Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-education-artificial-intelligence

ChatGPT in higher education learning: Acceptance and use

Akhmad Habibi a, *, Muhaimin Muhaimin b, Bernadus Kopong Danibao c, Yudha Gusti Wibowo d,
Sri Wahyuni e, Ade Octavia a
a
Universitas Jambi, Indonesia
b
Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
c
Universitas Katolik Widya Mandira Kupang, Indonesia
d
Institut Teknologi Sumatera, Indonesia
e
STKIP Muhammadiyah Pagaralam, Indonesia

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

Keywords: This paper examines the determinants that drive ChatGPT use in learning among Indonesian Higher Education
ChatGPT Institutions (HEIs) students. A proposed model based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
Acceptance and use model-2 (UTAUT2) was used in the context of the study. A pilot study was done prior to the main data collection
PLS-SEM
to examine the reliability of the instrument. For the structural model assessment, 1117 responses were analyzed
Students
UTAUT2
through Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Importance-Performance Analysis
(IPMA). Most hypotheses are confirmed by the significant results reported through the PLS-SEM. The strongest
determinant of Behavioral Intention (BI) to use ChatGPT in learning was Facilitating Conditions (FC). ChatGPT
use (GPTU) was most significantly predicted by BI. However, one hypothesis was not supported; the insignificant
role of Effort Expectancy (EE) on BI was revealed. Through IPMA, FC had the most significant importance for BI,
while BI was the most important determinant for GPTU. Besides, BI obtains the highest performance in the IPMA
procedure. This study addresses a UTAUT model by evaluating ChatGPT acceptance and use among HEIs stu­
dents in Indonesia. Findings could facilitate policymakers with insights into the determinants and initiate
effective and efficient policies to improve artificial intelligence use in education, specifically ChatGPT.

