PERCEPTIONS, BENEFITS, AND CHALLENGES OF STUDENTS IN

SMU SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ON THE INTEGRATION OF

GENERATIVE AI

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Volume: 35
Issue 3
Pages: 242-264
Document ID: 2025PEMJ3360
DOI: 10.70838/pemj.350304
Manuscript Accepted: 03-15-2025
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges of Students in SMU Senior High School on the
Integration of Generative AI
Keira Danielle B. Pablo,* Kale Gezler A. Cadorna, Roman S. Cabanag, Aaron Lucky B. Berganio,
Reine Patrize I. Roberto, Jhoanna MJ F. Guieb, Eloisa C. Barbieto,
Kristel Joy C. Dapiawen, Lady Valen Charon A. Dela Peña
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
As we stand at the cusp of a revolution in classrooms, the utilization of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in
education has catapulted scholarly discourses into the spotlight. However, few research studies have delved into the
potential benefits and challenges of GenAI in education. This study sought to determine the perceptions, benefits, and
challenges of students in Saint Mary's University Senior High School (SMUSHS) regarding the use of generative AI.
The study employed a descriptive-comparative research design, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. A
Likert scale was used in the quantitative section, while an open-ended question was used for the qualitative part. With
the use of purposive sampling, 274 students were selected as the respondents of the study. After data analysis, findings
revealed that senior high school students positively perceive generative AI in education as a tool that enhances learning
outcomes. Additionally, students tend to focus more on potential drawbacks than benefits when it comes to GenAI, as
evidenced by the significantly higher average level of perceived challenges than benefits students experience in their
education. It was also found that the frequency of usage of GenAI has a significant difference in students' perceptions
of the use of GenAI in education and on the perceived benefits of GenAI in education. Furthermore, academic standing
also played a major role in shaping the students' perceived challenges. For the potential integration of GenAI in
education, the majority of the respondents suggest that restrictions and limitations be implemented as well as
strengthening AI policies to ensure that students are not relying solely on AI for their academic work. This study could
serve as a basis for formulating policies and guidelines on the use of GenAI in education and conducting seminars for
students and teachers to address misconceptions and increase awareness of the benefits of using generative AI in
educational settings.
Keywords: generative artificial intelligence, student perceptions, benefits, challenges, integration

Introduction
The new development in technology, artificial intelligence (AI), has the capability to drastically change every aspect of our lives. The
emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies has caused a major disruption to the worldwide education,
particularly with regard to assessments (Bower et al., 2024). The field of education is constantly evolving, prompted by the
development of new technologies with the potential to transform how we teach and learn (Haleem et al., 2022). One such transformative
force is the use of AI-powered chatbots such as ChatGPT, which has grown in popularity among university students for academic
purposes. ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies can create unique scenarios that encourage collaborative problem-solving
and goal achievement among students, fostering a sense of community among them. It is disputable if ChatGPT has significant potential
to support and develop educators, students, and researchers (Baidoo-Anu & Ansah, 2023). The efficacy and promise of GenAI have
been thoroughly investigated in numerous studies and publications. According to the survey done by Obaid et al. (2023), GenAI
contributes significantly to scientific research by encouraging the production of original concepts, providing new viewpoints, and
increasing productivity. It appears to be a useful tool in research and development, encouraging unique solutions and ideas.
ChatGPT, for example, was made available to the public in November 2022, and millions of users were registered within two months
(Hu, 2023). This rapid increase prompted new attention and questions concerning artificial intelligence. Individuals in all areas of
higher education almost immediately began to ask questions about the implications of ChatGPT and other GenAI technologies
(McMurtie, 2023). The same innovative technology that threatens to implement higher education practices can also improve the
educational process. In this circumstance, the "paradox" of GenAI has the potential to disrupt current teaching methods while opening
up new educational prospects (Lim et al., 2023). Higher education is a slow-changing system, and innovation has the potential to disrupt
it, leaving uncertainty behind. Introducing generative AI technologies, such as ChatGPT, into secondary education is no different.
Generative Artificial Intelligence
A generative AI model comprises a system that uses a machine learning architecture (such as a deep neural network) to generate new
information samples based on previously learned patterns. Moreover, a generative AI system includes all of the necessary components,
such as the model, data processing, and user interface. The model is the fundamental element of the system that enables application
and interaction in a wider setting. Last but not least, generative AI applications are the real-world applications and use cases of these
systems, like content creation for search engine optimization (SEO) or code generation that addresses real-world issues and spurs
innovation in a variety of fields (Feuerriegel et al., 2023). An example of a GenAI foundational technique is the Variational

