International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

ChatGPT in the higher education: A systematic literature review

and research challenges
Maria Ijaz Baig a , Elaheh Yadegaridehkordi b, *
a
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
b
College of Information and Communications Technology, School of Engineering and Technology, CQUniversity, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: ChatGPT has gained significant attention in the higher education sector as it can be applied across
ChatGPT a wide range of topics. Despite ChatGPT’s versatility in offering support across various educa­
Higher education tional disciplines, it is still in its early stages and requires further exploration to be fully utilized
Usage
effectively in education. This systematic literature review aims to explore the trends, adoption
Adoption
Intention
measures, diverse applications, and current limitations of ChatGPT research in higher education.
Acceptance and applications This review systematically analyzed 57 research articles published between 2023 and 2024. This
study identified trends in ChatGPT in higher education by providing temporal views, geograph­
ical locations, and research methods used. Furthermore, this study explored users’ intention to
adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education by focusing on post-adoption, intention to use, and
acceptance stages. Considering the extensive advantages ChatGPT brings to the academic com­
munity, this review explores its diverse applications in educational settings for academic staff,
students, researchers, and non-academic users. Finally, this study outlined the current limitations
in ChatGPT research within higher education and proposed future research directions, aiming for
continuous improvement in the field. This study can benefit higher education by providing
valuable insights into the effective utilization of ChatGPT.

1. Introduction

ChatGPT was introduced in November 2022 as an open Artificial Intelligence (Al) tool that streamlines the process of initiating
conversations (Rawas, 2023; Chukwuere, 2023). ChatGPT excels in natural language understanding, enabling it to produce text that is
similar to that of a human (Cheung et al., 2023). It has started to be a fantastic replacement for Google or Wikipedia, and it does away
with the necessity of many websites. This is crucial for effective communication, as it allows for clear explanations and intuitive re­
sponses to queries. (Ding et al., 2023). ChatGPT actively seeks user feedback and continuously improves the model based on that
feedback, ensuring its accuracy and usefulness over time (Fergus et al., 2023). In parallel to other sectors, ChatGPT has quickly gained
attention in educational environments. ChatGPT, a pre-trained language model, is a valuable tool for the higher education sector due to
its versatility and vast dataset (Firat, 2023). Furthermore, OpenAI’s Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) make it easy to
integrate ChatGPT into existing higher educational platforms like learning management systems (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023; Dai et al.,
2023). ChatGPT’s cloud-based nature makes it scalable and easily accessible to higher educational users globally, accommodating a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Yadegaridehkordi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102411
Received 4 March 2024; Received in revised form 5 May 2024; Accepted 19 June 2024
Available online 17 July 2024
0883-0355/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

large user base, including students, teachers, and institutions (Rahman et al., 2023). Its fine-tuning capability allows performing
several higher educational tasks, such as answering subject-specific questions, providing tutoring, or generating educational content
(Rawas, 2023). Moreover, it is a cost-effective alternative to traditional resources, as it can be used in higher education for tasks like
automated feedback or offering additional support (Shanto, Ahmed & Jony, 2023).
ChatGPT can act as an online instructor, offering assistance with homework, explaining concepts, and providing additional learning
resources in higher education (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023; Tajik & Tajik, 2023). The natural language interface of ChatGPT enhances
user engagement, especially among higher education students, making learning more interactive and enjoyable (Wang et al., 2023).
These factors collectively make ChatGPT a valuable tool for higher educational institutions and learners (Currie et al., 2023). ChatGPT
is a personalized and adaptive learning tool that offers effective feedback mechanisms to cater to individual learning styles (Bom­
mineni et al., 2023). It can be integrated with existing higher educational technologies, ensuring interoperability and compatibility
(Prasetya & Syarif, 2023).
However, despite the many benefits that ChatGPT has brought to educational environments, its challenges have been an ongoing
discussion among stakeholders. Disagreements exist between professors and experts, with some expressing opposition and others
excited about its potential (Keiper, 2023). According to Chaudhry et al. (2023), potential data-driven patterns of ChatGPT may affect
its accuracy and reliability, as well as its varying content quality and consistency. Moreover, overreliance on ChatGPT may discourage
critical thinking, and institutions must ensure privacy and data security (Jafari & Keykha, 2023). Ethical use and plagiarism concerns
arise from students using ChatGPT without proper understanding (Huallpa, 2023). Making the fullest use of ChatGPT and addressing
related concerns necessitates continuous research and exploration into its capabilities, limitations, and implications.
Researchers have conducted several review studies on ChatGPT in educational context to gain a better understanding of its
strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring further exploration. Ansari et al. (2023) explored the effectiveness of ChatGPT as a tool for
academic convenience, responsibility, accuracy, and reliability. Similarly, Elbanna and Armstrong (2023) explored the potential of
ChatGPT for personalized learning and content creation while also discussing its ethical implications. Likewise, Pradana et al.’s (2023)
article critically examined OpenAI ChatGPT’s, highlighting research gaps in terms of challenge, teaching, and knowledge. Gill et al.’s
(2024) analyzed ChatGPT’s potential and drawbacks, like data accuracy and plagiarism detection, in the education domain. This
review emphasized the need for updated academic regulations and education about their limitations. Rejeb et al. (2024) explored the
potential for ChatGPT in enhancing writing skills and fostering interactive learning environments. Despite ChatGPT’s versatility in
offering support across various educational disciplines, it is still in its early stages and requires further exploration to be fully utilized
effectively in education. Therefore, this research aims to provide a comprehensive review of published articles on ChatGPT in higher
education by highlighting trends, users’ adoption and usage behavior, and diverse applications of ChatGPT in this specific domain.
Meanwhile, this study offers a general overview of existing gaps in the current research stream and proposes future research directions.
The research questions (RQs) for this are presented as follows:
RQ1: What are the trends in published articles on ChatGPT in higher education?
RQ2: What are the measures used to assess the adoption and usage behavior of ChatGPT in higher education?
RQ3: What are the diverse applications of ChatGPT in the higher educational settings?
RQ4: What are the limitations of the current research publications and future research directions in ChatGPT in higher education?
The research findings could significantly impact the analysis of ChatGPT in higher education, benefiting researchers, academic
staff, students, and institutions. This can assist researchers in enhancing the quality and relevance of new research. Moreover,
measuring the characteristics of adoption of ChatGPT in higher educational studies can help identify key factors, select appropriate
theoretical frameworks, refine measurement constructs, and improve data collection and analysis techniques. Furthermore, diverse
applications of ChatGPT can be helpful for teachers, students, researchers, and non-academic staff. Furthermore, recognizing the
limitations of current research can offer valuable insights for guiding future research directions and enhancing the overall quality of
subsequent studies.

2. Review methodology

An approach to comprehending, evaluating, and analyzing the strategy is known as a systematic literature review (SLR) (Kitch­
enham, 2004). It explains the subject and pertinent research problems. A systematic review seeks to grasp and assess the body of
current research. This research employs (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007) approach because it’s influential in shaping best practices in

Table 1
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusions Exclusion

Pertinent keywords are located in the titles or abstracts Research papers without pertinent keywords in the abstracts, titles, or keywords section
or keywords section
Research articles type records are included Excluded record type: systematic literature reviews, argumentative review, grey literature, discussions,
editorials, letters, proceedings or conference papers, meeting reports, brief reports, opinions, meta-
analyses, content analysis, commentary, viewpoint commentary, and bibliometric analyses
Research papers published in English between January Research articles published beyond this time frame and not in English
2023 and mid of January 2024
Research articles based on the ChatGPT in the higher Research articles based on the ChatGPT in simple education, solely K-12, colleges, or before university
education sector level diplomas are not considered.

2
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Fig. 1. Selection process.

3
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

the educational field. This approach originally comprises essential stages, namely: the protocol for review, the standards for inclusion
and exclusion, the search procedure, the selection process, the assessment of quality, and the process of extracting and synthesizing
data. For a comprehensive analysis, the study adheres to the SLR’s planning, execution, and reporting protocols, and the intended
outcome is met.

2.1. Review protocol

Reducing research bias is the aim of the review approach. The likelihood of bias in the review is reduced by outlining the methods
in advance.

2.1.1. Inclusion and exclusion

To make sure that only highly relevant research is included in this analysis, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established
(Table 1). A comprehensive keyword search is necessary to locate articles that are related to the domain Kitchenham (2004). Thus,
pertinent terms were looked up in the abstracts, titles, and keywords. The research article type is considered for this review. The most
prevalent kinds of papers in the world of journal publication are research articles. It includes unique scientific findings that have a
direct impact. ChatGPT was introduced in November 2022 (Rudolph et al., 2023). Consequently, the analysis encompassed all relevant
studies published in English between January 2023 and mid-January 2024. This study aims to present an overview of ChatGPT trends,
key applications, and constraints in the field of higher education. Consequently, this evaluation solely takes into account research that
practically offers a thorough explanation of ChatGPT in a higher education context.

