The use of chatbots equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings has increased in recent years, showing potential to support teaching and learning. However, their adoption has raised concerns about academic integrity, students' ability to problem-solve independently, and potential underlying biases. To better understand students' perspectives on these benefits and risks, a survey was conducted at a large public university in the United States, collecting 262 responses from undergraduate students. Through thematic analysis, students' perceived benefits and risks of AI chatbots in education were identified and categorized into themes. The results identified perceived benefits related to feedback and study support, instructional capabilities, and access to information. Students also expressed concerns about academic integrity, information accuracy, loss of critical thinking skills, and overreliance on AI, alongside ethical issues involving data privacy, system bias, environmental impact, and the preservation of human interaction. While student perceptions align with previously discussed benefits of AI in education, they also highlight concerns about distinguishing between human- and AI-generated work and the broader ethical implications of these technologies. To address students' concerns regarding academic integrity and information reliability, institutions can establish clear policies regarding AI use and develop curricula around AI literacy. With these in place, practitioners can effectively develop and implement educational systems that leverage AI's potential in areas such as immediate feedback and personalized learning support. This approach can enhance the quality of students' educational experiences while preserving the integrity of the learning process with AI.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Six-phase Thematic Analysis
Theme
# of Statements
Percent
Example Quote
Feedback & Study Support
92
23.00%
“AI chatbots have the opportunity to create questions for you to test your knowledge in a variety of stem subjects.”
Instruction
89
22.25%
“Chatbots can be great teachers on concepts that were not gone in depth about in class or the student needs more explanation to grasp the topic.”
Access to Information
85
21.25%
“Access and Availability are two key benefits. These systems can operate and be accessible around the clock and at any location that is accessible to the web (including a portable smart device)”
Productivity
57
14.25%
“Save time and save a lot of unneeded tedious work.”
Creative Support
42
10.50%
“It provides a starting point for thought/creative processes, which can be used by students to further their research.”
No Benefit
22
5.50%
“No benefits for AI in educational settings.”
Table 1. Perceived Benefits of AI Chatbots in Educational Settings
Theme
# of Statements
Percent
Example Quote
Academic Integrity
97
28.12%
“Plagiarism – some students copy and paste writing assignments from AI chatbots like Chat GPT and hand it in as their own original work.”
Accuracy of Information
91
26.38%
“Could provide incorrect or misconstrued information/data on a given topic.”
Loss of Critical Thinking
67
19.42%
“It can lead to students not actually taking the time to learn certain subjects, instead using the AI chatbots to provide them with the answers they need.”
Overreliance
29
8.41%
“Overreliance and trusting answers without question.”
Ethical Concern
23
6.67%
“AI chatbots aren’t perfect and oftentimes can get even the most simple information incorrect. There are times where chatbots have been trained on improper data causing numerous such errors.”
Human Element
18
5.22%
“They promote unoriginal ideas and a lack of creativity.”
Table 2. Perceived Risks of AI Chatbots in Educational Settings
The rapid proliferation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping pedagogical practices and assessment models in higher education. While institutional and educator perspectives on GenAI integration are increasingly documented, the student perspective remains comparatively underexplored. This study examines how students perceive, use, and evaluate GenAI within their academic practices, focusing on usage patterns, perceived benefits, and expectations for institutional support. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 436 postgraduate Computer Science students at the University of Hertfordshire and analysed using descriptive methods. The findings reveal a Confidence-Competence Paradox: although more than 60% of students report high familiarity with tools such as ChatGPT, daily academic use remains limited and confidence in effective application is only moderate. Students primarily employ GenAI for cognitive scaffolding tasks, including concept clarification and brainstorming, rather than fully automated content generation. At the same time, respondents express concerns regarding data privacy, reliability of AI-generated information, and the potential erosion of critical thinking skills. The results also indicate strong student support for integrating AI literacy into curricula and programme Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours (KSBs). Overall, the study suggests that universities should move beyond a policing approach to GenAI and adopt a pedagogical framework that emphasises AI literacy, ethical guidance, and equitable access to AI tools.
This study examined how student interns in Philippine higher education use intelligent tools during their OJT. Data were collected from 384 respondents using a structured questionnaire that asked about AI tool usage, task-specific applications, and perceptions of confidence, ethics, and support. Analysis of task-based usage identified four main purposes: productivity and report writing, communication and content drafting, technical assistance and code support, and independent task completion. ChatGPT was the most commonly used AI tool, followed by Quillbot, Canva AI, and Grammarly. Students reported moderate confidence in using AI and applied these tools selectively and ethically during OJT tasks. This indicate that AI tools assist student interns in various OJT activities related to work-readiness. The study suggests that higher education programs include AI literacy and onboarding. Clear policies and fair access to AI tools are important to support responsible use and prepare students for future careers.
John Paul P. Miranda, Rhiziel P. Manalese, Sheila M. Geronimo +5
Pampanga State University, Pampanga, Philippines · University of the East, Manila, Philippines
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini have a crucial impact on academic research and teaching. Empirical data on how students perceive the increasing influence of AI, which different types of tools they use, what they expect from them in their daily academic tasks, and their concerns regarding the use of AI in their studies are still limited. The manuscript presents findings from a quantitative survey conducted among sports students of all semesters in Germany using an online questionnaire. It explores aspects such as students' usage behavior, motivational factors, and uncertainties regarding the impact of AI tools on academia in the future. Furthermore, the social climate in sports studies is being investigated to provide a general overview of the current situation of the students in Germany. Data collection took place between August and November 2023, addressing all sports departments at German universities, with a total of 262 students participating. Our Findings indicate that students have a strong interest in using AI tools in their studies, expecting them to improve their overall academic performance, understand the complexity of scientific approaches, and save time. They express confidence that the proliferation of AI will not compromise their critical thinking skills. Moreover, students are positive about integrating more AI-related topics into the curriculum and about lecturers adopting more AI-based teaching methods. However, our findings also show that students have concerns about plagiarism, lecturer preparedness and their own skills and future skill development.
Dennis Kraemer, Anja Bosold, Martin Minarik +2
University of Münster, Faculty of Education and Social Sciences · Georg-August-University Göttingen, Faculty of Social Sciences · Ghent University, Department of Movement and Sports Sciences +1