Pablo et al. 242/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Autoencoder (VAE), a neural network type that learns to encode and decode data while preserving its key characteristics (Yang &
Xiaochen, 2024). Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are another common GenAI technique. These networks compete with one
another to produce realistic data samples (Robinson et al., 2024). Advanced algorithms are used by GenAI models to identify patterns
and produce new text, image, sound, video, and code content.
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capacity of machines to execute tasks that are traditionally executed by humans (Duan et al., 2019); it
is assimilated into people's daily lives and is accessible on all platforms, including smartphones, smart homes, and driverless vehicles
(Kumar, 2022; Schönberger, 2019). Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is a distinct class of AI and an incredibly powerful
technology that has been popularized by ChatGPT. ChatGPT, a product of OpenAI, popularized generative artificial intelligence
(GenAI), a unique class of AI and a very potent technology that reached 100 million users two months after it was released to the public
in November 2022, breaking the record for the fastest-growing consumer application (Hu, 2023). ChatGPT, Bard, Stable Difusion, and
Dall-E are some examples of GenAI tools. The use of AI tools in classrooms is also relatively common. For example, writing tools
such as QuillBot and Grammarly and plagiarism detection tools such as TurnItIn are used regularly. Their capacity to handle
complicated instructions and produce human-like output has led to research and interest in integrating GenAI in numerous fields such
as healthcare, medicine, education, and tourism. Rapid breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have resulted in
fundamental transformations in a wide range of industries. Educators are actively exploring for ways to smoothly integrate AI into
higher education curricula, given the need to prepare students for the difficulties of an AI-centric future.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2019) report "Artificial Intelligence in Education:
Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development" states that there is a huge chance to use artificial intelligence to promote
the SDGs' accomplishment. If artificial intelligence is employed increasingly in the classroom, considerable changes to education
institutions and processes are anticipated. According to Sekeroglu et al. (2019), artificial intelligence can help educators provide more
tailored education to students. The study's findings demonstrate that incorporating technology into traditional teaching processes can
improve learning and teaching. According to Pedro et al. (2019), artificial intelligence has the ability to improve and tailor learning
opportunities for a variety of underprivileged populations, including those with impairments, refugees, remote communities, and out-
of-school youths. Studies have shown that artificial intelligence learning settings and strategies can improve the presentation of
successful, individually tailored approaches (Mohammed & Watson, 2019).
Nevertheless, new inequalities brought about by the technology revolution must be prepared for. These imbalances are caused by the
impact generated. According to the study of Gocen and Aydemir (2020), the widespread use of AI result in a strong emphasis on
knowledge over aesthetic feelings, excessive mechanical method of information processing, a pragmatic approach, issues with ethics
and security, less space for teachers, and detrimental social effects in interpersonal relationships. It is critical to manage the recent
changes by thoroughly debating their implications and context. AI technologies are an intriguing topic for humanity, and they are not
a solution or an upgrade that will bring absolute benefit. Thus, it is necessary to weigh the disadvantages and advantages from a legal,
moral, educational, psychological, and sociological stand point. Given that technology primarily affects humans, it is critical that the
entire process is conducted legally in order to prevent danger to anyone (Gocen & Aydemir, 2020).
Perceptions on the use of GenAI in Education
As using AI becomes more prevalent in our education, students have developed different perceptions regarding its use. The perceptions
of students in regards to using automated paraphrasing tools (APTs) have shown to be favorable; they have viewed them as useful tools
that have a significant impact on their academic writing process, according to Alammar and Amin (2023).
A research conducted by Kim, T. and Cho (2023) revealed that students expected AI to perform a variety of functions, including a
learning partner, educator, and an effective tool for task completion during Student-AI Collaboration (SAC). Students believed that
SAC may help them perform better on tasks and in their affected domain. In contrast, students addressed a variety of SAC hurdles,
both AI-related and student-related. Furthermore, students place a high value on GenAl's perceived usefulness in offering unique
insights and individualized suggestions; they also like the user-friendliness of these technologies, which are available 24/7 and provide
anonymous support services (Chan & Hu, 2023).
Though many students have a positive perception about the usage of AI, there are still individuals who have issues and reservations
about it. While participants acknowledged the potential benefits of ChatGPT as a tool for academic assistance, they also underlined the
significance of preserving human connection between educators and students as an essential component of the educational process.
Furthermore, the need of striking a balance between technology and human accuracy of information delivered through classroom
engagement. Participants also understood the need of ensuring that the information presented was correct and dependable. Finally, they
underlined the necessity for robust data security mechanisms and clear communication on data privacy to guarantee students' personal
information was safe and used exclusively for its intended purposes (Jangjarat et al., 2023).
When it comes to plagiarism, Jangjarat et al. (2023) discovered that students have a nuanced understanding of the ethical implications
of academic writing, recognizing the possibility of misconduct in certain scenarios while also appreciating the utility of Al as a tool to
support their academic work. According to Chan and Hu (2023), students had the least positive perceptions regarding whether people
Pablo et al. 243/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

