Adopting ChatGPT for Academic Assistance among University Students: A Pilot Study

The integration of artificial intelligence tools in higher education has gained significant attention, particularly in supporting students’ academic activities. This pilot study examines the factors influencing the adoption of ChatGPT as an academic assistance tool among university students. Guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model, the study focuses on four key constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. A quantitative research design was employed using a structured survey instrument to collect data from 100 undergraduate students from various faculties at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka. Participants were selected using a simple random sampling method to ensure that every participant had an equal chance of being selected. The findings aim to identify the significant determinants that influence students’ behavioral intention to adopt ChatGPT in their learning processes. The results indicate that the Cronbach’s alpha values for most of the constructs are above 0.8 and 0.9, which indicate high to very high internal consistency reliability. As a pilot study, the results provide preliminary empirical evidence on technology acceptance in the context of AI-powered learning tools and offer insights for educators, institutions, and policymakers seeking to integrate artificial intelligence technologies effectively into higher education environments.

Behavioral Intention, ChatGPT, Higher Education, Technology Adoption, UTAUT Model.

1. Abdallah, N., Katmah, R., Khalaf, K., & Jelinek, H. F. (2025). Systematic review of ChatGPT in higher education: Navigating impact on learning, wellbeing, and collaboration. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101866 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adamakis, M., & Rachiotis, T. (2025). Artificial intelligence in higher education: A state-of-the-art overview of pedagogical integrity, artificial intelligence literacy, and policy integration. Encyclopedia, 5(4), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5040180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adewale, M. D., Azeta, A., Abayomi-Alli, A., & Sambo-Magaji, A. (2024). Impact of artificial intelligence adoption on students' academic performance in open and distance learning: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 10(22). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alkaabi, A., Abdallah, A., Alblooshi, S., Alomari, F., & Alneaimi, S. (2025). ChatGPT in higher education: Opportunities, challenges, and required competencies in the absence of guiding policies. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 12(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v12i2.6746 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Al-Kfairy, M. (2024). factors impacting the adoption and acceptance of ChatGPT in educational settings: A narrative review of empirical studies. Applied System Innovation, 7(6), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi7060110 Almogren, A. S., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Dahri, N. A. (2024). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. ChatGPT in higher education: A smart education perspective. Heliyon, 10(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31887 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Archambault, S. G., Murph, N. L., & Ramachandran, S. (2025). Fostering AI literacy in undergraduates: A ChatGPT workshop case study. (2025). Librarian Publications & Presentations, 443-475. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/161 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Aruleba, K., Sanusi, I. T., Obaido, G., & Ogbuokiri, B. (2023). Integrating ChatGPT in a computer science course: Students perceptions and suggestions. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.01640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Aslam, M. & Nisar, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence applications using chatgpt in education: Case studies and practices. IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9300-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Barakat, M., Salim, N. A., & Sallam, M. (2025). University educators’ perspectives on ChatGPT: A technology acceptance model-based study. Open Praxis, 17(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Barroga, E., & Matanguihan, G. J. (2022). A practical guide to writing quantitative and qualitative research questions and hypotheses in scholarly articles. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 37(16), 121.https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Biloš, A. & Budimir, B. (2024). Understanding the adoption dynamics of ChatGPT among generation Z: Insights from a modified UTAUT2 model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 863-879. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Budhathoki, T., Zirar, A., Njoya, E. T., & Timsina, A. (2024). ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: A cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2333937 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0231055 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., & Wright, R. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Elshaer, I. A., Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2024). The moderating effects of gender and study discipline in the relationship between university students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(7), 1981-1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14070132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Faraon, M., Rönkkö., K, Milrad, M., & Tsui, E. (2025). International perspectives on artificial intelligence in higher education: An explorative study of students’ intention to use ChatGPT across the Nordic countries and the USA. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 17835-17880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-02513492-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Foroughi, B., Iranmanesh, M., Ghobakhloo, M., Senali, M. G., Annamalai, N., Abbaspour, B. N., & Rejeb, A. (2024). The Electronic Library, 43(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2023-0293 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2023). Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLSSEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4501–4520. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Habibi, A., Muhaimin, M., Danibao, B. K., Wibowo, Y. G., Wahyuni, S., & Octavia, A. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education learning: Acceptance and use. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable operations and computers, 3, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 [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. Hasim, M. A., Jabar, J., & Murad, A. M. (2019). Preliminary research on consumer acceptance in nanofood towards purchase intention: Pilot research. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2S3), 352-356. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1060.0782S319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hasim, M. A., Jabar, J., Sufian, A., & Ibrahim, N. F. (2022). Validating the component of e-learning antecedents, digital readiness and usage behavior towards e-learning performance: A pilot study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(10), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.10.9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hasim, M. A., Jabar, J., Sufian, A., Ibrahim, N. F., & Abdul Khalid, F. (2023). Employing fuzzy Delphi techniques to validate the components and contents of e-learning antecedents and usage behavior towards e-learning performance. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 467-480. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.1.467 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Jensen, C. G., Dau, S., & Gade, P. (2024). The role of AI chatbots in scaffolding: Linking learning outcomes with assessment. Learning Tech – Tidsskrift for Læremidler, Didaktik og Teknologi, (14), 73-97. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v9i14.141213 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Jiang, Y., Xie, L., & Cao, X. (2025). Exploring the effectiveness of institutional policies and regulations for generative AI usage in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kaya, M. H., & Adıgüzel, T. (2025). Exploring the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: A comprehensive quantitative study of university students and faculty. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1652292 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Klar, M. (2025). Using ChatGPT is easy, using it effectively is tough? A mixed methods study on K-12 students’ perceptions, interaction patterns, and support for learning with generative AI chatbots. Smart Learning Environments, 12(32). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00385-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kovari, A. (2025). Ethical use of ChatGPT in education—Best practices to combat AI-induced plagiarism. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1465703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Li, H. (2025). Impact of collaborative learning on student engagement in college English programs: Mediating effect of peer support and moderating role of group size. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1525192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1525192 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mayer, B. S. (2025). Digital informal learning through connectivism and networked learning: the case of Arabic culture groups. Discover Education, 4(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00526-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Collier, A. H. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