1. Introduction Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2). However,

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and natural language processing have
significantly impacted education, providing new opportunities for
innovative teaching and learning practices. One of the significant
breakthroughs in AI is the development of the Chat Generative Pre-
Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), which can generate human-like text
and conversationally respond to users’ input. ChatGPT has great po­
tential to improve the quality and efficiency of learning practices, such
as generating personalized content, helping with homework, and
providing feedback to students (Lund & Wang, 2023). ChatGPT was
downloaded over 1 million times within a week of its 2022 launch (Lund
& Wang, 2023; Pavlik, 2023).
Several studies have explored the acceptance and use behavior of
specific technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) (Huang, 2023),
Learning Management Systems (LMS) (Al-Adwan, Yaseen, Alsoud,
Abousweilem, & Al-Rahmi, 2022), and AI (Sohn & Kwon, 2020) in ed­
ucation by utilizing research models or frameworks, such as the Unified
limited academic resources have reported the investigation of the use of
ChatGPT in education, as this technology has only been introduced in
2022 (Deng & Lin, 2022; Lund & Wang, 2023).
In education, prior studies have informed that facilitating students
with necessary technological resources does not guarantee a system’s
success as sometimes the value of services is not found. For ChatGPT, the
use and acceptance are dependent on the affecting factors. Studies on
ChatGPT use and acceptance in education are still few due to the new
launching of the application across the world (Deng & Lin, 2022; Lund &
Wang, 2023; Sturgeon, 2021), including in a developing country like
Indonesia. Therefore, this study addresses the gap by evaluating
ChatGPT use among Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) students
within the Indonesian context. This study used UTAUT2 as a model to
examine the determinants that drive ChatGPT 3.5 (free version)
behavioral intention and use; we applied a survey as a data collection
tool and a structural equation model procedures for the data analysis.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: akhmad.habibi@unja.ac.id (A. Habibi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100190
Received 20 July 2023; Received in revised form 1 November 2023; Accepted 22 November 2023
Available online 11 December 2023
2666-920X/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Habibi et al.
2. Literature review
2.1. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2)
UTAUT2 is a theoretical framework that seeks to explain and predict
individuals’ acceptance and use of information technology within an
organizational context (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012). The model
considers several key factors that influence individuals’ behavioral in­
tentions and actual use of specific technology systems. In this study,
these factors include Performance Expectancy (PE), the degree to which
students believe that using ChatGPT will enhance their learning per­
formance or make learning tasks easier. Effort Expectancy (EE) reflects
students’ perception of the effort required to use ChatGPT. Social In­
fluence (SI) refers to the influence of social factors on students’ decision
to use ChatGPT and the impact of colleagues, superiors, and other
influential individuals. Facilitating Conditions (FC) is the degree to
which students believe that the necessary resources and support are
available to use the ChatGPT to be more effective with proper technical
infrastructure, training, and support. Hedonic Motivation (HM) is the
extent to which students perceive ChatGPT use as enjoyable, interesting,
or pleasurable. Habit (H) is the influence of habitual behavior on
ChatGPT acceptance and use, reflecting the extent to which students
established automatic and routine use of the technology. The model
suggests that organizations should consider these factors when imple­
menting new technologies and focus on creating a positive user expe­
rience, providing adequate support and resources, and fostering a
supportive social environment. UTAUT2 delivers a comprehensive
framework for understanding and predicting technology acceptance and
use. Research and practical applications have used UTAUT2 to assess
and improve organizational technology use. The ChatGPT 3.5, the free
version, was mostly used by the respondents of the current study;
therefore, we excluded price value as one of the original variables in the
UTAUT 2 model applied in the current work (see Fig. 1). In contrast to
the original model (UTAUT-2), we excluded the demographic modera­
tors such as age, gender, and experience of the original UTAUT model
for this study due to the continuation of the study for a broader context
and setting, a comparative study among users in South East Asian
countries, Indonesian, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam (Bervell, Kumar,
Arkorful, Agyapong, & Osman, 2022; Ramírez-Correa,
Rondán-Cataluña, Arenas-Gaitán, & Martín-Velicia, 2019).
2.2. Performance expectancy (PE)
In UTAUT theoretical foundation (Venkatesh, 2022; Venkatesh et al.,
Fig. 1. A proposed model investigating Indonesian HEI students’ GhatGPT acceptance and use.
2
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190
2012), PE is defined as users’ beliefs of their ability regarding the ben­
efits of a certain technological system to maximize performance in many
tasks and works. In this study context, the system refers to AI use, spe­
cifically ChatGPT, in learning activities. For AI in education, previous
studies informed that PE was a significant predictor of BI (Alhwaiti,
2023; Andrews, Ward, & Yoon, 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020;
Guggemos, Seufert, & Sonderegger, 2020; Lin, Ho, & Yang, 2022; Raf­
faghelli, Rodríguez, Guerrero-Roldán, & Bañeres, 2022; Wu, Zhang, Li,
& Liu, 2022). Andrews et al. (2021) revealed that PE (β = 0.463) was the
most significant determinant of behavioral intention to use AI within the
context of the use of AI among librarians in the USA. Similarly, a
considerable influence of PE toward AI applications emerged for post
covid use among faculty members of Umm AlQuro University of Saudi
Arabia (Alhwaiti, 2023). However, a study conducted in Egypt informed
the insignificant correlation between PE and behavioral intention (β =
− 0.028; p > 0.05) moderated by respondents’ ages for chatbot AI use in
education (Ragheb, Tantawi, Farouk, & Hatata, 2022). In brief, most
results of the prior studies supported that confirmed that a belief in the
ability to use various AI in learning could improve the productivity of
students’ activities. Therefore, a hypothesis was proposed to disclose the
role of PE in determining BI to use ChatGPT during learning among
Indonesian HEI students.
2.3. Effort Expectancy (EE)
In the original version of the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2012), EE is
defined as a variable to determine the ease level of technology-based
tools and systems. Positive links between EE and BI to use AI have
been reported by prior research on various technological systems, for
instance, digital libraries (Habibi, Yaakob, & Sofwan, 2022), e-com­
merce (Bozorgkhou, 2015), banking systems (Abu-Taieh et al., 2022),
and mobile payment (Al-Saedi, Al-Emran, Ramayah, & Abusham, 2020;
Morosan & DeFranco, 2016). In the educational AI context, several
studies have also explored the importance of EE in affecting BI (Alh­
waiti, 2023; Andrews et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020;
Guggemos et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022; Raffaghelli et al., 2022; Wu et al.,
2022). In a PLS-SEM study, EE (β = 0.272) was revealed to have a more
robust value than PE (β = 0.021) in affecting BI to use AI in Indian higher
education (Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020). EE also played a signifi­
cant and important role in predicting the use of humanoid robots in the
context of academic writing, with a path coefficient of 0.198 at p <
