User acceptance and adoption dynamics of ChatGPT in educational settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in natural language understanding have sparked a great amount of interest in the large language models such as ChatGPT that contain billions of parameters and are trained for thousands of hours on all the textual data of the internet. ChatGPT has received immense attention because it has widespread applications, which it is able to do out-of-the-box, with no prior training or fine-tuning. These models show emergent skill and can perform virtually any textual task and provide glimmers, or “sparks”, of artificial general intelligence, in the form of a general problem solver as envisioned by Newell and Simon in the early days of artificial intelligence research. Researchers are now exploring the opportunities of ChatGPT in education. Yet, the factors influencing and driving users’ acceptance of ChatGPT remains largely unexplored. This study investigates users’ (n=138) acceptance of ChatGPT. We test a structural model developed using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model. The study reveals that performance expectancy is related to behavioral intention, which in turn is related to ChatGPT use. Findings are discussed within the context of mass adoption and the challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. The findings provide empirical grounding to support understanding of technology acceptance decisions through the lens of students’ use of ChatGPT and further document the influence of situational factors on technology acceptance more broadly. This research contributes to body of knowledge and facilitates future research on digital innovation acceptance and use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".