Teachers’ Adoption of ChatGPT in Higher Education: Integrating Technology Acceptance, Trust, and Perceived Risk

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have become increasingly prominent in education, with ChatGPT emerging as a notable tool that enhances learning experiences. This study explores teachers’ attitudes towards the adoption of ChatGPT as a learning technology, focusing on its potential benefits, limitations and implications for education. A quantitative approach was employed, involving an online survey targeting university educators. The survey assessed teachers’ perceptions of ChatGPT in higher education and identified barriers to its implementation. The conceptual framework integrates elements from the Technology Acceptance Model, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and insights from risk perception theory. Data analysis was conducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling with SMART PLS software, ensuring reliability and discriminant validity. Findings indicate that most teachers view ChatGPT as an effective tool for enhancing student motivation, personalised learning and critical thinking. While teaching experience fosters positive perceptions and reduces perceived risks, it does not significantly influence challenges or trust in adoption decisions. Nonetheless, challenges persist, particularly regarding the reliability of information generated by ChatGPT. This study can assist policymakers, educators and technology developers in collaborating to implement practical and ethical AI-enabled tools like ChatGPT. Ultimately, while ChatGPT holds significant potential as an educational technology, its effectiveness hinges on addressing technical and pedagogical challenges.

Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, Learning Technology, Teachers’ Attitudes, Higher Education

1. 1 Gupta, K. P., & Bhaskar, P. (2023). Teachers' intention to adopt virtual reality technology in management education. International Journal of Learning and Change, 15(1), 28–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. 2 Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of e-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. 3 Adel, A., Ahsan, A., & Davison, C. (2024). ChatGPT promises and challenges in education: Computational and ethical perspectives. Education Sciences, 14(8), 814. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. 4 Nikolinakos, N. T. (2023). The proposed artificial intelligence act and subsequent ‘compromise’ proposals: Commission, council, parliament. In EU policy and legal framework for artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies—The AI Act (pp. 327–741). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. 5 Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910–922. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. 6 Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). 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), 364–389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. 7 Gill, S. S., & Kaur, R. (2023). ChatGPT: Vision and challenges. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. 8 Söderström, U., Hedström, E., Lambertsson, K., & Mejtoft, T. (2024). ChatGPT in education: Teachers’ and students’ views. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2024 (pp. 1–10). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. 9 Alharbi, W. (2024). Mind the gap, please!: Addressing the mismatch between teacher awareness and student AI adoption in higher education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 14(1), 1–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. 10 Bateman, T. (2024). Teacher perspectives of ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool in the K-12 setting: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education. Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. 11 Alwaqdani, M. (2024). Investigating teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence tools in education: Potential and difficulties. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. 12 Chocarro, R., Cortiñas, M., & Marcos-Matás, G. (2023). Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: A technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educational Studies, 49(2), 295–313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. 13 ElSayary, A. (2024). An investigation of teachers' perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(3), 931–945. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. 14 Sánchez-Mena, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Aldás-Manzano, J. (2019). Teachers’ intention to use educational video games: The moderating role of gender and age. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(3), 318–329. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. 15 Bhaskar, P., & Rana, S. (2024). The ChatGPT dilemma: Unravelling teachers’ perspectives on inhibiting and motivating factors for adoption of ChatGPT. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. 16 Iqbal, N., Ahmed, H., & Azhar, K. A. (2022). Exploring teachers’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT. Global Journal for Management and Administrative Sciences, 3(4), 97–111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. 17 Dubey, P., & Sahu, K. K. (2021). Students' perceived benefits, adoption intention and satisfaction to technology-enhanced learning: Examining the relationships. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(3), 310–328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. 18 Tiwari, C. K., Bhat, M. A., Khan, S. T., Subramaniam, R., & Khan, M. A. I. (2024). What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 333–355. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. 19 Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. 20 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. 21 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. 22 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. 23 Mishra, P., Warr, M., & Islam, R. (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(4), 235–251. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. 24 Haque, M. U., Dharmadasa, I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse, R. N., & Ahmad, H. (2022). “I think this is the most disruptive technology”: Exploring sentiments of ChatGPT early adopters using Twitter data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05856. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. 25 Dwivedi, Y. K., et al. (2023). Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. 26 Alqahtani, N. (2024). Benefits, challenges, and attitudes toward ChatGPT in English writing courses at Saudi universities. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 396–413. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. 27 Syed, W., Bashatah, A., Alharbi, K., Bakarman, S. S., Asiri, S., & Alqahtani, N. (2024). Awareness and perceptions of ChatGPT among academics and research professionals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Implications for responsible AI use. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 30, e944993-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. 28 Alammari, A. (2024). Evaluating generative AI integration in Saudi Arabian education: A mixed-methods study. PeerJ Computer Science, 10, e1879. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. 29 Khan, M. U. H. (2016). Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030. Defence Journal, 19(11), 36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. 30 Gupta, S., Abbas, A. F., & Srivastava, R. (2022). Technology acceptance model (TAM): A bibliometric analysis from inception. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 10(3), 77–106. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. 31 Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. 32 Abowitz, D. A., & Toole, T. M. (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108–116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. 33 Zaineldeen, S., Hongbo, L., Koffi, A. L., & Hassan, B. M. A. (2020). Technology acceptance model concepts, contribution, limitation, and adoption in education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 5061–5071. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. 34 Ho, S. M., Ocasio-Velázquez, M., & Booth, C. (2017). Trust or consequences? Causal effects of perceived risk and subjective norms on cloud technology adoption. Computers & Security, 70, 581–595. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. 35 Sallam, M., Al-Farajat, A., & Egger, J. (2024). Envisioning the future of ChatGPT in healthcare: Insights and recommendations from a systematic identification of influential research and a call for papers. Jordan Medical Journal, 58(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. 36 Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. 37 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). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. 38 Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Market Research (pp. 587–632). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. 39 Schuberth, F., Rademaker, M. E., & Henseler, J. (2023). Assessing the overall fit of composite models estimated by partial least squares path modeling. European Journal of Marketing, 57(6), 1678–1702. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. 40 Carrión, G. C., Nitzl, C., & Roldán, J. L. (2017). Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Guidelines and empirical examples. In Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications (pp. 173–195). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. 41 Hair, J. F., Jr., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. 42 Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2015). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 164–1715. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. 43 Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745–783. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. 44 Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. 45 Lai, M. H. (2021). Composite reliability of multilevel data: It’s about observed scores and construct meanings. Psychological Methods, 26(1), 90. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. 46 Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. 47 Zhang, D. (2017). A coefficient of determination for generalized linear models. The American Statistician, 71(4), 310–316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. 48 Chicco, D., Warrens, M. J., & Jurman, G. (2021). The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e623. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet