Acceptance of Using ChatGPT by Students of Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology – VNU-HCM
Published: July 28, 2026
Abstract
This study aims to identify the factors influencing the acceptance of ChatGPT usage among students in their academic and research activities. It measures the impact of these factors on students' acceptance of ChatGPT. Additionally, it proposes solutions to enhance students' acceptance of ChatGPT, thereby improving learning and research effectiveness. The results reveal three factors affecting the acceptance of ChatGPT: Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use (β = 0.364, p = 0.000), Social Influence (β = 0.180, p = 0.001), and Perceived Autonomy (β = 0.116, p = 0.048).
Keywords
ChatGPTacceptance of usestudentsUniversity of Danang.
References
1.
Phước N. T. (2023). Sử dụng chat GPT làm công cụ hỗ trợ trong việc dạy và học ngành truyền thông. Tạp chí Khoa học Trường Đại học Quốc tế Hồng Bàng, 95-100.
2.
Duong T. L. (2023). Ứng dụng ChatGPT thúc đẩy dạy và học bậc đại học trong kỷ nguyên trí tuệ nhân tạo. Tập san Khoa học và Kỹ thuật, Trường Đại học Bình Dương, 6(2), 1-8.
3.
Agarwal R., & Karahanna E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 665-694.
4.
Araujo T. (2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183-189.
5.
Bilquise G., Ibrahim S., & et al (2023). Investigating student acceptance of an academic advising chatbot in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 1-26.
6.
Brandao A., & Popoli P. (2022). “I’m hatin’it”! Negative consumer-brand relationships in online anti-brand communities. European Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 622-650.
7.
Campello de Souza B., Serrano de Andrade Neto, & et al (2023). ChatGPT, the cognitive mediation networks theory and the emergence of sophotechnic thinking: How Natural Language AIs Will Bring a New Step in Collective Cognitive Evolution. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-24.
8.
Chocarro R., Cortinas M., & Marcos-Matás G. (2023). Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: A technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educational Studies, 49(2), 295-313.Chung N., & Kwon S. J. (2009). Effect of trust level on mobile banking satisfaction: A multi-group analysis of information system success instruments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(6), 549-562.
9.
Cronin Jr J., &Taylor S. A.(1992).Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
10.
Cronin Jr J. J., Brady M. K., & et al (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
11.
Davis F. D., Bagozzi R. P., & et al (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
12.
Du Boulay B. (2016). Artificial intelligence as an effective classroom assistant. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 31(6), 76-81.
13.
Hasan A., Habib S., Khan, & et al (2023). Student Adoption of E-Learning in Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia: Opportunities and Challenges. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 19(1), 1-21.
14.
Fernandes T., & Oliveira E.(2021). Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated technologies in service encounters: Drivers of digital voice assistants adoption. Journal of Business Research, 122, 180-191.
15.
Fernandes T., & Pedroso R.(2017). The effect of self-checkout quality on customer satisfaction and repatronage in a retail context. Service Business, 11, 69-92.
16.
Hasanein A. M., & Sobaih A. E. E.(2023). Drivers and Consequences of ChatGPT Use in Higher Education: Key Stakeholder Perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(11), 2599-2614.
17.
Hitzeroth M., & Megerle A. (2013). Renewable energy projects: acceptance risks and their management. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 576-584.
18.
Hutchinson J., Lai F., & et al (2009). Understanding the relationships of quality, value, equity, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers. Tourism Management, 30(2), 298-308.
19.
Kasneci E., Seßler K., & et al (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.
20.
Kung T. H., Cheatham M., & et al (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PloS Digital Health, 2(2), e0000198.
21.
Lelepary H. L., Rachmawati R., & et al (2023). GPT Chat: Opportunities and Challenges in the Learning Process of Arabic Language in Higher Education. Journal International of Lingua & Technology, 2(1), 10-22.
22.
Malik R., Shrama A., Trivedi S., & et al (2021). Adoption of chatbots for learning among university students: Role of perceived convenience and enhanced performance. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(18), 200-212.
23.
Mohd Rahim N. I., A. Iahad N., & et al (2022). AI-based chatbots adoption model for higher-education institutions: a hybrid PLS-SEM-neural network modelling approach. Sustainability, 14(19), 12726.
24.
Moraes C. L. (2021). Chatbot as a Learning Assistant: Factors Influencing Adoption and Recommendation. PhD Thesis, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal), 14-18.
25.
Nikou S. A., & Economides A. A. (2017). Mobile-Based Assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of Self-Determination Theory and Technology Acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83-95.
26.
Obaid O. I., Ali A. H., & Yaseen M. G. (2023). Impact of Chat GPT on Scientific Research: Opportunities, Risks, Limitations, and Ethical Issues. Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics, 4(4), 13-17.
27.
Oliver R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 12-23.
28.
Salloum S. A., Shwedeh F., & et al (2023). Understanding and Forecasting Chatbot Adoption: An SM-ANN Methodology. Migration Letters, 20(S11), 652-668.
29.
Shewale (2024). ChatGPT Statistics - User Demographics (February 2024). Available at: https://www.demandsage. com/chatgpt-statistics/.
30.
Shoufan A. (2023). Exploring Students’ Perceptions of CHATGPT: Thematic Analysis and Follow-Up Survey. IEEE Access, 38805-38818.
31.
Steinhoff L., & Palmatier R. W. (2021). Commentary: Opportunities and challenges of technology in relationship marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 29(2), 111-117.
32.
Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., & et al (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425-478.
33.
Weizenbaum J. (1966). ELIZA - A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36-4.
34.
Weizenbaum J. (1966). A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36-4.