will become unduly dependent on GenAl technologies, while the highest ratings were for how these technologies would affect the
value of university education. Students were especially concerned about the unethical, dishonest, and reckless use of GenAl, such as
plagiarism, cheating, and even copyright breaches while using these technologies. They were also concerned that low-quality GenAl
outputs or biased information will contribute to or perpetuate societal inequities and inequality. Many also expressed concerns about
GenAl's broader impact on the job market and society, with both students and teachers concerned about job losses or the possibility of
"humans being replaced" in the future, as well as the undermining of academic degrees and integrity, privacy and transparency concerns,
and any threats GenAl may pose to society and human values if it develops its own, misaligned set of values (Chan & Lee 2023).
Benefits of Using GenAI in Education
One of the primary applications of GenAI in higher education is to improve students' learning experiences by responding to user
prompts. Among the benefits of AI chatbots for students are increased motivation to learn, language skill development, and improved
learning performance (Gökçearslan et al., 2024). Chan and Hu's (2023) study concluded that most participants viewed the GenAI as a
useful tool with many advantages and were willing to utilize it, mostly for research, writing, and learning. They investigated the possible
benefits of GenAI in student instruction.
Personalized and immediate learning support. Chan and Hu (2023) found that it could serve as a virtual tutor, providing students with
tailored help and quick answers to their concerns. Furthermore, AI can also deliver instructional resources that are tailored to each
student's particular needs.
Writing and brainstorming support. GenAI technologies, such as ChatGPT, can also function as writing assistants. After writing,
students can utilize GenAI to improve their writing skills. Text-to-text AI generators can help students with their writing, particularly
those who do not speak English as their first language (Chan & Lee, 2023), by allowing them to brainstorm ideas and receive feedback
on their work through GenAI technologies (Atlas, 2023).
Research and analysis support. Additionally, GenAI technologies are thought to be beneficial research aids for providing concepts,
connecting information, and shortening an enormous amount of text data to aid in data analysis and writing composition for researchers
(Berg, 2023; Chan & Zhou, 2023), enhancing publication efficiency (Kitamura, 2023; Van Dis et al., 2023). According to Chan and
Hu’s (2023) study, students have expressed interest in the use of GenAI technology in research. Some participants indicated that it can
"facilitate literature searching," "summarize readings," and "even generate hypotheses based on data analysis" in terms of gathering,
organizing, and synthesizing information.
Visual and audio multimedia support. Chan and Hu (2023) studied that students also use GenAI technologies to create artwork. Text-
to-image AI generators, like DALL-E and Stable Difusion, can be useful resources for teaching technical and artistic concepts in the
arts and design (Dehouche N. & Dehouche K., 2023).
Administrative support. GenAI technologies can handle repetitive tasks (Chan & Hu, 2023). In terms of "repetitive or non-creative"
work, some participants believe AI will perform well. As one commented, "tedious administrative work will be handled by AI
efficiently" (Chan & Hu, 2023).
Notably, studies by Moqbel and Al-Kadi (2023) and Sun and Hoelscher (2023) also showed that GenAI can help students improve the
quality of their learning, provide more learning opportunities, and enhance their learning abilities.
Challenges of Using GenAI in Education
However, there have been concerns raised regarding GenAI's limitations as well as issues of ethics, plagiarism, and academic integrity.
While the text output was often innovative and pertinent to the issues, AI is generally not able to provide personal opinions or acceptable
references, as demonstrated by Kumar's (2023) research on AI-generated approaches to academic writing difficulties. Despite the
positive outlook, the study identifies challenges with GenAI technologies, with students expressing concerns about over-reliance on
the technology, its potential impact on the value of university education, and issues of accuracy, transparency, privacy, and ethics (Chan
& Hu, 2023).
Accuracy and Transparency. Chan and Hu's (2023) research indicate that while GenAI can respond quickly and with akin to humans',
accuracy is not always guaranteed. For the majority of users, the AI system is sophisticated and opaque, making it difficult to grasp
how it makes decisions.
Privacy and Ethical Issues. The use of GenAI sparked privacy and ethical concerns. Students were concerned that AI would acquire
personal data from messages (Chan & Hu, 2023). Ethically, the issue of plagiarism has been raised several times. Plagiarism has always
been a serious concern in academics. However, with the rapid growth of GenAI technology, it has become increasingly difficult to
detect plagiarized content. Students are also concerned about the accuracy and ethical issues, particularly plagiarism, when using GenAI
tools (Peres et al., 2023). These tools lack the ability to assess validity and identify falsehoods, requiring human oversight (Lubowitz,
2023).
Holistic Competencies. According to Warschauer et al. (2023), an excessive dependence on GenAI tools may jeopardize students'
attempts to learn how to write. One of the primary concerns about its impact on people and personal development is over-reliance on
Pablo et al. 244/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

AI, which might hinder people's growth, abilities, and intellectual development over time (Chan & Hu, 2023). A student pointed out
that it has a negative effect on creativity in addition to critical thinking. Another identified societal concern is the value system. Some
participants voiced concern that "AI may misalign with our human values and become a danger to us."
Career Prospects. Students are concerned about GenAI's potential impact on career opportunities (Ghotbi et al., 2021). The most
commonly expressed issue is job replacement. As GenAI transforms the workplace, certain jobs that students are prepared for may
disappear.
Human Values. Furthermore, if the dataset that a model was trained on contains components that are biased, inaccurate, or dangerous,
the material generated by GenAI may be incorrect (Harrer, 2023). Maerten and Soydaner (2023) state that photographs produced by
artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to be used maliciously, such as in deepfakes, and may include explicit or nude content.
According to Lubowitz (2023), the employment of GenAI technologies requires human monitoring because they lack the ability to
evaluate the authenticity of the content and decide whether the output they produce contains falsehoods or inaccuracies. Furthermore,
as most plagiarism detection tools cannot distinguish AI-generated content, it can be challenging to tell if a particular piece of writing
is the author's original creation (Peres et al., 2023).
Uncertain Policies. There is a lack of institutional policies on the usage of GenAI. Uncertain regulations may lead to misuse or
unintended consequences of GenAI, posing risks to both individuals and society as technology advances faster than regulations. Even
some of the students who recognize the benefits of GenAI, believe that a regulation is currently required (Chan & Hu, 2023).
Several studies have already examined students' perceptions of the use of GenAI. Despite extensive research on students' perceptions
of GenAI, there is still a lack of understanding of the perceived benefits and challenges of GenAI in education. Furthermore, Tala et
al. (2024) have already identified the correlation between gender and the students' perceptions of the use of GenAI but did not further
explore the different factors that may influence these perceptions.
Hence, the goal of this study is to analyze students' perceptions and experiences with GenAI in order to fully understand their perceived
benefits and challenges of using GenAI in education. It aims to investigate the perceptions of Saint Mary’s University (SMU) senior
high school students on the use and integration of GenAI in secondary education, as well as determine the benefits and challenges that
come with using it. It could also be a basis for the formulation of policies and guidelines on the use of GenAI in education and
conducting seminars among SHS students about responsibly using GenAI in learning. This study further aims to delve deeper into the
various factors that may impact students' views on the use of GenAI in education by investigating the significant difference between
the demographic variables, such as sex, strand, frequency of usage of AI, and academic standing of students in their perceptions,
perceived benefits, and perceived challenges on the use of GenAI.
This research is significant in the field of education and educational technology since it focuses on students' perspectives and use of
GenAI. The purpose of this study is to provide significant viewpoints on the efficacy of generative artificial intelligence tools as
supplementary instructional materials. The findings can help us understand the role and effects of AI tools in affecting educational
experiences. Furthermore, it has the ability to supplement the present body of knowledge and provide developers with essential
guidance for building AI chatbots suited to the specific needs and preferences of high school students.
Research Questions
This study aimed to determine the perceptions, benefits, and challenges of students in SMU senior high school in using generative AI.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What are the respondents’ perceptions on the use of generative AI in education?
2. What are the respondents’ perceived benefits of GenAI in terms of the following:
2.1. personalized and immediate learning support;
2.2. writing and brainstorming support;
2.3. research and analysis support;
2.4. visual and audio multimedia support; and
2.5. administrative support?
3. What are the respondents’ perceived challenges of using GenAI concerning:
3.1. accuracy and transparency;
3.2. privacy and ethical issues;
3.3. holistic competencies;
3.4. career prospects;
3.5. human values; and
3.6. uncertain policies?
4. Is there a significant difference between the respondents’ perception of GenAI when they are grouped according to:
4.1. sex;
4.2. strand;
4.3. frequency of usage of AI; and
Pablo et al. 245/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

4.4. academic standing?

5. Is there a significant difference between the respondents’ perceived benefits of GenAI when they are grouped according to:
5.1. sex;
5.2. strand;
5.3. frequency of usage of AI; and
5.4. academic standing?
6. Is there a significant difference between the respondents’ perceived challenges of GenAI when they are grouped according to:
6.1. sex;
6.2. strand;
6.3. frequency of usage of AI; and
6.4. academic standing?
7. What are the respondents’ suggestions to policymakers in effectively integrating GenAI in their education to enhance their
learning outcomes?
Methodology
Research Design
This research study employed qualitative and quantitative methods to gather data from participants to determine the perceptions,
benefits, and challenges of students at SMU Senior High School in using generative AI in education.
The quantitative method used descriptive-comparative research design, which involved using Likert questions to measure participants'
perceptions, benefits, and challenges of using GenAI in education. Furthermore, the research also used a comparative quantitative
research design to identify the significant difference between the respondents’ perceptions, perceived benefits, and perceived challenges
of GenAI when they are grouped according to: sex, strand, frequency of usage of GenAI, and academic standing. By grouping
respondents based on various demographics and usage patterns, the study provided insights into how these different variables may
impact students' perceptions of GenAI in education.
The qualitative method was used on the open-ended question of the questionnaire to gather in-depth insights and perspectives from
participants on their suggestions to policymakers on the integration of GenAI in education to enhance learning outcomes. This approach
helped to capture the nuanced perspectives and suggestions of participants, leading to more informed recommendations for the
integration of GenAI in education.
Participants
The respondents of the study were 274 students enrolled in Saint Mary’s University Senior High School (SMUSHS), Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya.
The study explored the students’ perceptions of AI as well as the benefits and challenges they experience while using GenAI in their
studies. A purposive sampling method was used in the study to select a specific group of respondents that use GenAI.
The students were classified according to sex, strand, frequency of usage of AI, and academic standing.
Table 1. Demographic Information
Variables Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 122 44.5%
Sex
Female 152 55.5%
STEM 188 68.6%
ABM 15 5.5%
Strand HUMSS 54 19.7%
TVL 7 2.6%
AD 10 3.6%
Always 15 5.5%
Often 61 22.3%
Frequency of usage of AI
Sometimes 150 54.7%
Rarely 48 17.5%
With Honors 157 57.3%
Academic Standing
Without Honors 117 42.7%

Instrument
This study adapted and modified the questionnaire used in the research study of Chan and Hu (2023). The research questionnaire was
composed of different questions related to the different perceptions, benefits, and challenges of students at SMUSHS in using GenAI.
These questions sought to know what senior high school students at SMUSHS do or have done as students. The questionnaire was

Pablo et al. 246/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

composed of 32 questions utilizing a 4-point Likert scale with a scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" and an open-ended
question to elicit further perceptions and insights from the respondents. In addition, the demographic profile and qualitative and
quantitative questions were integrated. Therefore, the research instrument was divided into three sections.
Section 1 included the demographic profile. First, under each component of the profile, aside from the respondents’ names, which were
optional, the following variables were required to be answered: strand, sex, frequency of usage of AI, and academic standing. Section
2 consisted of a Likert scale measuring the perceptions, benefits, and challenges among the students of SMUSHS. Lastly, Section 3
consisted of one open-ended question. It incorporated the respondent's own suggestions to policymakers in effectively integrating
GenAI in education to enhance their learning outcomes.
Results of Reliability Test
Table 2. Result of Reliability Test on the Perceptions of Students on Using
GenAI in Education
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.734 .729 8

The table above shows the reliability statistics of the part 2 of the questionnaire, the perceptions of students on using GenAI in
education. Based on the table, the Cronbach’s alpha is equal to 0.734. Taber (2018) states that Cronbach's alpha values ≥ 0.70 indicates
a high internal consistency which means that the questionnaire is reliable. The internal consistency of this part of the questionnaire is
equivalent to acceptable (α ≥ 0.7). Therefore, the questionnaire is reliable.
Table 3. Result of Reliability Test on the Perceived Benefits of Using GenAI
in Education
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.806 .809 10

The table above shows the reliability statistics of the part 3 of the questionnaire, the perceived benefits of using GenAI in education.
The table shows a Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.806. The internal consistency of this part of the questionnaire is equivalent to good (α
≥ 0.8). Therefore, the questionnaire is reliable.
Table 4. Result of Reliability Test on the Perceived Challenges of Using GenAI
in Education
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.848 .853 14

Based on the table above, the Cronbach’s alpha on the perceived challenges of students in using GenAI in education is equal to 0.848.
The internal consistency of this part of the questionnaire is equivalent to good (α ≥ 0.8). Therefore, the questionnaire is reliable.
Procedure
The researchers adapted and modified the questionnaire from Chan and Hu's (2023) study, which contained both qualitative and
quantitative questions relevant to the research. Some modifications were made by the researchers to adjust the content of the
questionnaire, specifically changing phrases such as "as an engineering student" or "as a medical field student" to make the
questionnaire more generalizable to senior high school students and adding an open-ended question. The questionnaire underwent
content validation and checking by the research validator. Pilot testing and reliability testing were conducted to ensure the validity and
reliability of the questionnaire. The research was conducted at SMUSHS, with the respondents being grade 11 and 12 senior high
school students. A written permit was addressed to the school principal to ask permission to allow the researchers to float the
questionnaires. Upon the grant of the request, the researchers conducted a survey by distributing the questionnaires among their target
respondents. The collected data was gathered and analyzed. The results were then interpreted by the researchers to generate answers to
the study's problems.
Data Analysis
The descriptive-comparative research design was utilized in this study. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to gather
data. The following tools and techniques were used to process the collected data:
Descriptive statistics, specifically frequency count and percentage distribution, were used to analyze the demographic profile of the
respondents. They were grouped according to sex, strand, frequency of usage of AI, and academic standing.
The mean and standard deviation of the collected data were used to analyze the perceptions of the students on the use of GenAI in
education, their perceived benefits, and perceived challenges of using GenAI in education. Tables 3 and 4 show the mean range and
its qualitative interpretation.
Inferential statistics was used to analyze the survey data and find out if there is a significant difference among respondents' perceptions,
perceived benefits, and perceived challenges when they are grouped according to sex, strand, frequency of usage of AI, and academic
Pablo et al. 247/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