2.1.2. Search procedure

There are two steps in the search process: automatic search and manual search. First, a manual search was used to find the major
studies in the ChatGPT and higher education sector. Extensive research was conducted on Emerald, Education Resource Information
Center (ERIC), Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), SAGE, Elsevier, SpringerLink, Frontiers, Plosone, Wiley, and
Taylor & Francis. A wide range of keywords were employed in the search to reduce the possibility of missing any important papers. To
extract the most relevant documents, the search queries used boolean operators.
In the search’s initial phase, combinations of (“ChatGPT”) AND (“higher education” OR “higher education sector” OR “higher
education institutes” OR “university” OR “universities” OR “undergraduate” OR “postgraduate” OR “graduate”).
Kitchenham and Charters (2007) proposed screening the primary study resources manually. Therefore, in the second stage, a
manual search through all of the references from the original research is also carried out.

2.1.3. Selection process

To find research studies that answer the review study’s research questions, the selection process is used. The selection procedure for
the study is shown in Fig. 1. Using the keyword string, an automatic search turned up a total of 209 studies. Due to their ineligibility, as
the type of research was not an article, the 167 studies were excluded. Consequently, the remaining 42 papers were subjected to
inclusion and exclusion criteria. 33 articles on the ChatGPT in higher education remained after 9 articles were removed as not based on
higher education level. The manual technique was used to ensure that the automated search produced thorough results. Using Google
Scholar, a total of 30 studies were found. The 63 studies were subjected to quality evaluation criteria. 6 research papers were sub­
sequently eliminated from the analysis based on criteria for evaluating quality. 57 relevant research papers remained in the study
(Table 2). The majority of published articles (nine articles) were extracted from Elsevier. Elsevier journals are well-regarded in the field
of education, and researchers often choose them as preferred publishing platforms for new technological innovations like ChatGPT.
The seven are from Taylor & Francis, four from SpringerLink, three from MDPI, two research articles from Emeralds, two from Sage,
one from ERIC, one from Wiley, one from Frontiers, and one from Plosone. Twenty-six studies were extracted from Google Scholar.

2.1.4. Assessment of quality

Kitchenham and Charters (2007) asserted that assessing the study’s quality requires a thorough evaluation process. A set of
questions or a component checklist could serve as the basis for the assessment procedure. Each study’s quality is evaluated using a set
of questions and a list. For this study, four quality measurement standards were created to evaluate the efficacy of each research effort.
The criteria for evaluating quality (EQ) are as follows:
EQ1. Does the article explicitly explain ChatGPT?
EQ2. Does the study’s topic address ChatGPT in higher education?
EQ3. Is the study’s type a research article?
EQ4. Does the article mention a research method?
Four assessment categories were used in the study to assess the integrity of 63 selected papers: weak, medium, and high. The sum of
the overall scores for each study was used to measure its quality. A score of 2 denotes complete compliance with the requirements, 1
only partial satisfaction, and 0 non-fulfillments. Research was classified as weak if the overall score was less than 4, as medium if the
score was exactly 4, and as strong if the score was greater than 4. 6 studies were disqualified for failing to comply with the standards of
the quality assessment. (Appendix A).

2.1.5. Extracting and synthesizing data

The data extraction and synthesis were concluded by analyzing the 57 papers. The papers were thoroughly reviewed, and the

4
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Table 2
Databases and articles selection process.
Databases Before After

Emeralds 20 2
ERIC 8 1
Wiley 5 1
MDPI 22 3
Sage 25 2
Elsevier 21 9
SpringerLink 40 4
Taylor and Francis 30 7
Frontiers 5 1
Plosone 3 1
Google Scholar 30 26
57

pertinent information was then retrieved. This stage’s goal is to gather the necessary study data. Table 3 gives a thorough description of
every component. The next sections provide a description of the data synthesis and extraction processes.

3. Findings

3.1. RQ1: what are the trends in published articles on ChatGPT in higher education?

3.1.1. Temporal view of research

The research’s selection period is open from January 2023 to the middle of January 2024. Fig. 2 displays the distribution of
published publications by month. It has been found that the number of published articles on ChatGPT in the education domain has
increased dramatically and reached 12 in September 2023. Despite a slight decrease in the subsequent months, it is expected that the
number will sharply increase again in 2024. As the applications of ChatGPT continue to diversify and expand in educational settings, it
is expected that researchers in the field of education will be more motivated to study their effectiveness and impact from various
perspectives.

3.1.2. Geographical location of studies

In total, 27 out of 57 studies reported geographic locations in different countries. According to Table 4, research on ChatGPT in the
education domain has been conducted almost all over the world. This reveals researchers from diverse countries are exploring
ChatGPT applications, indicating a global interest in the topic. Meanwhile, the inclusion of different countries highlights the cultural
and linguistic diversity in the use and investigation of ChatGPT in higher education.

3.1.3. Research citations

To determine the total number of citations for each article, Google Scholar was used in this study. The titles of the six studies that
are most commonly cited by other scholars are included in Table 5. These articles represent significant contributions to the body of
knowledge and provide important insights into the ChatGPT topic.

3.1.4. Research method used

Fig. 3 shows the research methods applied in the published articles. This figure shows a predominant use of quantitative methods in
most investigations (28, 49 %). The second most employed research approach was qualitative (10, 18 %). A smaller proportion of
studies (2, 3 %) adopted a mixed-method approach. Additionally, a noteworthy portion (17, 30 %) did not provide explicit details
regarding the research methodology employed. This result can be explained as, in emerging fields like the study of ChatGPT appli­
cations, researchers might initially conduct quantitative investigations to establish baseline data and identify trends. As the field
matures, qualitative studies may become more prevalent to delve into nuanced aspects and explore user experiences.

Table 3
Data extraction Items’ description.
Items Description

Research Id To give the research paper a distinct identity

Author names The author of the study
Publication year Release date (e.g., 2023)
Research context The domain (e.g., ChatGPT in higher education)
Research trends The attributes of research (e.g., geographical location, research citations, etc.)
ChatGPT usage and application Use of technology (intention, acceptance, etc.) and applications (learning assistance, student supervision, etc.)

5
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Fig. 2. Monthly distribution of research articles.

Table 4
Geographical location of studies.
Authors Studies Geographical Location

Shaengchart et al. (2023) Thailand

Giunti et al. (2023) Italy
Strzelecki (2023) Poland
Livberber and Ayvaz (2023); Kayalı et al. (2023) Turkey
Bonsu and Baffour-Koduah (2023) Ghana
Duong et al. (2023); Maheshwari (2023) Vietnam
Jafari and Keykha (2023) Iran
Nikolic et al. (2023); Dai et al. (2023) Australia
Adams et al. (2023); Foroughi et al. (2023) Malaysia
Rahman et al. (2023) Bangladesh
Von Garrel and Mayer (2023) Germany
Prasetya and Syarif (2023); Habibi et al. (2023) Indonesia
Romero Rodríguez et al. (2023) Spain
Chen et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2023); Wandelt et al. (2023) China
Firat (2023) Turkey, Sweden, Canada and Australia
Cheung et al. (2023) United Kingdom, Ireland, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore
Boubker (2024) Morocco
Sallam and Salahat (2023) Jordan
Morjaria et al. (2023) Canada
Huallpa (2023) America

Table 5
Citations.
No Publication Title Citations

1 Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT 433
2 SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research 182
3 Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI) 124
4 What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students 70
5 Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT 66
6 Analysing the Role of ChatGPT in Improving Student Productivity in Higher Education 63

6
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Fig. 3. Research methods used.

Fig. 4. Data collection methods.

3.1.5. Data collection methods

The data collection methods of published articles are shown in Fig. 4. According to this figure, (25, 44 %) of the studies were
covered by the surveys. (6, 10 %) of studies conducted interviews, (4, 7 %) of researchers applied the exploratory method, and (3, 5 %)
used written tasks for data collection. The other (1, 2 %) studies used observations to collect data; (1, 2 %) used the listening and
recording approach; (1, 2 %) employed the case study method; and (1, 2 %) of studies applied quasi-experiments. However, the data
collection method is not reported in (15, 26 %) of studies.