0.001 (Guggemos et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a few studies informed that
BI to use certain systems was insignificantly affected by EE within the
UTAUT context (Andrews et al., 2021; Moorthy et al., 2019; Shivdas,
A. Habibi et al.
Menon, & Nair, 2020). In AI applications, Andrews et al. (2021) failed to
prove the significance of the relationship between EE and BI (β = 0.007;
p < 0.005). Following the prior study, we addressed a hypothesis
regarding the significant role of EE toward BI to use ChatGPT in edu­
cation (H2).
2.4. Social Influence (SI)
SI is described as the influence of other people’s beliefs, such as di­
rectors, managers, teachers, family, and peers, on technology users’ BI to
use certain types of technologies (Venkatesh, 2022; Venkatesh & Davis,
2000; Wu et al., 2022). Researchers have informed that SI had a robust
implication on BI in the context of the application of AI, such as robotics
(Guggemos et al., 2020), AI-based early warning systems (Raffaghelli
et al., 2022), language learning with AI (Lin et al., 2022), augmented
reality (Marto, Gonçalves, Martins, & Bessa, 2019), post-covid AI tech­
nology (Alhwaiti, 2023), and chatbot (Ragheb et al., 2022). Guggemos
et al. (2020), who conducted survey research in German universities on
the acceptance and use of a humanoid robot called Pepper, informed a
significant positive correlation between SI and BI perceived by 462
students. On the other hand, Andrews et al. (2021) revealed the insig­
nificance of the relationships between SI and BI in AI-technology sys­
tems among librarians among American HEI students. Regarding the
relationship between SI and BI, H3 was established; SI will significantly
predict Indonesian HEI students’ BI to use ChatGPT in learning.
2.5. Hedonic Motivation (HM)
In the UTAUT2 framework (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,
2003), HM has a direct effect on the intention to use certain systems or
technologies linked to perceived enjoyment from users’ experience
when using the system. In this study, HM is hypothesized to have a
significant influence on BI for the use of ChatGPT in learning for Indo­
nesian HEI students (H4). HM, based on prior studies implementing
UTAUT, has been involved in determining BI of AI use in various con­
texts and settings (Arain, Hussain, Rizvi, & Vighio, 2019; Azizi, Rooz­
bahani, & Khatony, 2020; Gharrah, salameh, & Aljaafreh, 2021; Tseng,
Lin, Wang, & Liu, 2022). Gharrah et al. (2021) studied social networks
for education through UTAUT2 and reported an insignificant correlation
between HM and BI. Similarly, Tseng et al. (2022) also found that HM
was not a significant predictor of users’ intention to use massive online
open courses in Taiwan. However, the other three studies disclosed
meaningful relationships between HM and intention in different tech­
nology applications; blended learning in medical education (Azizi et al.,
2020) and mobile learning in higher education (Arain et al., 2019). In
this context, the HM definition covers the pleasure of using ChatGPT,
which the respondents gain during learning in higher education to in­
fluence BI to use the system, ChatGPT (H5).
2.6. Facilitating Conditions (FC)
FC variable is the availability of resources and support of techno­
logical systems (Venkatesh, 2022). UTAUT2 model encouraged FC to
become one of the predictors of users’ intention to use specific systems
and the actual use. Availability of time, proper supporting information,
and additional resources can help and trigger users’ BI and ChatGPT use
(GPTU) in learning. Studies have included FC that was hypothesized to
have significant relationships with users’ intention and actual use of
technology for AI (Cabrera-Sánchez, Villarejo-Ramos,
Liébana-Cabanillas, & Shaikh, 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee,
2020; Foroughi et al., 2023; Venkatesh, 2022). For instance, Cabrer­
a-Sánchez et al. (2021) extended UTAUT2 and found that FC signifi­
cantly influenced the actual use of AI in Spain; however, FC did not
affect BI in the report. Further, Chatterjee and Bhattacharjee (2020)
disclosed the significant relationship between FC and students’ BI to use
AI in higher education learning (β = 0.221). Regarding FC, two
3
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190
hypotheses (H5 and H6) were proposed to prove the role of FC in pre­
dicting BI and ChatGPT use perceived by Indonesian HEI students during
learning.
2.7. Habit (H)
In this study, habit (H) refers to the regular use and checking of
ChatGPT features over a period of time to promote HEI students to better
positive intention and actual use of ChatGPT in learning. Initially, the
factor was established as a framework that includes habitual factors if
someone uses a system; it is a perceptual variable reflecting prior ex­
periences using the system (Venkatesh, 2022). Sustainable utilization of
a technology-based system is informed to be habitual in which repeated
without conscious awareness and intention. Previous research has re­
ported that H can be a salient factor in determining the intention to use
technologies as well as the actual use two (El-Masri & Tarhini, 2017;
Moorthy et al., 2019; Rojabi, 2020; Shivdas et al., 2020; Tseng et al.,
2022). In AI use, studies also listed habit as one of the factors hypoth­
esized to play a significant role in the intention or use of different AI
tools (Arain et al., 2019; Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021; Gansser & Reich,
2021). With path coefficients of 0. 304 and 0.174, respectively, Gansser
and Reich (2021) successfully evaluated the role of habit in affecting the
intention and use of AI products for mobility use in Germany. H was also
confirmed to influence BI and the use of AI applications among con­
sumers in Spain (Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021). A few studies have
explored the relationship between habit and BI or use regarding the use
of GPT in education. Therefore, we proposed two hypotheses to fill in the
gap. H will significantly predict BI (H7) and GPTU (H8).
2.8. Behavioral intention (BI)
The definition of behavioral intention (BI) is the intention to use a
specific system to complete tasks or jobs. BI is the commitment to
involve one particular use of technologies (Venkatesh, 2022; Venkatesh
& Davis, 2000). Many findings of prior studies have explored the rela­
tionship between intention variable and use of technologies (Cabrer­
a-Sánchez et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020; Gansser &
Reich, 2021; Raffaghelli et al., 2022). BI significantly impacts the actual
use of AI applications in marketing (Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021). With
the highest correlational value (β = 0.712), Chatterjee and Bhattachar­
jee’s (2020) research also confirmed the strong relationship between
intention and use of AI use in higher education. Similar to prior studies,
this research prioritized the role of BI in affecting ChatGPT use during
learning in HEIs (H9).
3. Methods
3.1. Instrumentation
Thirty-four items were initiated based on prior studies with a 5- 5-
point Likert scale. Four items were established for PE, EE, SI, FC, and
BI (Habibi et al., 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2012). Meanwhile, HM and
GPTU contain three items (Abu-Taieh et al., 2022; Bozorgkhou, 2015;
Wu & Lee, 2017). H includes five indicators, adapted from (Ain, Kaur, &
Waheed, 2016; Alalwan, Dwivedi, Rana, & Algharabat, 2018; Morosan
& DeFranco, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2012). Five experts specializing in
educational technology were invited to evaluate the items for the con­
tent validity process; we made revisions based on their recommenda­
tions. Finally, the remaining items (n.31) in Appendix 1 were used for
the pilot study and main data collection.
3.2. Data collection
Through a Google form survey, we tested the model’s reliability in a
pilot study with 97 participants. The pilot study participants comprised
53 females and 44 males from one (HEI A) of the three Indonesian HEIs
A. Habibi et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190