standing. An unpaired t-test was used in analyzing the data based on the variables of sex and academic standing, while a one-way
ANOVA was used based on the strands and frequency of usage of AI by the respondents.
A thematic analysis was applied to investigate the responses to the open-ended questions in the survey. The collected responses on
recommendations for the integration of GenAI in education were divided into themes.
Table 5. Mean Range and its Qualitative
Interpretation for Perception
Mean Range Qualitative Interpretation
3.50 - 4.00 Highly positive perception
2.50 - 3.49 Positive perception
1.50 - 2.49 Negative perception
1.00 - 1.49 Highly negative perception

Table 6. Mean Range and its Qualitative Interpretation

for Perceived Benefits and Challenges
Mean Range Qualitative Description
3.50 - 4.00 Most Common
2.50 - 3.49 Common
1.50 - 2.49 Less Common
1.00 - 1.49 Least Common
Results and Discussion
This section presents the results, discussion, and implications that the researchers have drawn from their study on the perceptions of
students, benefits, and challenges of using GenAI in education.
Section 1. Perceptions of Students on the use of Generative AI in Education
Table 7. Perceptions of Students on the Use of GenAI in Education
Items Mean SD Qualitative Interpretation
1. I envision integrating generative AI technologies like ChatGPT into my learning 2.76 0.761 Positive
practices in the future.
2. Students must learn how to use generative AI technologies well for their careers. 2.79 0.811 Positive
3. I believe generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT can improve my digital 2.81 0.737 Positive
competence.
4. I believe generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT can help me save time. 3.09 0.684 Positive
5. I believe AI technologies such as ChatGPT can provide me with unique insights 2.97 0.772 Positive
and perspectives that I may not have thought of myself.
6. I think AI technologies such as ChatGPT can provide me with personalized and 2.89 0.777 Positive
immediate feedback and suggestions for my assignments.
7. I think AI technologies such as ChatGPT is a great tool as it is available 24/7. 2.96 0.784 Positive
8. I think AI technologies such as ChatGPT is a great tool for student support 2.86 0.797 Positive
services due to anonymity.
Overall 2.891 0.765 Positive
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – highly negative; 1.50-2.49 – negative; 2.50-3.49 – positive; 3.50-4.00 – highly positive
SD – standard deviation

The respondents’ perceptions on the use of generative AI in education are illustrated in Table 7. The overall mean on the perceptions
of the students is 2.891 (s = 0.765), indicating that the students have a positive perception on the use of generative AI in education. The
statement “I believe generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT can help me save time” had the highest mean (x = 3.09, s = 0.684),
followed by "I believe AI technologies such as ChatGPT can provide me with unique insights and perspectives that I may not have
thought of myself" (x = 2.97, s = 0.772) and "I think AI technologies such as ChatGPT is a great tool as it is available 24/7" (x = 2.96,
s = 0.784). Meanwhile, the statements with the lowest score are: “I envision integrating generative AI technologies like ChatGPT into
my learning practices in the future” (x = 2.76, sd = 0.761), "Students must learn how to use generative AI technologies well for their
careers" (x = 2.79, s = 0.811), and "I believe generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT can improve my digital influence" (x =
2.81, s = 0.737). This implies that there is a generally positive perception of the availability and usefulness of AI technologies but less
enthusiasm toward integrating them into learning practices or seeing them as essential for career success. A positive perception among
the students may mean that they recognize the potential benefits of generative AI technologies but may need more guidance on how to
effectively incorporate them into their learning and future careers. Several authors support the findings of this study. Obenza et al.
(2023) found that there is a significant positive perception and utilization of GenAI technologies in terms of participants' views and
comprehension of GenAI, attitudes toward practical usage, perceptions of benefits and drawbacks, perspectives influenced by their
current locations, knowledge of generative AI technologies, and willingness to engage with such technologies. The study of Ajlouni et
al. (2023) indicates a clear positive perception towards GenAI as a valuable learning tool. Furthermore, in alignment with the findings
of Duong et al. (2023), students’ express positivity towards implementing AI chatbots in their academic activities.