3.2. RQ2: what are the measures used to assess the adoption and usage behavior of ChatGPT in higher education?

Understanding the antecedents influencing ChatGPT adoption and usage is important for development and improvement in the
higher education sector (Foroughi et al., 2023). It helps refine and identify common needs and generate more accurate responses
(Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023). User behavior serves as a feedback loop for continuous improvement, providing valuable insights and
ensuring ChatGPT’s long-term relevance and usefulness (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023). Therefore, analyzing the factors and theories and
models used to assess the adoption and usage behavior of ChatGPT is essential for ongoing development in the higher education sector.
Categorizing studies can allow researchers to specialize in specific aspects, leading to more in-depth research. It has been found that
14 studies out of 57 are especially based on actual usage, continuous intention, intention to use, and acceptance. Therefore, Table 6
presents categorization of studies to enable more comparative studies and provide policymakers with insights.

3.2.1. Actual usage (post-adoption stage) or continuous intention

Actual usage (post-adoption stage) or continuous intention stage involves measuring how frequently, extensively, or effectively the
higher education sector is applying ChatGPT in their daily tasks. In this context, Duong et al. (2023) applied the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to investigate how effort expectancy and performance expectancy affect higher education

7
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Table 6
ChatGPT adoption and usage behavior.
ChatGPT Theory Antecedents Respondents Data Data analysis Sampling References
adoption collection
measures

Actual usage UTAUT Performance expectancy, Students Survey Polynomial Stratified Duong et al., 2023
(post effort expectancy, regression with random
adoption behavioral intention to use response sampling
stage) or ChatGPT, actual use of surface analysis
continuous ChatGPT
intention TTF System quality, information Students Survey PLS-SEM N/A Chen et al., 2023
quality, service quality,
overall quality, technology
characteristics,
task–technology fit,
compatibility, performance
impact
Intention to use TAM Perceptions and intentions Students Survey SPSS version 25 Purposive Bonsu &
or to use ChatGPT and Baffour-Koduah,
behavior convenience 2023
intention N/A Readiness to use ChatGPT, Students Open- SPSS software Convenience Adams et al., 2023
to use perceived usefulness ended version 27,
questions ATLAS.ti 22,
and survey and coded
SCT Time-saving feature, Users of Survey PLS-SEM N/A Bin-Nashwan,
electronic word-of mouth, ResearchGate Sadallah &
peer influence, self-esteem, and Academia. Bouteraa, , 2023
academic self-efficacy, edu
perceived stress, academic
integrity, use of ChatGPT in
academia
UTAUT2 Social influence, effort Students Survey PLS-SEM and N/A Foroughi et al.,
expectancy, facilitating fsQCA 2023
conditions, hedonic
motivation, learning value,
habit, personal
innovativeness,
information accuracy,
intention to use
UTAUT2 Performance expectancy, Students Survey SPSS and IBM Convenience Romero Rodríguez
effort expectancy, social SPSS Amos, et al., 2023
influence, facilitating version 25
conditions, hedonic
motivation, price value,
habit, behavioral intention,
and user behavior
ChatGPT Theory Antecedents Respondents Data Data Sampling References
adoption collection analysis
measures
UTAUT2 Behavioral intention, effort Students Survey PLS-SEM N/A Strzelecki, 2023
expectancy, facilitating
conditions, habit, hedonic
motivation, performance
expectancy, personal
innovativeness, social influence
TAM and Perceived ease of use, perceived Students Survey PLS-SEM N/A Maheshwari, 2023
TPB usefulness, perceived trust,
interactivity, personalisation ,
perceived intelligence, and
adoption intention
UTAUT2 Performance expectancy, effort Students Survey PLS-SEM N/A Habibi et al., 2023
expectancy, social influence,
hedonic motivation, facilitating
conditions, habit
Acceptance N/A Students’ perceptions Students Survey Semi SPSS Random Ngo, 2023
and use of structured software sampling
technology interview (version 25
TAM Perceived usefulness, behavior/ Survey SPSS and Convenience Abdaljaleel et al.,
cognitive factors, perceived risk AMOS 2023
of use, perceived ease of use,
(continued on next page)

8
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Table 6 (continued )
ChatGPT Theory Antecedents Respondents Data Data analysis Sampling References
adoption collection
measures

perceived risk, anxiety,

technology/social influence
ISSM ChatGPT output quality, social Students Survey PLS-SEM Convenience Boubker, 2024
and TAM influence, perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use, ChatGPT
use, student satisfaction,
individual impact
TAM, Perceived ease of use, perceived Students Survey Analytical Convenience Shaengchart et al.,
UTAUT usefulness, privacy and software 2023
security, facilitating conditions

Note: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), Task–technology fit (TTF), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT), Theory of planned behavior (TPB), Information System Success Model (ISSM).

students’ intentions. In contrast, task-technology fit (TTF) was applied by Chen et al. (2023) to analyze the factors affecting students’
performance in the higher education sector. In this context, respondents to studies were students, and data was collected through
surveys. However, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and polynomial regression with response surface
analysis were used for data analysis.

3.2.2. Intention to use or behavior intention to use

Intention to use or behavior intention to use refers to the willingness or planned decision to adopt and use a particular technology in
the future. In order to explore students’ intentions, Foroughi et al. (2023) analyzed the influence of the intention to use ChatGPT on the
Malaysian higher education sector. Similary, Bonsu and Baffour-Koduah’s (2023) research explored university students in Ghana’s
perception and intention to use ChatGPT. Habibi et al. (2023) analyzed the factors influencing behavioral intention to use ChatGPT
among Indonesian students. Maheshwari (2023) study investigated the variables that affect students’ intentions to embrace and use
ChatGPT for their coursework. In this realm, studies utilized the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT),
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and UTAUT to analyze the relationship between users’ intentions to use ChatGPT in the higher
education sector (Bonsu & Baffour-Koduah, 2023; Bin-Nashwan et al., 2023; Maheshwari, 2023). In these studies, data was collected
through a survey and open-ended questions from postdoctoral researchers, fellow scholars, lecturers, instructors, assistant professors,
senior lecturers, associate professors, and students. Purposive and convenience sampling techniques were applied (Adams et al., 2023).
PLS-SEM, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), ATLAS, and Analysis of

Table 7
Applications of ChatGPT in educational settings.
Education Applications of ChatGPT References
community

Academic staff Assignment, assessment and exam Rawas, 2023; Chaudhry et al., 2023; Nikolic et al., 2023; Shanto, Ahmed & Jony, 2023; Giunti
design et al., 2023; Jafari & Keykha, 2023; Kolade et al., 2023; Onal & Kulavuz-Onal, 2024; Talan &
Kalinkara, 2023; Sallam & Salahat, 2023; Cheung et al., 2023; Fergus et al., 2023 ; Crawford et al.,
2023; Ali et al., 2024; Morjaria et al., 2023; Mogavi et al., 2024
Student supervision Cowling et al., 2023; Dai et al., 2023
Lesson plan and Instructions Tajik & Tajik, 2023; Rahman et al., 2023
Curriculum and course design Al-Worafi et al., 2023; Meron & Araci, 2023
Students Language learning and Baskara, 2023; Fauzi et al., 2023; Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2023; Rawas, 2023;
communication skills Chukwuere, 2023; Von Garrel & Mayer, 2023
Open or online education Firat, 2023; Kayalı et al., 2023
Coding and programming assistance Wandelt et al., 2023; Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023; Rahman et al., 2023; Von Garrel & Mayer, 2023
Writing and translating support Firaina & Sulisworo, 2023; Singh et al., 2023; Currie et al., 2023; Keiper, 2023
Personalized learning Bommineni et al., 2023; Zhang, 2023; Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023; Rawas, 2023; Farrokhnia
et al., 2023; Prasetya & Syarif, 2023; Jafari & Keykha, 2023; Chukwuere, 2023; Rahman et al.,
2023
Debugging assistance Singh et al., 2023
Facilitate collaboration (discuss and Fauzi et al., 2023
provide feedback)
Researchers Research and data analysis Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023; Von Garrel & Mayer, 2023; Mogavi et al., 2024
Idea generation Livberber & Ayvaz, 2023
Writing and editing Cotton et al., 2023
Non-academic Content generation Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023
staff Virtual assistance/administrators Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023; Tajik & Tajik, 2023
Reduce work cost Chukwuere, 2023
Write test cases Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023
Knowledge provider Wang et al., 2023

9
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Moment Structures (AMOS) were used for data analysis (Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023).