in which the institutions were used for the main data collection. The Table 1
recruited participants were excluded from the main data collection to Mean, SD, kurtosis, skewness, and VIF.
avoid the bias of the work. A Cronbach’s alpha indicated good reliability Variable Item Mean SD Kurtosis Skew. VIF
>0.700 (Mohd Dzin & Lay, 2021; Quiles, McCullough, & Piao, 2019;
PE PE1 3.859 0.678 0.749 − 0.373 1.624
Ramu et al., 2023) informed for all variables (PE = .756, EE = 0.802, SI PE2 3.774 0.676 0.375 − 0.179 1.821
= 0.789, HM = 0.812, FC = 0.854, H = 0.833, BI = 0.766, and GPTU = PE3 3.765 0.680 − 0.369 0.022 1.549
.899). After computing the first reliability test, we distributed the survey PE4 3.707 0.725 − 0.117 − 0.097 1.431
to the respondents from three Indonesian HEIs (A, B, and C) for the main EE EE1 3.557 0.709 0.061 0.078 1.901
EE2 3.662 0.669 − 0.059 0.030 1.918
data collection through printed materials; all the cost was funded by EE3 3.622 0.689 − 0.259 0.147 1.753
Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Riset, dan Teknologi, Kementerian EE4 3.523 0.701 0.109 0.083 1.539
Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia (Habibi, SI SI1 3.648 0.710 0.306 − 0.111 3.770
Sofyan, & Mukminin, 2023). The questionnaire included sections of a SI2 3.684 0.675 0.751 − 0.357 3.167
SI3 3.695 0.672 0.790 − 0.362 3.585
short description and informed consent, demographic information, and
FC FC1 3.625 0.779 − 0.051 − 0.078 1.852
the main items. Data were initiated by assuring the respondents using FC2 3.573 0.810 0.196 − 0.156 2.188
ChatGPT for their learning through the survey description. In total, we FC3 3.664 0.824 − 0.335 − 0.077 1.967
accepted 1141 printed responses. However, 1117 responses were FC4 3.525 0.782 − 0.069 0.020 1.906
measurable: 914 females and 203 males. Based on HEIs, 631 students are HM HM1 3.543 0.760 0.290 − 0.009 2.020
HM2 3.613 0.749 0.079 − 0.051 2.222
from Indonesian HEI A, 362 from HEI B, and 124 from HEI C. HM3 3.318 0.758 0.331 0.199 1.610
H H1 3.724 0.678 0.226 − 0.237 3.152
3.3. Data analysis H2 3.714 0.687 0.107 − 0.173 3.326
H3 3.680 0.683 0.092 − 0.155 1.745
H4 3.611 0.706 − 0.163 0.105 1.698
To put the theoretical framework and hypotheses to the test, we
H5 3.605 0.701 0.096 0.005 1.640
employed the statistical program of the current SmartPLS. Due to its BI BI1 4.005 0.789 0.286 − 0.513 1.624
flexibility in handling sample sizes and non-normality data, we carried BI2 3.759 0.796 0.040 − 0.266 1.484
out PLS-SEM procedures (measurement and structural model assess­ BI3 3.962 0.755 − 0.349 − 0.275 1.855
ments) to investigate the proposed model (Becker, Cheah, Gholamzade, GPTU GPTU1 3.697 0.770 0.364 − 0.304 1.784
GPTU2 3.761 0.825 0.613 − 0.478 1.795
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2023; Rigdon, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2017). Importance GPTU3 3.728 0.847 0.307 − 0.397 1.674
and performance analysis (IPMA) was computed to support the struc­
tural model (Akour, Al-Maroof, Alfaisal, & Salloum, 2022; Fakfare &
Manosuthi, 2022; Magno & Dossena, 2022). The IPMA aimed to un­
Table 2
derstand the total effect of independent variable variables’ importance
Loading, Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, CR, and AVE.
and performance to anticipate the dependent variables (Akour et al.,
2022; Fakfare & Manosuthi, 2022). Variable Item Load Alpha rho_A CR AVE