Pablo et al. 248/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Section 2. Perceived Benefits of Students on the Use of GenAI

Table 8. Perceived Benefits of Students on the Use of GenAI in Education
Items Mean SD Qualitative Interpretation
Personalized and Immediate Learning Support
1. When I have doubt and couldn’t find other people to help me out, ChatGPT seems 2.97 0.795 Common
like a good option.
2. It would be useful if ChatGPT could help me find the most effective solution when 2.95 0.771 Common
I am checking my finished homework. This way of using it would help me
improve my depth of thinking and understanding.
Total 2.96 0.783 Common
Writing and Brainstorming Support
3. It’ll be convenient to ask ChatGPT some general questions and even get inspired 2.96 0.755 Common
by it.
4. I would use it to help improve my writing (grammar, paraphrasing…), consult 3.10 0.752 Common
some questions or let it give some feedback on my writing.
Total 3.03 0.754 Common
Research and Analysis Support
5. In research, its ability to acquire, compile, and consolidate information can 2.77 0.816 Common
facilitate literature searching, summarize readings, and even generate hypotheses
based on data analysis.
6. It also contributes to data collection and analysis. I use it to save resources in data 2.65 0.813 Common
collection and initial analysis.
Total 2.71 0.815 Common
Visual and Audio Multi-media Support
7. I mainly played around with DALL-E, stable diffusion, and other AI art 2.18 0.846 Less Common
technologies, which generate images based on a prompt.
8. When we have no clue how to visualize stuff, it can offer samples and insights. 2.87 0.792 Common
9. It may be used for text-to-image generation AI like stable diffusion at home to 2.64 0.846 Common
create artwork.
Total 2.56 0.828 Common
Administrative Support
10. Concerning “repetitive or non-creative” tasks, tedious administrative work will be 2.67 0.790 Common
handled by AI efficiently.
Overall 2.773 0.798 Common
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common
SD – standard deviation

Personalized and Immediate Learning Support

Table 8 shows the perceptions of students on the benefits of GenAI as personalized and immediate learning support. It can be seen that
the students have a common perception (x = 2.96, s = 0.783) on GenAI’s benefit as a learning support. The statement “When I have
doubt and couldn’t find other people to help me out, ChatGPT seems like a good option” has a slightly higher mean (x = 2.97, s =
0.795) than the statement “It would be useful if ChatGPT could help me find the most effective solution when I am checking my
finished homework. This way of using it would help me improve my depth of thinking and understanding” with a mean of 2.95. This
implies that students generally agree that GenAI is a helpful resource when they are unable to find assistance from others. Farhi et al.
(2023) discovered that students use GenAI to achieve remarkable performance in wide range of application fields, including writing
coherent material and essays, answering as a chatbot, decrypting languages, responding to queries, and aiding with assignments and
projects. Furthermore, the study found that GenAI can assist students in solving complex issues, answering questions, writing essays,
and comprehending certain themes, hence expediting their learning process.
Writing and Brainstorming Support
The perceptions of students on the benefits of GenAI as a writing and brainstorming support are presented on Table 8. The statement
“I would use it to help improve my writing (grammar, paraphrasing…), consult some questions, or let it give some feedback on my
writing” has a significantly higher mean score (x = 3.10, s = 0.752) than the statement “It’ll be convenient to ask ChatGPT some general
questions and even get inspired by it,” which has a mean score of (x = 2.96, s = 0.755). The former statement also has the highest mean
score among all the statements. This implies that the students prioritize the quality improvement in their writing when using GenAI
over the convenience it offers. This corroborates with the study of Kim et al. (2024), which reported that students perceived GenAI as
an active agent in their academic writing tasks and recognized the benefits of GenAI-assisted writing. These results imply that students
have a positive perception of GenAI's function in academic writing.
Research and Analysis Support
Table 8 also presents the perceptions of students on the benefits of GenAI as research and analysis support. It can be seen that the
Pablo et al. 249/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