3.2.3. Acceptance and use of technology

The acceptance and use of technology are important in understanding how higher education adopts ChatGPT. In this realm,
Boubker’s (2024) study applied the Information System Success Model (ISSM) and TAM to investigate ChatGPT’s impact on Moroccan
higher education students’ learning outcomes. Likewise, Shaengchart et al. (2023) applied TAM and UTAUT to reveal the attitudes of
Bangkok’s higher education students about the use of ChatGPT. Similarly, Abdaljaleel et al. (2023) applied TAM to analyze factors
influencing university students’ attitudes towards ChatGPT in Arab countries. In acceptance-related studies, data were collected
through surveys and interviews and analyzed through PLS-SEM, AMOS, and SPSS (Ngo, 2023; Shaengchart et al., 2023; Abdaljaleel
et al., 2023; Maheshwari, 2023).

3.3. RQ3: what are the diverse applications of ChatGPT in higher educational settings?

ChatGPT provides various benefits for the higher education sector. It provides personalized learning support, automated admin­
istrative processes, and support for online learning. ChatGPT can meet the specific requirements of the education community,
including staff, students, researchers, and non-academic staff (Chukwuere, 2023; Mogavi et al., 2024). Staff can benefit from
ChatGPT’s automation of tasks, access to professional development opportunities, and improved communication (Crawford et al.,
2023; Sallam & Salahat, 2023). Students can access academic support, study aids, and personalized guidance (Bommineni et al., 2023).
ChatGPT aids researchers in creating data analysis queries, interpreting statistical results, and suggesting suitable methodologies for
data analysis (Cotton et al., 2023; Livberber & Ayvaz, 2023). Non-academic staff can streamline administrative processes, improve
communication, and obtain necessary information (Bommineni et al., 2023). Table 7 provides details on applications of ChatGPT in
higher education based on the education community.

4. Academic staff

4.1. Assignment, assessment and exam design

ChatGPT is an ideal instrument for helping academic staff with assignments, assessments, and exam designs. With ChatGPT, ac­
ademic staff can save time by grading assignments, quizzes, and exams (Sallam & Salahat, 2023; Cheung et al., 2023). This also allows
for providing feedback more quickly and reduces the possibility of human error in grading (Rawas, 2023; Mogavi et al., 2024).
ChatGPT has a remarkable degree of originality and adaptability in its question creation abilities (Onal & Kulavuz-Onal, 2024; Jafari &
Keykha, 2023). Academic staff can utilize ChatGPT to generate passages on different subjects and incorporate it into class assessment
questions by referencing it (Chaudhry et al., 2023; Kolade et al., 2023). This can assist academic staff in evaluating their students’
comprehension of the material and pinpointing any areas that require further focus (Crawford et al., 2023).
Giunti et al. (2023) advocate for secure, ChatGPT-based summative multiple-choice question-based assessments, incorporating
student use, as graduates are likely to use it in practice. In contrast, Nikolic et al. (2023) recommended ChatGPT be used in various
educational settings, including flipped assessments, creative assessments, and interview-based assessments. However, it should be
used with caution, as it can limit students’ ability to memorize responses. Talan and Kalinkara (2023) study compared ChatGPT’s
ability to answer anatomy course exams with Turkish students’ performance. The finding reflected that ChatGPT had a higher correct
answer ratio. ChatGPT application offers accurate knowledge-based assessments, but only answers text-based questions and does not
process images (Ali et al., 2024). ChatGPT’s capability to meet short answer assessment standards is evident. (Morjaria et al., 2023).
The study by Shanto, Ahmed and Jony (2023) explores the ethical use of GAI tools in higher education, proposing a framework to
ensure assignment integrity. Fergus et al. (2023) study revealed ChatGPT’s ability to provide well-written chemistry assessment re­
sponses, but it has limitations in application, interpretation, and non-text information.

4.2. Student supervision

The integration of ChatGPT with student supervision provides a well-rounded strategy that blends artificial intelligence support
with conventional pedagogy and human supervision. Cowling et al. (2023) explored ChatGPT’s in undergraduate and postgraduate
research supervision relationships. The key outcomes include psychological need fulfillment, student autonomy, relatedness, and
formative feedback, which are seen as strength. Similarly, the Dai et al. (2023) study reveals ChatGPT’s transformative potential in
postgraduate research supervision, enhancing students’ research progress, fostering critical thinking, and fostering a personalized
supervisory relationship.

4.3. Lesson plan and instructions

ChatGPT is a valuable tool for creating detailed instructions and lesson plans for various courses and offering topic-specific ac­
tivities and exercises (Tajik & Tajik, 2023; Rahman et al., 2023).

10
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

4.4. Curriculum and course design

ChatGPT can be useful in generating curriculum. Educators in medical and health sciences can utilize ChatGPT for curriculum
development and syllabus design (Ali et al., 2024; Meron & Araci, 2023).

5. Students

5.1. Language learning and communication skills

ChatGPT is highly effective in language learning in higher education. It also helps learners build confidence and reduce social
anxiety related to language learning. ChatGPT can be used as a supplementary tool alongside traditional language learning. ChatGPT
offers a platform for language learners to practice dialogue and receive responses, enhancing their speaking skills (Rawas, 2023;
Baskara, 2023). ChatGPT serves as a language model for students, aiding in improving communication skills (Fauzi et al., 2023;
Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2023). ChatGPT allows users to expand their language repertoire by providing access to a
diverse series of vocabulary and expressions. ChatGPT is valuable, but learners should balance its use with other language learning
activities for a comprehensive and effective learning experience (Chukwuere, 2023; Von Garrel & Mayer, 2023).

5.2. Open or online education

ChatGPT holds great potential for open education. It can help self-directed learners become more independent and autonomous
(Firat, 2023; Kayalı et al., 2023)

5.3. Coding and programming assistance

The ChatGPT platform can also assist in coding and programming. It helps in identifying and correcting syntax errors, generating
code, and solving algorithmic problems (Rahman et al., 2023; Von Garrel & Mayer, 2023). ChatGPT can provide detailed explanations
of programming language code and provide line-by-line comments within the code (Wandelt et al., 2023; Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023).

5.4. Writing and translating support

ChatGPT can assist in writing and translating across various contexts. It can also translate text between languages, provide insights
into cultural context, facilitate multilingual conversations, and assist in technical document translation (Firaina & Sulisworo, 2023). It
also offers real-time language assistance, allowing users to practice and build vocabulary (Currie et al., 2023; Keiper, 2023). However,
for critical and professional writing tasks, additional human review and editing may be necessary, and for precise and nuanced
translations, consulting professional translators is advisable (Singh et al., 2023).

5.5. Personalized learning

ChatGPT is flexible and adaptable and can enhance personalized learning across various domains. It offers adaptive content de­
livery, personalized feedback, personalized learning paths, topic exploration, real-time problem-solving, learning style adaptation, and
continuous learning support. ChatGPT can adapt to users’ proficiency levels and learning progress, providing content ranging from
beginner to advanced (Zhang, 2023; Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023). It also offers personalized feedback on performance, guiding users
through specific topics, exercises, or resources (Bommineni et al., 2023; Rawas, 2023). It can also assist users in real-time prob­
lem-solving, enhancing their understanding of concepts. Monitoring progress and setting specific learning goals are crucial compo­
nents of an effective personalized learning strategy (Farrokhnia et al., 2023; Chukwuere, 2023). Therefore, users should also
supplement ChatGPT with various learning resources, hands-on practice, and feedback from educators or experts (Prasetya & Syarif,
2023; Jafari & Keykha, 2023; Rahman et al., 2023).

5.6. Debugging assistance

ChatGPT allows users to share code-related issues, offering suggestions for debugging or troubleshooting common problems,
especially useful for programmers facing runtime errors or logical issues (Singh et al., 2023).

2.7. Facilitate collaboration (discuss and provide feedback)

ChatGPT enhances collaboration among higher education students through discussion, feedback, and idea exchange (Fauzi et al.,
2023).

11
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

6. Researchers

6.1. Research and data analysis

ChatGPT aids researchers in data analysis and research by summarizing existing literature, providing key concept insights, sug­
gesting relevant sources, and offering explanations on statistical concepts for better understanding (Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023; Von
Garrel & Mayer, 2023; Mogavi et al., 2024).

6.2. Idea generation

ChatGPT can generate ideas across various topics. It can help researchers to generate different research topic related ideas, content
creation, and product or service innovation (Livberber & Ayvaz, 2023).

6.3. Writing and editing

ChatGPT can be helpful for researchers in editing tasks, offering assistance in academic writing, grammar and syntax correction,
style, clarity, conciseness, proofreading, consistency checks, paragraph and flow improvement (Cotton et al., 2023).

7. Non-academic staff

7.1. Content generation

ChatGPT can generate content for non-academic purposes. It can be used for internal communications, social media posts, mar­
keting copy, customer support responses, blog writing, report summaries, training materials, event announcements, and company
updates. It also helps in crafting compelling and persuasive content for promotional materials, advertisements, and product de­
scriptions (Adeshola & Adepoju, 2023).