38. Menon, D., & Shilpa, K. (2023). “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users' intention to use the Open AI's ChatGPT using the UTAUT model. Heliyon, 9(11). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Moradi, H. (2025). Integrating AI in higher education: Factors influencing ChatGPT acceptance among Chinese university EFL students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(30). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00530-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Namatovu, A., & Kyambade, M. (2025). Leveraging AI in academia: University students’ adoption of ChatGPT for writing coursework (take home) assignments through the lens of UTAUT2. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2485522 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Parveen, K., Phuc, T. Q. B., Alghamdi, A. A., Hajjej, F., Obidallah, W. J., Alduraywish, Y. A., & Shafiq, M. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. (2024). Unraveling the dynamics of ChatGPT adoption and utilization through Structural Equation Modeling. Scientific Reports, 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74406-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Schmidt, D. A., AlBloushi, B., Thomas, A., & Magalhaes, R. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence in higher education: Perceptions, challenges, and strategies for academic innovation. Computers and Education Open, 100274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Javed, I. (2024). ChatGPT awareness, acceptance, and adoption in higher education: The role of trust as a cornerstone. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(46). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00478-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Simatupang, E. C., Ismail, I., Waluyo, B., & Panmei, B. (2025). ChatGPT in Education: The Influence of Institutional Support and Peer Dynamics in Indonesian Higher Education. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 29(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2025.2461476 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Stack, M. (2023). Investigating an assessment design that prevents students from using ChatGPT as the sole basis to pass assessment at the tertiary level. E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (EHASS), 4(12). https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.20234127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Stecuła, K., & Wolniak, R. (2022). Advantages and disadvantages of e-learning innovations during COVID-19 pandemic in higher education in Poland. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030159 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Stone, B. W. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Uncertain students, ambiguous use cases, and mercenary perspectives. Teaching of Psychology, 52(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241305398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Strzelecki, A. (2023). 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/s10755023-09686-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Wang, K. D., Wu, Z., Tufts, L. N., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., & Haber, N. (2024). Scaffold or Crutch? Examining College Students’ Use and Views of Generative AI Tools for STEM Education. Physics Education. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.02653 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Whitehead, A. L., Julious, S. A., Cooper, C. L., & Campbell, M. J. (2016). Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimize the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 25(3), 1057–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215588241 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Woo, D. J., Wang, D., Yung, T., & Guo, K. (2024). Effects of a prompt engineering intervention on undergraduate students' AI self-efficacy, AI knowledge and prompt engineering ability: A mixed methods study. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32577.36968 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• LeafQuest: A Mobile-Based Augmented Reality for Plant Placement, Discovery, and Growth
• Participatory Ergonomic Intervention Approach on Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) in Construction Sectors: A Systematic Review
• Integrating GIS into Traffic Incident Management: A Web-Based System
• RideSmart: A Personalized Motorcycle Product Recommendation System Using TF-IDF and Descriptive Analytics for Javidson Motorshop
• Educational Technology Course Design in Pre-Service Teachers Education: A Bibliometric Review of the Research Landscape