BI BI1 0.806 0.776 0.780 0.870 0.690

3.4. Data preparation BI2 0.817
BI3 0.868
EE EE1 0.850 0.827 0.840 0.885 0.659
The target population is students in the three Indonesian HEIs who EE2 0.841
use ChatGPT for learning. Through simple random sampling (Etikan, EE3 0.809
2017), 1117 data were recorded, and the normality was evaluated EE4 0.742
FC FC1 0.821 0.855 0.858 0.902 0.697
through the assessment of skewness and kurtosis of the data. Statisti­
FC2 0.851
cally, skewness and kurtosis values must be between − 2 and +2, which FC3 0.848
are appropriate for the normality of the data (Seijas-Macias, Oliveira, & FC4 0.820
Oliveira, 2021). Table 1 shows that all skewness and kurtosis values GPTU GPTU1 0.861 0.806 0.809 0.885 0.720
refer to the threshold between − 2 and +2, producing the normality. GPTU2 0.859
GPTU3 0.826
Descriptive reports for all items exhibit a sufficient value of Mean; the
H H1 0.761 0.826 0.827 0.878 0.590
highest Mean is BI1 (M = 4.005; SD = 0.789), while the lowest is EE4 (M H2 0.790
= 3.253; SD = 0.701). To prevent common-method bias, we added H3 0.779
consent forms to the survey questionnaire in which personal identities H4 0.766
H5 0.744
were not asked and confidential for less evaluation apprehension. In
HM HM1 0.883 0.822 0.840 0.894 0.737
addition, we calculated the variance inflation factor or VIF for the CMB; HM2 0.897
values of 4 or more would result in common-method bias issues (Kock, HM3 0.793
2015; Russo & Stol, 2021). For this study, all values are less than 4, PE PE1 0.795 0.793 0.799 0.865 0.617
sufficiently limiting common-method bias as a threat (Table 1). PE2 0.837
PE3 0.780
PE4 0.727
4. Findings SI SI1 0.948 0.923 0.935 0.941 0.866
SI2 0.915
4.1. Measurement model SI3 0.929

The measurement model was utilized for the assessment of the reli­
and CR scores were higher than 0.700 (Manley et al., 2020; Sarstedt
ability and validity of the proposed model for all variables (PE, EE, SI, SI,
et al., 2022). The alpha’s scores range from 0.776 (BI) and 0.923 (SI); for
HM, FC, H, BI, and GPTU). Loading should be minimal, of 0.708
Rho_A 0.780 (BI) to 0.935 (SI) and for CR 0.870 (BI) to 0.941 (SI).
(Manley, Hair, Williams, & McDowell, 2020; Sarstedt, Radomir, Moi­
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) examines convergent validity.
sescu, & Ringle, 2022). The values from the computation are between
Convergent validity refers to how much the variable converges to
0.727 and 0.948. Cronbahc’s alpha, Rho_A, and composite reliability
measure the items’ variance. AVE value should be 0.500 or higher,
(CR) can show the reliability of the data within the PLS-SEM procedures.
informing ≥50% of the variance (Becker et al., 2023; Russo & Stol, 2021;
All the values should not be less than 0.700. Table 2 shows alpha, Rho_A,

