiq, K. R. (2023). ChatGPT and Personalized Learning: Opportunities and Challenges in Higher Education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i12/20240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abd Rahim, E. M., Abd Rahim, M. E., Razawi, N. A., & Mohamed, N. A. (2023). Students’ perception on the use of ChatGPT as a language learning tool. Idealogy Journal, 8(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.24191/idealogy.v8i2.456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Abuhamda, E. A. A., Ismail, I. A., & Bsharat, T. R. K. (2021). Understanding quantitative and qualitative research methods: A theoretical perspective for young researchers. International Journal of Research, 8(2), 71–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2501/ijmr-201-5-070 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Alammar, A. & Amin, E. A. (2023). EFL students’ perception of using AI paraphrasing tools in English language research projects. Arab World English Journal, 14(3), 166–181. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no3.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ali, J., Shamsan, M. A., Hezam, T. A., & Mohammed, A. A. Q. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learning motivation: Teachers and students' voices. Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix, 2(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.51 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ali, Z. & Bhaskar, S. B. (2018). Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190623 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Amanda, A., Sukma, E. M., Lubis, N., & Dewi, U. (2023). QuillBot as an AI-powered English writing assistant: An alternative for students to write English. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Sastra Inggris, 3(2). 188–199. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ayalon, A., & Ido, O. (2026). Adoption of ChatGPT in higher education: A UTAUT-based comparative study of students and lecturers. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395261439145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Buraimoh, O. F., Boor, C. H. M., & Aladesusi, G. A. (2022). Examining facilitating conditions and social influence as determinants of secondary school teachers’ behavioural intention to use mobile technologies for instruction. Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 3(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijert.v3i1.44720 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bonsu, E. M. & Baffour-Koduah, D. (2023). From the consumers’ side: Determining students’ perception and intention to use ChatGPT in Ghanaian higher education. Journal of Education, Society, and Multiculturalism, 4(1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2023-0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Camilleri, M. A. (2024). Factors affecting performance expectancy and intentions to use ChatGPT: Using SmartPLS to advance an information technology acceptance framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123247 66 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chauke, T. A., Mkhize, T. R., Methi, L., & Dlamini, N. (2024). Postgraduate students’ perceptions on the benefits associated with artificial intelligence tools for academic success: The use of the ChatGPT AI tool. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 6(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2024.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Chui, H. C. (2023). ChatGPT as a tool for developing paraphrasing skills among ESL learners. Journal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.24191/cplt.v11i2.21723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Emon, M. M. H. (2023). Predicting adoption intention of ChatGPT: A study on business professionals of Bangladesh (Preprint). Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs-3749611/v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Firat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6, 57–63. http://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/index [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fitria, T. N. (2021). “Grammarly” as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for English writing. Metathesis: Journal of English Language Literature and Teaching, 5(1), 65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fitria, R. A., Sabarun, S. & Miftah, M. Z. (2022). Students’ perception of the use of Grammarly in undergraduate thesis writing. Professional Journal of English Education, 5(2), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v5i2.p366-371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Guo, K., Wang, J. & Chu, S. K. W. (2022). Using chatbots to scaffold EFL students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 54, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100666 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hasanein, A. M. & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2023). Drivers and consequences of ChatGPT use in higher education: Key stakeholder perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology, and Education, 13(11), 2599–2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Iftanti, E., Awalin, A. S. & Izza, F. N. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence as the potential supporting learning tools for doing learning projects. Proceedings of International Conference on Education (ICOE), 1, 455–467. https://jurnalfaktarbiyah.iainkediri.ac.id/index.php/proceedings/article/view/1808 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Klimova, B. F. (2013). The importance of writing. PARIFEX Indian Journal of Research, 2(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.15373/22501991/JAN2013/4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lai, C. Y., Cheung, K. Y., Chan, C. S., & Law, K. K. (2024). Integrating the adapted UTAUT model with moral obligation, trust and perceived risk to predict ChatGPT adoption for assessment support: A survey with students. Computers and Education; Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Li, J. & Zeng, L. (2019). Investigation into and analysis of the current situation of academic English writing of HLP postgraduates: A case study from a Chinese university. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(5), 979-988. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1005.09 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. 