7.2. Virtual assistance or administrators

ChatGPT serves as an online assistant, aiding in tasks like email drafts, task reminders, information retrieval, expense tracking,
meeting agendas, and document editing and formatting. It can help coordinate schedules, draft professional emails, set reminders,
provide information on specific topics, assist in travel arrangements, track expenses, and create meeting agendas (Adeshola & Adepoju,
2023; Tajik & Tajik, 2023).

7.3. Reduce work cost

ChatGPT can reduce work costs by automating repetitive tasks, allowing human resources for strategic activities, automating
customer support, reducing data entry and processing, generating reports, and automating email drafting and responses. It can also
streamline meeting agendas, saving time for employees. Additionally, ChatGPT can automate information retrieval and research tasks,
reducing the time spent gathering data. Overall, ChatGPT can significantly improve efficiency and reduce costs in various industries
(Chukwuere, 2023).

7.4. Write test cases

ChatGPT can write test cases based on specific specifications, providing a diverse range of scenarios and edge cases (Adeshola &
Adepoju, 2023). It also offers effective documentation, collaboration, and adaptability to different software domains. However, it’s
essential to review and validate the generated test cases to ensure accuracy and relevance.

7.5. Knowledge provider

ChatGPT is a versatile knowledge provider that can provide information on various topics, provide assistance, and assist in
translation (Wang et al., 2023).

8. RQ4: what are the limitations of the current research publications and future research directions in ChatGPT in higher
education?

Analyzing the limitations of current research on ChatGPT in higher education is important for future studies to enhance model
performance, optimize educational outcomes, address ethical concerns, improve the user experience, and ensure scalability (Rawas,
2023; Strzelecki, 2023). By assessing these limitations, researchers can ensure the technology aligns with the specific needs and goals
of educators and students (Mogavi et al., 2024). Limitations and identifying future research directions in ChatGPT in education can
contribute to the effective integration of AI technologies in learning environments.

12
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

8.1. Geographical location of studies

ChatGPT-based studies in higher education have been conducted in different countries and continents (Chen et al., 2023; Wang
et al., 2023). These studies stress language adaptation, user preferences, ethical considerations, education, healthcare information and
support, accessibility, and collaboration (Bonsu & Baffour-Koduah, 2023; Wandelt et al., 2023). However, more ChatGPT studies need
to be conducted in different countries, as it’s essential for understanding its performance across diverse linguistic, cultural, and
contextual landscapes. This could help identify potential biases, user trust, accessibility, collaboration across borders, and ways to
make the technology more inclusive. Additionally, it helps identify areas for improvement and adaptation to meet the diverse needs of
users worldwide.

8.2. Theoretical models and antecedents of adoption and use behaviour

According to Table 8, TAM, UTAUT, and UTAUT2 have been the most frequently used theories to analyze users’ intention,
behavior, and acceptance behavior toward ChatGPT in higher education. Generally, TAM, UTAUT, and its extended version, UTAUT2,
are the most commonly used theories for assessing users’ adoption and usage of different innovations (Yap et al., 2022). TAM focuses
on perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989). UTAUT expands the model to include additional factors such as social influence
and facilitating conditions, making it more comprehensive in certain contexts (Viswanath et al., 2003).
However, Table 8 presents the limited application of TPB and TTF in the context of ChatGPT adoption. TPB is a framework
developed by Ajzen in 1985 that predicts human behavior based on three factors: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control. TTF theory is a framework that examines the alignment between technology and tasks within an or­
ganization. It suggests that the effectiveness of technology implementation depends on whether the technology fits the tasks it is
designed to facilitate. Key components include technology characteristics, task characteristics, fit assessment, performance outcomes,
adaptation and evolution, and the organizational context (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). The integration of TTF and TPB theories into
studies on ChatGPT adoption in educational settings can enhance understanding of factors influencing its uptake and usage behavior
(Yap et al., 2022). TPB helps identify factors influencing users’ intentions to adopt or use a particular technology, while TTF assesses
the fit between technology and tasks, design user-centric technologies, and enhances user satisfaction (Ajzen, 1985; Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995).
Therefore, TTF and TPB are effective tools for assessing user intentions, behaviors, and satisfaction in educational and technology
adoption studies. Similarly, SCT is influenced by cognitive processes, environmental influences, and behavior. It suggests that factors
like confidence, positive outcomes, and successful technology use can influence technology adoption (Bandura & Adams, 1977).
However, ISSM evaluates the effectiveness of information systems in organizations by identifying six success dimensions: system
quality, information quality, service quality, user satisfaction, use intention, and net Bbenefits (DeLone & McLean, 2003).
Apart from examining individual adoption behaviors, the adoption of innovations within organizations is commonly evaluated
using frameworks such as TOE Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) and Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) (Tornatzky et al.,
1990; Rogers, 1995). Jo and Bang (2023) suggest that these frameworks offer a systematic method for comprehending the influence of
technological, organizational, and environmental factors on the adoption and implementation of innovations within organizations.
According to Rogers (1995), an innovation is any concept, method, or item that a person or group perceives as novel. ChatGPT, an
advanced technology, is believed to revolutionize learning by providing text responses resembling human faces due to its advanced
natural language processing capabilities (Jo & Bang, 2023). The TOE framework is valuable for studying factors influencing ChatGPT
adoption intentions in higher education, making it a recommended model for future research.
Table 9 shows that social influence, perceived usefulness, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions are the most commonly
used determinants of ChatGPT adoption and use in higher education. Social influence is the influence of others on an individual’s
attitudes and behaviors towards technology adoption. It includes social norms, subjective norms, and social support. Perceived use­
fulness is a user’s perception of how a technology will improve their job performance or make tasks easier. Social influence is important
to measure the impact of social factors on technology adoption, while perceived usefulness reflects users’ subjective assessment of the
value or utility of the technology. Both constructs play significant roles in shaping users’ attitudes and intentions toward technology
use (Davis, 1989; Viswanath et al., 2003). Effort expectancy is the user’s perception of the ease of use, which includes learning,
navigation, and instructions (Yap et al., 2022). Facilitating conditions are external factors that support technology use, such as
training, technical resources, organizational policies, and infrastructure. By addressing these factors effectively, developers and or­
ganizations can increase the likelihood of successful ChatGPT adoption and integration.

Table 8
ChatGPT Adoption, Usage Behavior and Acceptance Theories.
Theory Frequency Authors

TAM 5 Bonsu & Baffour-Koduah, 2023; Maheshwari, 2023; Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Boubker, 2024; Shaengchart et al., 2023
UTAUT2 4 Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Habibi et al., 2023
UTAUT 3 Duong et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Shaengchart et al., 2023
TTF 1 Chen et al., 2023
SCT 1 Bin-Nashwan, Sadallah & Bouteraa, 2023
TPB 1 Maheshwari, 2023
ISSM 1 Boubker, 2024

13
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Table 9
Main antecedents of ChatGPT.
Main antecedents Frequency Authors

Direct effects
Social influence 6 Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Habibi et al.,
2023; Boubker, 2024
Perceived usefulness 5 Maheshwari, 2023; Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Shaengchart et al., 2023; Adams et al., 2023; Boubker, 2024
Effort expectancy 5 Duong et al., 2023; Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Habibi et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023
Facilitating conditions 5 Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Habibi et al., 2023; Shaengchart et al.,
2023
Perceived ease of use 4 Maheshwari, 2023; Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Boubker, 2024; Shaengchart et al., 2023
Hedonic motivation 4 Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Habibi et al., 2023
Habit 4 Foroughi et al., 2023; Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Habibi et al., 2023
Performance expectancy 3 Romero Rodríguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Habibi et al., 2023
Perceptions/Students’ 2 Ngo, 2023; Bonsu & Baffour-Koduah, 2023
perceptions
Personal innovativeness 1 Strzelecki, 2023
Moderator Effects
Academic integrity 1 Bin-Nashwan, Sadallah & Bouteraa, 2023
Gender 1 Strzelecki, 2023
Study year 1 Strzelecki, 2023
Information accuracy 1 Foroughi et al., 2023
Personal innovativeness 1 Foroughi et al., 2023
Mediator Effects
Performance expectancy 1 Duong et al., 2023