4
A. Habibi et al.
Shmueli et al., 2019). From the computational results of AVE, values for
all variables are satisfactory. The lowest value of AVE is H of 0.590,
explaining 59% of the variance; the greatest is SI of 0.858, 86% of the
variance.
Discriminant validity is how one variable differs from other vari­
ables. We reported heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT), cross-loadings, and
Fornell-Larcker for the discriminat vliadity evaluation (Hamid et al.,
2017; Habibi, Yusop, & Razak, 2020). Discriminant validity is prob­
lematic when the HTMT value extends <0.900 because the constructs
will have similar theoretical concepts when HTMT values are >0.900,
which is evidence of the discriminant validity issue (Hamid et al., 2017;
Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). The HTMT values for this study are
proper; no values exceed 0.900, as presented in Table 3. Discriminant
validity can also be informed when a variable’s item-loading values are
greater than the cross-loading values on the other constructs (Habibi
et al., 2020). Loadings (in bold and italic in Table 4) for each variable is
greater than their cross-loadings; for example, the item BI1 for BI ob­
tained a higher value of loading (0.806) compared to its cross-loading on
the other constructs (e.g., EE = 0.351, FC = 0.380, GPTU = 0.427, H =
0.322, HM = 0.319, PE = 0.405, and SI = 0.301). The shared variance
for all model constructs should not be larger than their AVEs for Fornell-
Larcker measurement (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). From the computation,
AVE values of every construct are higher than its shared variance
(Table 5). Based on the findings of HTMT, Fornell- Larcker, and
cross-loading, the discriminant validity was statistically validated,
resulting in 29 items included for the structural model.
4.2. Structural model
We used SmartPLS as a statistical device to measure the structural
model of the current research. Before computing the significance of the
hypotheses within PLS-SEM procedures, Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR) was computed in estimating the model fit
(Kono & Sato, 2023; Magno, Cassia, & Ringle, 2022). The SRMR refers to
fit measurement to prevent misspecification of a model in PLS-SEM
(Magno et al., 2022). The recommended value for SRMR is between
0.08 and 0.10, and the model can be informed to have a satisfactory fit.
As presented in Table 6, The SRMR value for the current model is 0.056,
good fit. In addition, the squared Euclidean distance or d_ULS and the
geodesic distance or d_G were also informed, supporting the SRMR
analysis (Table 6) in which both criteria have no specific values of
measurement; the values of d_ULS and d_G are 1.362 and 0.518
respectively.
For the structural model, we computed the data through a boot­
strapping process (Becker et al., 2023; Cheah, Amaro, & Roldán, 2023),
resampling the data with 5000 subsamples. Path coefficient values
symbolized by β, t, and p-values are disclosed. One hypothesis is rejec­
ted, while the other eight are confirmed. Assessing factors affecting BI to
use ChatGPT in learning, four variables are significant. In detail, PE is a
significant determinant of BI (β = .195, p < 0.01, t = 5.716). HM (β =
0.160, p < 0.001, t = 5.379) also obtains a good significance in pre­
dicting BI. The most robust variable to predict BI among Indonesian HEI
students is FC (β = 0.302; p < 0.001, t = 8.7314), confirming that
supporting infrastructures and tools are very important for the intention
Table 3
HTMT.
BI EE FC GPTU H HM PE
BI
EE 0.594
FC 0.652 0.746
GPTU 0.702 0.578 0.674
H 0.588 0.831 0.658 0.544
HM 0.545 0.585 0.486 0.448 0.618
PE 0.619 0.692 0.533 0.445 0.618 0.545
SI 0.462 0.538 0.428 0.385 0.537 0.417 0.648
5
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190
to use ChatGPT in learning. Even though less significant, SI (β = 0.063; t
= 1.972) and H (β = 0.084; t = 8.7314) predict BI with a p-value of
<0.05. Meanwhile, only an insignificant relationship emerges on the
role of EE towards BI (β = 0.018, p > 0.05, t = 00.672). For ChatGPT use
or GPTU, BI is revealed as the most robust and significant predictor (β =
0.331, p < 0.01, t = 9.058), followed by FC (β = 0.324, p < 0.01, t =
8.305). H has shown a less significant impact toward GPTU with a t
value of 2.225 on p < 0.05 and a path coefficient of 0.084.
In addition to disclosing the three values (β, t, and p-values), we also
reported the coefficient of determination (R2) and effect sizes (f2) . R2
refers to the correlation of squares between dependent variables, which
is applied to determine how well an endogenous variable can predict
exogenous variables. All factors (PE, EE, SI, HM, FC, and H) in Fig. 2
explain 40% of the variance within BI (R2 = 0.401). Further variables
(H, FC, and BI) inform 41.6% of the variance regarding using ChatGPT in
learning among Indonesian HEI students. All R2’s results are categorized
as moderate (Cheah et al., 2023; Kono & Sato, 2023). We also looked at
how important the effect sizes (f2) are. The structural model, which only
shows the importance (p and t values, as well as the path coefficient),
doesn’t show the effects of the relationships, making more effort for
readers to understand the findings of the computations. As a result, f2
was calculated. A guiding threshold was used to figure out the sizes of
the effects: 0.02 for small effects, 0.15 for middle effects, and.35 for
large effects (Lachowicz, Preacher, & Kelley, 2018; Sánchez-Infante
Hernández, Yañez-Araque, & Moreno-García, 2020). Table 6 shows all
the values of f2. The higher effect size emerges between BI and GPTU (f2
= 0.126), while the weakest is present in the relationship between SI and
BI (f2 = 0.004). No effect sizes emerge between EE and BI (f2 = 0.000).
4.3. IPMA
IPMA aims to discuss external variables’ overall effects to predict
specific dependent variables, importance and performance. Outer
weight should be positive for IPMA analysis. The variable indicators
should have similar objectives. The reports of the current study are
informed due to the sufficient requirements for all the indicators. Path
coefficient values represent relevance; the greater the values, the greater
the importance. IPMA’s computation accounted in the SmartpLS en­
courages the external constructs’ high importance on BI to use CahtGPT
in learning. FC, with a path coefficient of 0.302, obtains the greatest
importance.
On the other hand, EE has the weakest importance (β = 0.018), ev­
idence of similar results of the structural model assessment. All three
variables (H, FC, and BI) have good importance regarding the use of
ChatGPT or GPTU. BI value is the most robust (β = 0.331), followed by H
(β = 0.324). Meanwhile, the analysis reported H to have the smallest
importance value of the path coefficient of 0.110. For performance, the
higher values, ranging from 1 to 100, refer to higher performance.
Table 7 shows BI (72.631) obtains the most significant performance
while the lowest is SI (66. 846).
5. Discussions
The structural model and IPMA analysis resulting from the data
present that PE, SI, H, FC, and HM gained significant relationships with
BI to use ChatGPT in learning. However, there is no meaningful rela­
tionship between EE and BI. The results revealed that FC is the most
significant variable affecting BI to use ChatGPT during learning
perceived by Indonesian higher education students. For the significance
of FC toward BI, previous studies have also disclosed the phenomena
(Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020; For­
oughi et al., 2023; Venkatesh, 2022). Foroughi et al. (2023), who spe­
cifically focused on ChatGPT use among Malaysian students, found the
possibility of a strong relationship between FC and BI through fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis.
Students in this study accept the technology (ChatGPT) better if they
A. Habibi et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190

Table 4
Cross-loading.
BI EE FC GPTU H HM PE SI

BI1 0.806 0.351 0.380 0.427 0.322 0.319 0.405 0.301

BI2 0.817 0.433 0.494 0.489 0.423 0.373 0.390 0.334
BI3 0.868 0.415 0.455 0.470 0.429 0.407 0.418 0.354
EE1 0.447 0.850 0.531 0.406 0.622 0.426 0.526 0.455
EE2 0.409 0.841 0.539 0.411 0.570 0.392 0.423 0.386
EE3 0.382 0.809 0.485 0.376 0.550 0.423 0.460 0.350
EE4 0.318 0.742 0.488 0.343 0.501 0.321 0.406 0.356
FC1 0.451 0.503 0.821 0.449 0.424 0.363 0.351 0.310
FC2 0.417 0.506 0.851 0.474 0.450 0.330 0.328 0.302
FC3 0.490 0.558 0.848 0.466 0.506 0.318 0.384 0.337
FC4 0.427 0.529 0.820 0.486 0.479 0.347 0.394 0.345
GPTU1 0.477 0.451 0.542 0.861 0.430 0.336 0.366 0.305
GPTU2 0.502 0.386 0.439 0.859 0.351 0.314 0.280 0.270
GPTU3 0.437 0.369 0.443 0.826 0.354 0.282 0.264 0.283
H1 0.356 0.434 0.340 0.295 0.761 0.388 0.346 0.392
H2 0.367 0.467 0.382 0.320 0.790 0.421 0.362 0.396
H3 0.377 0.555 0.449 0.357 0.779 0.385 0.422 0.340
H4 0.364 0.562 0.476 0.368 0.766 0.404 0.339 0.335
H5 0.356 0.633 0.482 0.368 0.744 0.365 0.450 0.361
HM1 0.431 0.437 0.374 0.327 0.486 0.883 0.417 0.374
HM2 0.400 0.401 0.334 0.331 0.423 0.897 0.384 0.299
HM3 0.297 0.412 0.339 0.285 0.403 0.793 0.341 0.276
PE1 0.393 0.419 0.287 0.243 0.379 0.384 0.795 0.455
PE2 0.413 0.458 0.368 0.326 0.422 0.400 0.837 0.474
PE3 0.384 0.453 0.361 0.311 0.386 0.339 0.780 0.424
PE4 0.332 0.437 0.364 0.244 0.390 0.264 0.727 0.408
SI1 0.427 0.518 0.435 0.368 0.505 0.399 0.592 0.948
SI2 0.328 0.405 0.312 0.288 0.398 0.321 0.468 0.915
SI3 0.340 0.397 0.316 0.272 0.404 0.303 0.490 0.929