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/10.2139/ssrn.4333415 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Maakip, I., Matanluk, O. O. & Marshall, S. (2023). Understanding student perception regarding the use of ChatGPT in their argumentative writing: A qualitative inquiry. Malaysian Journal of Communication, 39(4), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2023-3904-08 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mah, Y. B., Ismail, R., Liaw, S. C., Marimuthu, R., Mohamed, R. & Lim, T. H. (2017). UiTM students’ writing needs, writing problems, and language Courses: A qualitative systematic review of literature prior to WeCWI’s course integration. International Academic Research Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 2017, 98–103. https://www.iarjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/IARJSS2017_1_98-103.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Madhavi, E., Sivapurapu, L., Koppula, V., Rani, P. B. E. & Sreehari, V. (2023). Developing learners’ English-speaking skills using ICT and AI tools. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 32(2), 142-153. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.32.2.142153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Menon, D. & Shilpa, K. (2023). “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users’ intention to use OpenAI’s ChatGPT using the UTAUT model. Heliyon, 9(11), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J., Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F. & Cham, T. H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modelling, 4(2), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Mohajan, H. K. (2020). Quantitative research: A successful investigation in natural and social sciences. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v9i4.679 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mukaka, M. M. (2012). Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Nagel, J. (2024). A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Margin of Error. Limesurvey.org. https://www.limesurvey.org/blog/tutorials/a-comprehensive-guide-to-understanding-margin-of-error [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Parveen, K., Phuc, T. Q. B., Alghamdi, A. A., Hajjej, F., Obidallah, W. J., Alduraywish, Y. A., & Shafiq, M. (2024). Unraveling the dynamics of ChatGPT adoption and utilization through structural equation modelling. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 22105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74406-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Pratama, Y. W. (2020). The investigation of using Grammarly as online grammar checker in the process of writing. Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 46–54. https://journal.unsika.ac.id/index.php/IDEAS/article/view/4180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Pratama, A., & Setiawan, H. (2025). Acceptance of ChatGPT by students in academic assessment. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education in Academics, 2(1), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Qawqzeh, Y. K. (2024). Exploring the influence of student interaction with ChatGPT on critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(4), 596–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.4.2082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Rehman, H. U. I., & Ibrahim, Y. (2023). Exploring factors influencing educators’ adoption of ChatGPT: A mixed-method approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-07-2023-0127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Regaro, C. C. (2026). Adoption of ChatGPT in academic writing: College students' perspectives, attitudes and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(4), 3898-3909. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Shaikh, S., Yayilgan, S. Y., Klimova, B. & Pikhart, M. (2023). Assessing the usability of ChatGPT for formal English language learning. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12, 1937–1960. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13090140 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Strzelecki, A. (2024). Students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: An extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Innovative Higher Education, 49, 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Strzelecki, A. (2025). Exploring the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: a comprehensive quantitative study of university students and faculty. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1652292. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1652292 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Strzelecki, A., & El-Arabawy, S. (2023). Investigation of the moderation effect of gender and study level on the acceptance and use of generative AI by higher education students: Comparative evidence from Poland and Egypt. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 1209–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Surucu, L., & Maslakci, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 8(3), 694–726. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Taecharungroj, V. (2023). “What can ChatGPT do?” Analyzing early reactions to the innovative AI chatbot on Twitter. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7 (35), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Tahir, M. M. (2023). Students' behavioural intention towards adoption of online education: A Study of the extended UTAUT model. Journal of Learning for Development, 10(3), 392–410. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v10i3.949 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., Van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature, 614, 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. 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]

52. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. CHEST Journal, 158(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Xu, X., & Thien, L. M. (2024). Unleashing the power of perceived enjoyment: Exploring Chinese undergraduate EFL learners’ intention to use ChatGPT for English learning. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-12-2023-0555 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zou, M. & Huang, L. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through the Technology Acceptance Model. Front. Psychol 14, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1259531 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Employee Training Efficacy in Banking Sector
• Multidimensional Predictors of University Students’ Examination Performance: A Quantitative Analysis of Psychological, Environmental, And Skill-Based Factors
• Digital Learning Innovation: Evaluating the Effectiveness of MOOC and Politicbox in Enhancing Students Understanding
• An Investigation of Group Work through Mcclelland’s Theory
• The Impact of a Practical Flipped Process-Genre Writing Model on Moroccan EFL High School Students’ Writing Performance