However, future studies can investigate technology (e.g., functionality and compatibility), organization (e.g., organizational
structure, culture, policies, and practices that influence behavior or outcomes), and environmental impact (e.g., socio-economic
conditions, cultural norms, and geographical location) factors to investigate ChatGPT adoption and usage in higher education from
a broader perspective. These factors can influence the strength or direction of variables, such as the level of technical support provided
for a ChatGPT era, focusing on deeper perspectives on adoption behavior. The literature highlights plagiarism and privacy as the most
commonly emphasized concerns regarding the usage of ChatGPT in educational settings (Bonsu, 2023; Jafari & Keykha, 2023). Future
studies can explore the potential obstacles to the implementation of ChatGPT in educational settings. Users may fear unintentional
plagiarism, which can deter professionals, academics, and students from using these tools. Legal and ethical considerations, such as
copyright infringements or privacy violations, can also deter adoption (Chukwuere, 2023). To address these concerns, future studies
can prioritize user trust and integrity through transparent communication, robust privacy safeguards, and introducing the mechanisms
to mitigate plagiarism risks.
Assessing mediators and moderators is important in research and analysis for clarifying relationships, enhancing predictive power,
identifying intervention targets, and accounting for confounding variables. Researchers utilize mediators to comprehend the mech­
anisms by which an independent variable influences a dependent variable and moderators to differentiate between direct and indirect
effects (Wu & Zumbo, 2008). According to Table 9, performance expectancy has been examined by Duong et al. (2023) as a mediator to
analyze the relationship between the actual uses of ChatGPT. Future studies are advised to apply multiple mediators to analyze the
adoption or intention of ChatGPT. For example, users’ perceptions of the technology’s usefulness, user experience, risks, innovation
characteristics, and training and support can be used as mediators to analyze the relationship between ChatGPT and adoption
intention.
Table 9 shows that academic integrity, study year, personal innovativeness, and information accuracy have been examined as
moderators in previous studies (e.g., Strzelecki, 2023; Bin-Nashwan, Sadallah & Bouteraa, 2023; Foroughi et al., 2023). Analyzing the
moderating role can help in better decision-making and ensure that ChatGPT integration aligns with the goals of enhancing teaching
and learning experiences. In the future, environmental factors (e.g., socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, geographical location,
policies, and market conditions) may serve as moderators by influencing the strength or direction of relationships between inde­
pendent and dependent variables across educational settings. For example, cultural attitudes towards ChatGPT adoption may mod­
erate the relationship between the perceived usefulness of a new technology and adoption rates in different regions.

8.3. Respondents, data collection, data analysis, and sampling technique

The majority of respondents in studies on users’ behavioral intentions and use of ChatGPT were students (Chen et al., 2023).
However, there is a lack of studies that analyze the intentions and use behaviors of academic staff, researchers, and even non-academic
staff. An effective understanding of technology adoption and innovation in academic settings necessitates a holistic perspective from
all stakeholders, including researchers, academic staff, and non-academic staff. This is to ensure comprehensive insights into the varied
needs, challenges, and opportunities that may arise throughout the implementation process, which leads to the development of more
tailored technologies and services.
In the future, there is a need to focus on researchers, academic, and non-academic staff. Academic staff can leverage ChatGPT to
enhance their teaching methods, providing more dynamic and interactive learning experiences for students and improving student

14
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Fig. 5. Summary of findings.

15
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

satisfaction and academic outcomes. Non-academic staff significantly contributes to the efficient functioning and overall success of an
educational institution. While academic staff, including teachers and researchers, are often at the forefront of delivering educational
content. Therefore, non-academic staff members can contribute significantly to the administrative, operational, and support aspects of
the institution (Sallam & Salahat, 2023; Rawas, 2023).
In previous studies, data were mostly collected through quantitative surveys (Duong et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023). Qualitative
methods, such as focus groups and interviews, provide a deeper insight into users’ attitudes and experiences of ChatGPT. Therefore, in
future studies, qualitative research methods can be applied to collect data. A mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and
quantitative data, provides a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing ChatGPT adoption. This combination can lead to
practical recommendations for improving ChatGPT adoption. Future research should utilize a mixed-methods approach to gain an
ample understanding of the intricate dynamics underlying ChatGPT adoption.
Previous studies used simple statistical methods like Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM), PLS-SEM, and
regression to assess linear relationships but failed to evaluate non-linear relationships, simplifying complex decision-making actions.
Many researchers suggest using MCDM and soft computing to evaluate nonlinear relationships and prioritize significant constructs for
outcome assessment (Syed Hassan et al., 2018; Kazancoglu & Ozkan-Ozen, 2019; Al-Sharafi et al., 2023). Thus, application of such
techniques alone or even in combination with CB-SEM and PLS-SEM can be an interesting direction for future studies on ChatGPT in
education. For example, a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) can be applied to reveal cause-and-effect re­
lationships in decision-making processes, helping identify key factors that affect ChatGPT in the higher education sector (Çelikbilek &
Adıgüzel Tüylü, 2022). Artificial neural networks (ANN), a computational model inspired by the human brain, can be used for pattern
recognition, classification, and regression, excelling in large datasets and complex non-linear relationships. Fuzzy-set analysis is a
method used in social science research to analyze complex relationships among variables. It is an extension of Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) that incorporates fuzzy-set theory. fsQCA is particularly useful for small to medium-sized samples and is particularly
useful in fields like education and management (Foroughi et al., 2023). It is worth nothing that DEMATEL, ANN, and fuzzy techniques
have been successfully used in other education-related studies (Vasileva-Stojanovska et al., 2015; Yadegaridehkordi et al., 2018;
Çelikbilek & Adıgüzel Tüylü, 2022; Baig et al., 2023).
Convenience-based sampling was the most popular sampling technique used in previous studies due to its cost, efficiency, and
simplicity. Other alternative sampling techniques can be considered by researchers, depending on their research objectives and re­
sources. For example, purposive sampling, which is used in qualitative research to select individuals or cases based on specific criteria.

8.4. Domain

The previous ChatGPT in higher educational studies primarily focused on assignment, assessment, and exam design (Chaudhry
et al., 2023; Nikolic et al., 2023; Shanto, Ahmed & Jony, 2023). Meanwhile, ChatGPT has been predominantly utilized in the medical
domain for tasks such as medical information retrieval, patient interaction, and providing support for healthcare professionals (Cheung
et al., 2023; Sallam & Salahat, 2023; Talan & Kalinkara, 2023). Future studies can further explore ChatGPT in language learning and
teaching, particularly in the STEM education domain. It can assist in practicing conversational skills, providing real-time feedback on
pronunciation and grammar, and providing feedback on writing assignments. In STEM education, it can facilitate problem-solving
tasks, simplify complex concepts, and generate personalized learning materials tailored to students’ individual learning styles
(Bommineni et al., 2023; Jafari & Keykha, 2023; Chukwuere, 2023). ChatGPT’s ability to generate natural language responses and
adapt to users’ needs makes it a versatile tool for enhancing learning experiences in diverse educational contexts.

8.5. Education community

ChatGPT-based research has been conducted in various higher educational settings to provide student support, feedback, as­
signments and exams, language learning support, collaborative learning, and language translation services (Baskara, 2023; Shanto,
Ahmed & Jony, 2023; Zhang, 2023). However, a limited number of studies were conducted with researchers and non-academic staff.
ChatGPT can be effectively applied in professional and research settings. It can assist researchers in literature reviews, data analysis,
and information retrieval; boost productivity by providing quick answers to common queries; and assist non-academic staff with
administrative tasks (Von Garrel & Mayer, 2023; Mogavi et al., 2024). ChatGPT can also provide training materials, answer questions
related to professional development, and offer on-the-job learning support. Therefore, future studies can contribute valuable insights
into the more practical applications, challenges, and benefits of ChatGPT to researchers and non-academic staff.