Table 5
Fornell-larcker.
BI EE FC GPTU H HM PE SI

BI 0.831
EE 0.484 0.812
FC 0.536 0.629 0.835
GPTU 0.557 0.475 0.561 0.849
H 0.474 0.694 0.558 0.447 0.768
HM 0.444 0.484 0.406 0.367 0.511 0.859
PE 0.486 0.561 0.437 0.359 0.501 0.446 0.786
SI 0.398 0.479 0.388 0.337 0.474 0.371 0.561 0.931

Table 6
Structural model of factors affecting Indonesian HEI students’ ChatGPT acceptance and use.
Model fit H Relationship β Mean SD t value p values f2

SRMR (0.056) H1 PE - > BI 0.195 0.197 0.034 5.716 0.000 0.035

H2 EE - > BI 0.018 0.020 0.044 0.424 0.672 0.000
d_ULS (1.362) H3 SI - > BI 0.063 0.062 0.032 1.972 0.049 0.004
d_G (0.518) H4 HM - > BI 0.160 0.161 0.030 5.379 0.000 0.029
H5 FC - > BI 0.302 0.300 0.036 8.314 0.000 0.087
H6 FC - > GPTU 0.324 0.324 0.039 8.305 0.000 0.107
H7 H - > BI 0.084 0.083 0.038 2.225 0.026 0.005
H8 H - > GPTU 0.110 0.110 0.029 3.806 0.000 0.013
H9 BI - > GPTU 0.331 0.331 0.037 9.058 0.000 0.126

have proper resources, such as Internet speed, computers, smartphones,
and laptops. The availability of essential infrastructures supports the
future intention of AI in learning, especially ChatGPT. Challenges in
providing decent facilities should be considered seriously by related
parties, including chancellors, technology units, and technical admin­
istrators. These infrastructures establish the groundwork for the seam­
less and effective incorporation of AI technologies into educational
environments. One of the main problems is the need for hardware that is
strong and dependable. AI systems like ChatGPT need a lot of computing
power to process a lot of data and do difficult jobs that deal with natural
language processing (Foroughi et al., 2023). Ensuring that HEIs have
access to high-performance servers is important to avoid bottlenecks for
a smooth user experience. Frequently, AI-assisted learning involves
real-time interactions, access to extensive online resources, and cloud
services. Therefore, a robust internet infrastructure is required to facil­
itate communication between users and the AI system, facilitating a
more immersive and engaging learning experience.
Following the significant effect of FC on BI, performance expectancy
(PE) was the second strongest factor influencing BI, which also reported
by prior studies regarding AI use in education (Alhwaiti, 2023; Andrews
et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020; Guggemos et al., 2020;
Lin et al., 2022; Raffaghelli et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022). The

6
A. Habibi et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190

Fig. 2. Final model investigating Indonesian HEI students’ ChatGPT acceptance and use.

Social Influence (SI) also play important roles in predicting BI. The habit
Table 7
might emerge as a significant determinant of BI because of students’
IPMA results: Factors affecting ChatGPT BI and use.
familiarity with ChatGPT. Students use ChatGPT during learning and
Performance Importance other educational activities, improving the acceptance of the system
BI GPTU (Arain et al., 2019; Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021; Gansser & Reich,
BI 72.631 0.331 2021). Meanwhile, SI might emerge as a significant predictor of BI since
EE 64.870 0.018
Indonesian people are famous for their hospitality in which respecting
FC 64.920 0.302 0.324
GPTU 68.166 other people’s perspectives is a value, a result that supports prior reports
H 66.654 0.084 0.110 (Alhwaiti, 2023; Guggemos & Seufert, 2021; Marto et al., 2019; Raffa­
HM 62.720 0.160 ghelli et al., 2022). On the other hand, EE was spotted as the only
PE 66.880 0.195 insignificant determining factor for BI. Some researchers also failed to
SI 66.846 0.063
prove the role of EE in UTAUT studies (Andrews et al., 2021; Moorthy
et al., 2019; Shivdas et al., 2020). Regarding AI, Andrews et al. (2021)
significance of the relationship between PE and BI could be due to HEI failed to prove the significant role of EE with a p-value of more than
students’ perspectives that ChatGPT positively impacts learning effec­ 0.05. Specifically, this insignificant presence emerges since users (mil­
tiveness and efficiencies. The result is guidance for all students in HEIs lennials) perceive the Internet and its supporting tools as ordinary things
across the globe to use ChatGPT as a supporting tool to better their they use daily; it is effortless for them to use ChatGPT during learning.
performance in learning. Hedonic motivation (HM) also significantly The PLS-SEM results show a robust and strong relationship between
predicts students’ intention to use ChatGPT in education; prior studies FC and ChatGPT use (GPTU). The relationship might emerge because the
have also revealed similar findings with AI as the object of the studies facility and infrastructure, especially the Internet, is free to use, signif­
(Arain et al., 2019; Azizi et al., 2020; Gharrah et al., 2021; Tseng et al., icantly affecting GPTU during learning. The finding agrees with previ­
2022). ChatGPT in learning is a conductor of enjoyment participation to ous findings (Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee,
improve intention to use the system. ChatGPT’s capacity to comprehend 2020; Foroughi et al., 2023; Venkatesh, 2022) that involve FC as a
and respond in a human-like manner can invite users to participate in an predictor for the use of various systems or technologies. Similarly, the
engaging and interactive learning environment where information flows relationship between H and GPTU is confirmed; the routine tasks con­
freely and effortlessly (Tlili et al., 2023). Enjoyment is one of the ducted by the students influencing ChatGPT use should be an important
fundamental parts of ChatGPT’s effectiveness. Learning becomes a factor affecting the use. Studies supporting this finding also revealed the
delightful journey when learners feel sincerely engaged, motivated, and important role of habit in the actual use of certain technological systems
entertained. tools (Arain et al., 2019; Gansser & Reich, 2021). This study reported BI
Even though less significant than FC, PE, and HM, Habit (H) and as the most significant predictor of GPTU. The more intention the users
have, the better they perform ChatGPT use in their learning. Most prior

7
A. Habibi et al.
research involving BI to influence use also revealed a similar phenom­
enon (Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Bhattacharjee, 2020;
Gansser & Reich, 2021; Raffaghelli et al., 2022). This study highlights
the importance of understanding user intention to use ChatGPT in
learning. Educators can create more effective and user-friendly AI sys­
tems, enhancing student learning outcomes. In addition, these results
can inform the design of future AI systems by emphasizing the impor­
tance of user intentions in maximizing the potential of such technologies
for learning and beyond.
6. Conclusion
Higher education institutions (HEIs) could improve ChatGPT use,
increasing the likelihood of its acceptance by users and their participa­
tion in learning activities. In this research, we modified an existing
model to investigate the elements that influence BI and GPTU, and then
we verified the model. Theoretically, the findings could broaden the
application of the UTAUT2 model. Specifically, the instrument can be of
service to future researchers who are interested in conducting in­
vestigations on subjects comparable to artificial intelligence. The anal­
ysis provides education stakeholders with direction to improve the
enabling situation as the strongest determinant of BI, hence promoting
GPTU, a practical implication of the study. As a result, teachers should
consistently stress the importance of incorporating AI into their stu­
dents’ day-to-day education. Utilizing the model, this study paves the
way for a more solid foundation for policymaking and contributes to
subsequent advancements. Recently, open AI has been using ChatGPT to
generate opportunities to support personalized learning, facilitate
learners with rapid feedback for effective learning, and limitless access
to information. The current study has a few shortcomings which need to
be considered. Since the only strategy used in this research was a survey,
other approaches, such as in-depth interviews or discussions, could also
be effective. The interviews may provide more reliable alternatives to
the findings—improvement for future researchers interested in pursuing
comparable study areas.
Funding
This research was funded by Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi,
Riset, dan Teknologi, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan
Teknologi Republik Indonesia, 2023.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Akhmad Habibi reports financial support was provided by Direktorat
Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Riset, dan Teknologi, Kementerian Pendi­
dikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia, 2023. If
there are other authors, they declare that they have no known
competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100190.
References
Abu-Taieh, E. M., AlHadid, I., Abu-Tayeh, S., Masa’deh, R., Alkhawaldeh, R. S.,
Khwaldeh, S., et al. (2022). Continued intention to use of m-banking in Jordan by
integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM and service quality with ML. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/
joitmc8030120
8
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190
Ain, N. U., Kaur, K., & Waheed, M. (2016). The influence of learning value on learning
management system use: An extension of UTAUT2. Information Development, 32(5),
1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915597546
Akour, I. A., Al-Maroof, R. S., Alfaisal, R., & Salloum, S. A. (2022). A conceptual
framework for determining metaverse adoption in higher institutions of gulf area: An
empirical study using hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Computers and Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100052
Al-Adwan, A. S., Yaseen, H., Alsoud, A., Abousweilem, F., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2022).
Novel extension of the UTAUT model to understand continued usage intention of
learning management systems: The role of learning tradition. Education and
Information Technologies, 27(3), 3567–3593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-
10758-y
Al-Saedi, K., Al-Emran, M., Ramayah, T., & Abusham, E. (2020). Developing a general
extended UTAUT model for M-payment adoption. Technology in Society, 62, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101293
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Algharabat, R. (2018). Examining factors
influencing Jordanian customers’ intentions and adoption of internet banking:
Extending UTAUT2 with risk. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40,
125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.026
Alhwaiti, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence application in the post-covid era
and its impact on faculty members’ occupational well-being and teaching self
efficacy: A path analysis using the UTAUT 2 model. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 37
(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2023.2175110
Andrews, J. E., Ward, H., & Yoon, J. (2021). UTAUT as a model for understanding
intention to adopt AI and related technologies among librarians. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 47(6), Article 102437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
acalib.2021.102437
Arain, A. A., Hussain, Z., Rizvi, W. H., & Vighio, M. S. (2019). Extending UTAUT2 toward
acceptance of mobile learning in the context of higher education. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 18(3), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-
00685-8
Azizi, S. M., Roozbahani, N., & Khatony, A. (2020). Factors affecting the acceptance of
blended learning in medical education: Application of UTAUT2 model. BMC Medical
Education, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02302-2
Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-
SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 35(1), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0474
Bervell, B. B., Kumar, J. A., Arkorful, V., Agyapong, E. M., & Osman, S. (2022).
Remodelling the role of facilitating conditions for Google classroom acceptance: A
revision of UTAUT2. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 115–135.
Bozorgkhou, N. (2015). An internet shopping user adoption model using an integrated
TTF and UTAUT: Evidence from Iranian consumers. Management Science Letters, 5(2),
199–204. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2014.12.017
Cabrera-Sánchez, J. P., Villarejo-Ramos, Á. F., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., & Shaikh, A. A.
(2021). Identifying relevant segments of AI applications adopters – expanding the
UTAUT2’s variables. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2020.101529
Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharjee, K. K. (2020). Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher
education: A quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Education
and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3443–3463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
020-10159-7
Cheah, J. H., Amaro, S., & Roldán, J. L. (2023). Multigroup analysis of more than two
groups in PLS-SEM: A review, illustration, and recommendations. Journal of Business
Research, 156, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113539
Deng, J., & Lin, Y. (2022). Frontiers in computing and intelligent systems the benefits
and challenges of ChatGPT: An overview. Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent
Systems, 2(2), 1–3.
El-Masri, M., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in
Qatar and USA: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2
(UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research & Development, 65, 743–763. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8
Etikan, I. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International
Journal, 5(6), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149
Fakfare, P., & Manosuthi, N. (2022). Examining the influential components of tourists’
intention to use travel apps: The importance–performance map analysis. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 6(3), 1144–1168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-02-
2022-0079
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N.,
et al. (2023). Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes:
Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495 (online).
Gansser, O. A., & Reich, C. S. (2021). A new acceptance model for artificial intelligence
with extensions to UTAUT2: An empirical study in three segments of application.
Technology in Society, 65, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101535
Gharrah, A., salameh, A., & Aljaafreh, A. (2021). Why students use social networks for
education: Extension of Utaut2. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(1),
53–66. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1081
Guggemos, J., & Seufert, S. (2021). Teaching with and teaching about technology –
evidence for professional development of in-service teachers. Computers in Human
Behavior, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106613
Guggemos, J., Seufert, S., & Sonderegger, S. (2020). Humanoid robots in higher
education: Evaluating the acceptance of Pepper in the context of an academic
A. Habibi et al.
writing course using the UTAUT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5),
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13006
Habibi, A., Sofyan, S., & Mukminin, A. (2023). Factors affecting digital technology access
in vocational education. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5682. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-023-32755-6
Habibi, A., Yaakob, M. F. M., & Sofwan, M. (2022). Student use of digital libraries during
COVID-19: Structural equation modeling in Indonesian and Malaysian contexts. The
Electronic Library, 40(4), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2021-0212
Habibi, A., Yusop, F. D., & Razak, R. A. (2020). The role of TPACK in affecting pre-service
language teachers’ ICT integration during teaching practices: Indonesian context.
Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1929–1949. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-019-10040-2
Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Mohmad Sidek, M. H. (2017). Discriminant validity
assessment: Use of Fornell & larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 890(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/
012163
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
014-0403-8
Huang, Y. C. (2023). Integrated concepts of the UTAUT and TPB in virtual reality
behavioral intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 70, 1–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103127
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kono, S., & Sato, M. (2023). The potentials of partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 54(3). https://
doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2022.2066492
Lachowicz, M. J., Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2018). A novel measure of effect size for
mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/
met0000165
Lin, H. C., Ho, C. F., & Yang, H. (2022). Understanding adoption of artificial
intelligenceenabled language e-learning system: An empirical study of UTAUT
model. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 16(1). https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJMLO.2022.119954
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact
academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-
2023-0009
Magno, F., Cassia, F., & Ringle, C. M. M. (2022). A brief review of partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) use in quality management studies. TQM
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2022-0197
Magno, F., & Dossena, G. (2022). The effects of chatbots’ attributes on customer
relationships with brands: PLS-SEM and importance–performance map analysis.
TQM Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2022-0080
Manley, S. C., Hair, J. F., Williams, R. I., & McDowell, W. C. (2020). Essential new PLS-
SEM analysis methods for your entrepreneurship analytical toolbox. The International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-
00687-6
Marto, A., Gonçalves, A., Martins, J., & Bessa, M. (2019). Applying UTAUT model for an
acceptance study alluding the use of augmented reality in archaeological sites. In
VISIGRAPP 2019 - proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on computer
vision, imaging and computer graphics theory and applications (Vol. 2). https://doi.org/
10.5220/0007364101110120
Mohd Dzin, N. H., & Lay, Y. F. (2021). Validity and reliability of adapted self-efficacy
scales in malaysian context using pls-sem approach. Education Sciences, 11(11).
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110676
Moorthy, K., Chun T’ing, L., Ming, K. S., Ping, C. C., Ping, L. Y., Joe, L. Q., et al. (2019).
Behavioral intention to adopt digital library by the undergraduates. The International
Information & Library Review, 51(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/
10572317.2018.1463049
Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2016). It’s about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine
consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.003
Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of
generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. In Journalism
and mass communication educator. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
Quiles, N. N., McCullough, A. K., & Piao, L. (2019). Validity and reliability of the exercise
vital sign questionnaire in an ethnically diverse group: A pilot study. Journal of
Primary Care and Community Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2150132719844062
Raffaghelli, J. E., Rodríguez, M. E., Guerrero-Roldán, A. E., & Bañeres, D. (2022).
Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of an early warning
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 (2023) 100190
system in Higher Education. Computers and Education, 182. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2022.104468
Ragheb, M. A., Tantawi, P., Farouk, N., & Hatata, A. (2022). Investigating the acceptance
of applying chatbot (Artificial intelligence) technology among higher education
students in Egypt. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, 8(2),
1–14.
Ramírez-Correa, P., Rondán-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Martín-Velicia, F.
(2019). Analysing the acceptation of online games in mobile devices: An application
of UTAUT2. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 85–93.
Ramu, P., Osman, M., Abdul Mutalib, N. A., Aljaberi, M. A., Lee, K.-H., Lin, C.-Y., et al.
(2023). Validity and reliability of a questionnaire on the knowledge, attitudes,
perceptions and practices toward food poisoning among Malaysian secondary school
students: A pilot study. Healthcare, 11(6), 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/
healthcare11060853
Rigdon, E. E., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2017). On comparing results from CB-SEM
and PLS-SEM: Five perspectives and five recommendations. Marketing ZFP, 39(3),
4–16. https://doi.org/10.15358/0344-1369-2017-3-4
Rojabi, A. R. (2020). Exploring EFL students’ perception of online learning via Microsoft
Teams: University level in Indonesia. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3
(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2349
Russo, D., & Stol, K. J. (2021). PLS-SEM for software engineering research: An
introduction and survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3447580
Sánchez-Infante Hernández, J. P., Yañez-Araque, B., & Moreno-García, J. (2020).
Moderating effect of firm size on the influence of corporate social responsibility in
the economic performance of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119774
Sarstedt, M., Radomir, L., Moisescu, O. I., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Latent class analysis in
PLS-SEM: A review and recommendations for future applications. Journal of Business
Research, 138, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.051
Seijas-Macias, A., Oliveira, A., & Oliveira, T. A. (2021). The skewness and kurtosis of the
product of two normally distributed random variables. Communications in Statistics -
Theory and Methods, 52(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03610926.2021.1909734
Shivdas, A., Menon, D. G., & Nair, C. S. (2020). Antecedents of acceptance and use of a
digital library system: Experience from a Tier 3 Indian city. The Electronic Library, 38
(1), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2019-0074
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., et al.
(2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict.
European Journal of Marketing, 53(11). https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
Sohn, K., & Kwon, O. (2020). Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing
artificial Intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics and Informatics, 47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101324
Sturgeon, D. (2021). Chinese text project: A dynamic digital library of premodern
Chinese. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(1), 1–12.
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., et al.
(2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using
chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15.
Tseng, T. H., Lin, S., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, H. X. (2022). Investigating teachers’ adoption of
MOOCs: The perspective of UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4),
635–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674888
Venkatesh, V. (2022). Adoption and use of AI tools: A research agenda grounded in
UTAUT. Annals of Operations Research, 308(2), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-020-03918-9
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of
information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 36(1), 157–178. https://
doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Wu, R. Z., & Lee, J. H. (2017). The comparative study on third party mobile payment
between UTAUT2 and TTF. Journal of Distribution Science, 15(11), 5–19. https://doi.
org/10.15722/jds.15.11.201711.5
Wu, W., Zhang, B., Li, S., & Liu, H. (2022). Exploring factors of the willingness to accept
ai-assisted learning environments: An empirical investigation based on the UTAUT
model and Perceived Risk Theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870777