9. Discussion and conclusions

This study evaluated ChatGPT’s adaptability for higher education using SLR. This study had four goals: to explore the trends in
published articles on ChatGPT in higher education, to identify the measures of adoption and usage behavior of ChatGPT in higher
educational settings, to identify the limitations in the current research publications to propose future research directions. Generally, 57
research papers were extracted from the Emerald, ERIC, Wiley, MDPI, SAGE, Elsevier, Springer Link, Frontier, Plosone, and Taylor &
Francis and analyzed according to RQs. Fig. 5 provides a general overview of RQs and findings.
This study focused on the time frame of Jan 2023 to Mid Jan 2024. Findings showed the number of articles on ChatGPT has risen
since its introduction and is expected to sharply increase in 2024 as the applications of ChatGPT continue to diversify and expand in
educational settings. Studies included in the analysis were conducted across diverse geographical locations, showcasing a global

16
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

interest in the topic. The predominant research methodologies utilized in existing studies were quantitative, followed by qualitative
and mixed-methods approaches. Survey-based data collection was the most common method employed. Considering studies on user
adoption and use of ChatGPT, TAM, UTAUT, and UTAUT2 were the most dominant theoretical foundations used in the previous
studies. Social influence, perceived usefulness, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions were found to be significant factors in
ChatGPT adoption and use in higher education settings. Meanwhile, the moderating roles of academic integrity, gender, study year,
information accuracy, and personal innovativeness as well as the mediating role of performance expectancy, were assessed in some
studies.
Next, diverse applications of ChatGPT in higher education were discussed based on academic staff, students, researchers, and non-
academic groups. It was found that assignment, assessment, and exam design, student supervision, lesson plans, and instructions, and
curriculum and course design are the main purposes of using ChatGPT by academic staff. Students have mainly used ChatGPT for
language learning or communication skills, online education, coding or programming, writing and translating, personalized learning,
debugging, and facilitating collaboration. However, researchers used ChatGPT for research and data analysis, idea generation, and
writing and editing. In contrast, non-academic staff utilized ChatGPT for content generation, virtual assistance, or administrators to
reduce work cost, write tests and cases, and enhance knowledge. Finally, this review paper addresses limitations observed in current
research and offers suggestions for future research directions in ChatGPT in education.

10. Research implications

This study’s findings can be helpful for researchers, academic staff, students, and institutions. The research implications can be
significant and influential in analyzing various aspects of ChatGPT in higher education. The identified trends (e.g., temporal view of
research, geographical locations, and research and data collection methods) can be helpful for researchers. A temporal view of
research, considering geographical locations, research methods, and data collection methods, can significantly enhance the quality and
relevance of new research. This method aids in contextualizing findings, addressing geographical inequities, and identifying trends,
gaps, and opportunities in the literature. It also helps build on existing knowledge, identify effective research methodologies, and
improve study design and execution. This comprehensive understanding of geographical and methodological advancements in their
field is important for researchers to contribute meaningfully to the advancement of knowledge.
Categorizing ChatGPT in higher educational studies on post-adoption stages, intention to use, and acceptance of technologies can
be beneficial for future researchers. It helps identify key factors, select appropriate theoretical frameworks, refine measurement
constructs, and improve data collection and analysis techniques. It benchmarks findings against previous studies. The ChatGPT
adoption measure categorization in higher education can also help identify research gaps, contribute to the ongoing development of
knowledge, and keep abreast of technological changes. This study finding enables a more informed and robust approach for re­
searchers to address research questions related to post-adoption stages, intention to use, and acceptance of technologies.
The identified diverse applications of ChatGPT offer numerous benefits to academic staff, students, researchers, and institutions. It
can assist in teaching, grading, supervision, lesson planning, and course design. ChatGPT enhances teaching by creating personalized
learning experiences, providing instant feedback, and enhancing students’ understanding of complex concepts. It also aids in efficient
grading, facilitating supervision, streamlining lesson planning, and creating innovative course design. It also aids supervisors in
providing guidance and feedback during research projects, ensuring consistency and fairness in assessment. The identified limitations
of ChatGPT are helpful for researchers to identify research gaps and address adoption measures. Overall, understanding the limitations
of ChatGPT in higher educational studies is a valuable resource for future researchers, influencing methodological choices and
fostering collaborative efforts in natural language processing.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Maria Ijaz Baig: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization. Elaheh Yadegaridehkordi: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology,
Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Appendix

Appendix A
Appendix A
Evaluating quality results.

No EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 Score

1. 2 2 2 1 7
2 2 2 2 2 8
3. 2 2 2 2 8
4. 2 2 2 2 8
5. 2 2 2 1 7
6. 2 2 2 1 7
7. 2 2 2 1 7
(continued on next page)

17
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Appendix A (continued )
No EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 Score

8. 2 2 2 1 7
9. 2 2 2 2 8
10. 2 2 2 2 8
11. 2 2 2 2 8
12. 2 2 2 1 7
13. 2 2 2 1 7
14. 2 2 2 1 7
15. 2 2 2 1 7
16. 2 2 2 1 7
17. 2 2 2 2 8
18. 2 2 2 1 7
19. 2 2 2 2 8
20. 2 2 2 1 7
21. 2 2 2 2 8
22. 2 2 2 2 8
23. 2 2 2 2 8
24. 2 2 2 2 8
25. 2 2 2 2 8
26. 2 2 2 2 8
27. 2 2 2 2 8
28. 2 2 2 1 7
29. 2 2 2 2 8
30. 2 2 2 1 7
31. 2 2 2 1 7
32. 2 2 2 1 7
33. 2 2 2 1 7
34. 2 2 2 1 7
35. 2 2 2 1 7
36. 2 2 2 2 8
37. 2 2 2 2 8
38. 2 2 2 2 8
39. 1 2 2 2 7
40. 2 2 2 2 8
41. 2 2 2 2 8
42. 2 2 2 2 8
43 2 2 1 2 7
44. 2 2 2 2 8
45. 2 2 2 1 7
46 2 2 2 1 7
47 2 2 2 2 8
48 2 2 2 2 8
49. 2 2 2 2 8
50. 2 2 1 2 7
51. 2 2 2 2 8
52. 2 2 2 2 8
53. 2 2 2 2 8
54. 2 2 2 2 8
55. 2 2 1 2 7
56. 2 2 2 2 8
57. 2 2 2 1 7

References

Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M., Salim, N. A., Abazid, H., Malaeb, D., & Sallam, M. (2023). Factors influencing attitudes of university students towards ChatGPT
and its usage: A multi-national study validating the tame-ChatGPT survey instrument.
Adams, D., Chuah, K. M., Devadason, E., & Azzis, M. S. A. (2023). From novice to navigator: Students’ academic help-seeking behaviour, readiness, and perceived
usefulness of ChatGPT in learning. Education and Information Technologies, 1–18.
Adeshola, I., & Adepoju, A. P. (2023). The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Ali, K., Barhom, N., Tamimi, F., & Duggal, M. (2024). ChatGPT—A double-edged sword for healthcare education? Implications for assessments of dental students.
European Journal of Dental Education, 28(1), 206–211.
Al-Sharafi, M. A., Al-Emran, M., Iranmanesh, M., Al-Qaysi, N., Iahad, N. A., & Arpaci, I. (2023). Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the
sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7491–7510.
Al-Worafi, Y. M., Hermansyah, A., Goh, K. W., & Ming, L. C. (2023). Artificial intelligence use in university: Should we ban ChatGPT?. https://doi.org/10.20944/
preprints202302.0400.v1
Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., & Bhutta, S. M. (2023). Mapping the global evidence around the use of ChatGPT in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education
and Information Technologies, 1–41.

18
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Baig, M. I., Yadegaridehkordi, E., Shuib, L., & Sallehuddin, H. (2023). Identifying determinants of big data adoption in the higher education sector using a multi-
analytical SEM-ANN approach. Education and Information Technologies, 1–28.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive therapy and research, 1(4), 287–310.
Baskara, R. (2023). Exploring the implications of ChatGPT for language learning in higher education. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics, 7(2), 343–358.
Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Sadallah, M., & Bouteraa, M. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. Technology in Society, 75, Article
102370.
Bommineni, V. L., Bhagwagar, S., Balcarcel, D., Davatzikos, C., & Boyer, D. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on the MCAT: The road to personalized and equitable
premedical learning. MedRxiv, 2023. -03.
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 & Multiculturalism, 4(1), 1–29.
Boubker, O. (2024). From chatting to self-educating: Can AI tools boost student learning outcomes? Expert Systems with Applications, 238, Article 121820.
Çelikbilek, Y., & Adıgüzel Tüylü, A. N. (2022). Prioritizing the components of e-learning systems by using fuzzy DEMATEL and ANP. Interactive Learning Environments,
30(2), 322–343.
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023). Time to revisit existing student’s performance evaluation approach in higher education
sector in a new era of ChatGPT—A case study. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2210461.
Chen, J., Zhuo, Z., & Lin, J. (2023). Does ChatGPT play a double-edged sword role in the field of higher education? An in-depth exploration of the factors affecting
student performance. Sustainability, 15(24), 16928.
Cheung, B. H. H., Lau, G. K. K., Wong, G. T. C., Lee, E. Y. P., Kulkarni, D., Seow, C. S., & Co, M. T. H. (2023). ChatGPT versus human in generating medical graduate
exam multiple choice questions—A multinational prospective study (Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, Ireland, and the United Kingdom). PloS one, 18(8), Article
e0290691.
Chukwuere, J. E. (2023). ChatGPT: The game changer for higher education institutions. Jozac Academic Voice, 3, 22–27.
Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 1–12.
Cowling, M., Crawford, J., Allen, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. (2023). Using leadership to leverage ChatGPT and artificial intelligence for undergraduate and postgraduate
research supervision. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 89–103.
Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K. A. (2023). Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI).
Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(3), 02.
Currie, G., Singh, C., Nelson, T., Nabasenja, C., Al-Hayek, Y., & Spuur, K. (2023). ChatGPT in medical imaging higher education. Radiography, 29(4), 792–799.
Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A. (2023). ChatGPT and its impact on research supervision: Insights from Australian postgraduate research students. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 74–88.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319–340.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of management information systems,
19(4), 9–30.
Ding, L., Li, T., Jiang, S., & Gapud, A. (2023). Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 63.
Duong, C. D., Bui, D. T., Pham, H. T., & Vu, A. T. (2023). How effort expectancy and performance expectancy interact to trigger higher education students’ uses of
ChatGPT for learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. ahead-of-print.
Elbanna, S., & Armstrong, L. (2023). Exploring the integration of ChatGPT in education:Adapting for the future. Management & Sustainability: An Arab Review. ahead-
of-print (ahead-of-print.
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2023). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 1–15.
Fauzi, F., Tuhuteru, L., Sampe, F., Ausat, A. M. A., & Hatta, H. R. (2023). Analysing the role of ChatGPT in improving student productivity in higher education. Journal
on Education, 5(4), 14886–14891.
Fergus, S., Botha, M., & Ostovar, M. (2023). Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1672–1675.
Firaina, R., & Sulisworo, D. (2023). Exploring the usage of ChatGPT in higher education: Frequency and impact on productivity. Buletin Edukasi Indonesia, 2(01),
39–46.
Firat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1).
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 PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–20.
Gill, S. S., Xu, M., Patros, P., Wu, H., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., & Buyya, R. (2024). Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging Era of AI Chatbots.
Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 19–23.
Giunti, M., Garavaglia, F. G., Giuntini, R., Sergioli, G., & Pinna, S. (2023). ChatGPT prospective undergraduate and medical school student.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS quarterly, 213–236.
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, Article 100190.
Huallpa, J. J. (2023). Exploring the ethical considerations of using Chat GPT in university education. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 11(4), 105–115.
Jafari, F., & Keykha, A. (2023). Identifying the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in higher education: A qualitative study. Journal of Applied
Research in Higher Education.
Jo, H., & Bang, Y. (2023). Analyzing ChatGPT adoption drivers with the TOEK framework. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 22606.
Kayalı, B., Yavuz, M., Balat, Ş., & Çalışan, M. (2023). Investigation of student experiences with ChatGPT-supported online learning applications in higher education.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 20–39.
Kazancoglu, Y., & Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D. (2019). Lean in higher education: A proposed model for lean transformation in a business school with MCDM application. Quality
Assurance in Education, 27(1), 82–102.
Keiper, M. C., Fried, G., Lupinek, J., & Nordstrom, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence in sport management education: Playing the AI game with ChatGPT. Journal of
Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 33, Article 100456.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews, 33 pp. 1–26). Keele, UK: Keele University.
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering, 45(4), 13–65.
Kolade, O., Owoseni, A., & Egbetokun, A. (2023). Assessment on trial? ChatGPT and the new frontiers of learning and assessment in higher education. doi:10.13140/
RG.2.2.32665.4976..
Livberber, T., & Ayvaz, S. (2023). The impact of Artificial Intelligence in academia: Views of Turkish academics on ChatGPT. Heliyon, (9), 9.
Maheshwari, G. (2023). Factors influencing students’ intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context. Education and
Information Technologies, 1–29.
Meron, Y., & Araci, Y. T. (2023). Artificial intelligence in design education: Evaluating ChatGPT as a virtual colleague for post-graduate course development. Design
Science, 9, e30.
Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for
higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), 856.
Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., Zhou, P., Kwon, Y. D., Metwally, A. H. S., & Hui, P. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study
exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), Article 100027.

19
M.I. Baig and E. Yadegaridehkordi International Journal of Educational Research 127 (2024) 102411

Morjaria, L., Burns, L., Bracken, K., Ngo, Q. N., Lee, M., Levinson, A. J., & Sibbald, M. (2023). Examining the threat of ChatGPT to the validity of short answer
assessments in an undergraduate medical program. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 10, Article 23821205231204178.
Ngo, T. T. A. (2023). The perception by university students of the use of ChatGPT in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 18
(17), 4.
Nikolic, S., Daniel, S., Haque, R., Belkina, M., Hassan, G. M., Grundy, S., & Sandison, C. (2023). ChatGPT versus engineering education assessment: A multidisciplinary
and multi-institutional benchmarking and analysis of this generative artificial intelligence tool to investigate assessment integrity. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 1–56.
Onal, S., & Kulavuz-Onal, D. (2024). A cross-disciplinary examination of the instructional uses of ChatGPT in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 52(3), 301–324.
Pradana, M., Elisa, H. P., & Syarifuddin, S. (2023). Discussing ChatGPT in education: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Cogent Education, 10(2), Article
2243134.
Prasetya, R. E., & Syarif, A. (2023). ChatGPT as a tool for language development: investigating its impact on proficiency and self-evaluation accuracy in Indonesian
higher education. VELES (Voices of English Language Education Society), 7(3), 402–415.
Rahman, M. S., Sabbir, M. M., Zhang, J., Moral, I. H., & Hossain, G. M. S. (2023). Examining students’ intention to use ChatGPT: Does trust matter? Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 51–71.
Rawas, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Empowering lifelong learning in the digital age of higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–14.
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Appolloni, A., Treiblmaier, H., & Iranmanesh, M. (2024). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT on education: A web mining and machine learning
approach. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(1), Article 100932.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement, 21(7), 324–328.
Romero Rodríguez, J. M., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Buenestado Fernández, M., & Lara Lara, F. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking:
Students’ perceived usefulness.
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6
(1).
Sallam, M., & Al-Salahat, K (2023). Below average ChatGPT performance in medical microbiology exam compared to university students. In Frontiers in education, 8,
Article 1333415.
Shaengchart, Y., Bhumpenpein, N., Kongnakorn, K., Khwannu, P., Tiwtakul, A., & Detmee, S. (2023). Factors influencing theacceptance of ChatGPT usage among
higher education students in Bangkok, Thailand. Advance Knowledge for Executives, 2(4), 1–14.
Shanto, S. S., Ahmed, Z., & Jony, A. I. (2023). PAIGE: A generative AI-based framework forpromoting assignment integrity in higher education. STEM Education, 3(4),
288–305.
Singh, H., Tayarani-Najaran, M. H., & Yaqoob, M. (2023). Exploring computer science students’ perception of ChatGPT in higher education: A descriptive and
correlation study. Education Sciences, 13(9), 924.
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14.
Syed Hassan, S. A. H., Tan, S. C., & Yusof, K. M. (2018). MCDM for engineering education: Literature review and research issues. Engineering education for a smart
society: World engineering education forum & global engineering deans council 2016 7 (pp. 204–214). Springer International Publishing.
Tajik, E., & Tajik, F. (2023). A comprehensive examination of the potential application of Chat GPT in higher education institutions. TechRxiv. Preprint, 1–10.
Talan, T., & Kalinkara, Y. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in higher education: ChatGPT assessment for anatomy course. Uluslararası Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri
ve Bilgisayar Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 33–40.
Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). Processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
Vasileva-Stojanovska, T., Vasileva, M., Malinovski, T., & Trajkovik, V. (2015). An ANFIS model of quality of experience prediction in education. Applied Soft
Computing, 34, 129–138.
Viswanath, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Von Garrel, J., & Mayer, J. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in studies—Use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany. Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications, 10(1), 1–9.
Wandelt, S., Sun, X., & Zhang, A. (2023). AI-driven assistants for education and research? A case study on ChatGPT for air transport management. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 113, Article 102483.
Wang, H., Wu, W., Dou, Z., He, L., & Yang, L. (2023). Performance and exploration of ChatGPT in medical examination, records and education in Chinese: Pave the
way for medical AI. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 177, Article 105173.
Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87, 367–392.
Yadegaridehkordi, E., Nasir, M. H. N. B. M., Noor, N. F. B. M., Shuib, L., & Badie, N. (2018). Predicting the adoption of cloud-based technology using fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process and structural equation modelling approaches. Applied Soft Computing, 66, 77–89.
Yap, Y. Y., Tan, S. H., & Choon, S. W. (2022). Elderly’s intention to use technologies: A systematic literature review. Heliyon.
Zhang, B. (2023). Preparing educators and students for ChatGPT and AI technology in higher Education.

20