statement “It also contributes to data collection and analysis. I use it to save resources in data collection and initial analysis” has a lower
mean score (x = 2.65, s = 0.813) than the statement “In research, its ability to acquire, compile, and consolidate information can
facilitate literature searching, summarize readings, and even generate hypotheses based on data analysis” (x = 2.77, s = 0.816). This
suggests that the students see GenAI as less helpful for collecting and analyzing data compared to its ability to help with finding and
organizing information, summarizing readings, and coming up with hypotheses. The reason for this could be that GenAI as a tool is
more reliable for tasks such as finding and organizing information for its ability to go through large amounts of information online,
compared to tasks such as collecting and analyzing data, which require different skill sets and levels of human intervention. This
corroborates with the study of Berg (2023) which found that GenAI tools are seen to be excellent research aids for creating ideas,
synthesizing knowledge, and summarizing large amounts of text data to assist researchers in analyzing data and writing.
Visual and Audio Multi-Media Support
The perceived benefits of the students on GenAI as a visual and audio multi-media support can be observed on Table 8. The overall
mean shows that the students have a common perception with regard to the effectiveness of incorporating visual and audio multi-media
support in their learning experience. The statement “When we have no clue how to visualize stuff, it can offer samples and insights”
has the highest mean score (x = 2.87, s = 0.792), followed by “It may be used for text-to-image generation AI like stable diffusion at
home to create artwork” (x = 2.64, s = 0.846). The statement “I mainly played around with DALL-E, stable diffusion, and other AI art
technologies, which generate images based on a prompt” (x = 2.18, s = 0.846) was less common among the students, indicating a
negative perception, and it also had the lowest mean score not only under this category but also across all categories of benefits of
GenAI in the questionnaire. This implies that students find GenAI most helpful when they are provided with samples and insights for
visualizing concepts. However, they are not as interested in experimenting with AI art tools like DALL-E, which can generate images
through prompts. This could be because of the lack of need of students for these specific types of tools, which are also not as well-
known and widespread compared to other tools like ChatGPT and Grammarly. According to the study of Dehouche N. and Dehouche
K. (2023), text-to-image AI has the potential to change art education by providing new, cost-effective avenues for experimentation and
expression. While technology provides essential aid in the field of visual arts, it also introduces dangers and restrictions in terms of
creative purpose and expression. This is supported by the study of Hutson (2024), which found that AI tools—especially sophisticated
ones like Stable Diffusion and DALL-E—have a lot of potential to support formal analysis and in-depth examination of art history;
nevertheless, how they are utilized determines how useful they are. The varied responses and experiences of the students brought to
light the significance of accurate prompt engineering and a thorough comprehension of formal analysis. The difficulties encountered—
such as the inability to precisely capture intricate artworks and problems with excessively detailed prompts—indicate that present AI
algorithms are not yet capable of fully appreciating the intricate details of artistic expression.
Administrative Support
Table 8 illustrates the perceived benefits of the students' use of GenAI as administrative support. The statement “Concerning “repetitive
or non-creative” tasks, tedious administrative work will be handled by AI efficiently” is common among the students, suggesting a
common perception among students with a mean score of 2.67 (s = 0.790). This implies that students believe that GenAI can help
streamline administrative tasks and increase productivity and efficiency in academic settings. This is supported by the study of Chan
and Hu (2023), wherein students reported that AI may leave more time for them to focus on their studies and research by accelerating
routine repetitive tasks.
Overall, Table 8 presents the perceived benefits of students' use of GenAI in education. As an overall result, students have a common
perception regarding the benefits of GenAI in education, with an overall mean of 2.773. GenAI as a writing and brainstorming support
had the highest mean (x = 3.03, s = 0.754), followed by GenAI as a personalized and immediate learning support (x = 2.96, s = 0.783),
an administrative support (x = 2.67, s = 0.798), for research and analysis support (x = 2.71, s = 0.815), and as visual and multi-media
support (x = 2.56, s = 0.828). Specifically, the statement “I would use it to help improve my writing (grammar, paraphrasing…), consult
some questions, or let it give some feedback on my writing” under the writing and brainstorming support had the highest mean (x =
3.10, s = 0.752), while the statement “I mainly played around with DALL-E, stable diffusion, and other AI art technologies, which
generate images based on a prompt” under the visual and audio multi-media support had the lowest mean (x = 2.18, s = 0.46). This
implies that most students view GenAI as most beneficial when it comes to writing and brainstorming support, while it is the least
beneficial regarding the use of GenAI as a visual and audio multi-media support. A study by Li et al. (2024) shows that people are
willing to forgo financial payments to receive writing assistance, especially if AI can provide direct content generation assistance and
the writing task is highly creative. Furthermore, Tseng and Warschauer (2023) note that ChatGPT and AI-writing tools may deprive
language learners of essential learning possibilities, prohibiting them will also deprive students of essential chances to learn how to
apply AI to enhance their future schoolwork. They recommend that instead of attempting to “beat” AI, educators should “join” and
“partner with” it (p. 1). Both Barrot (2023) and Su et al. (2023) discuss the benefits and challenges of using ChatGPT for writing. They
emphasize that ChatGPT and other AI tools can provide a variety of context-specific writing support, including idea generation,
outlining, content enhancement, organization, editing, proofreading, and post-writing reflection.
Section 3. Perceived Challenges of Students on the Use of GenAI
Table 9. Perceived Challenges of Students on the Use of GenAI in Education
Pablo et al. 250/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Items Mean SD Qualitative Interpretation

Accuracy and Transparency
1. We cannot predict or accurately verify the accuracy or validity of AI 3.22 0.796 Common
generated information. Some people may be misled by false information.
2. The AI system is complex and opaque, which makes it difficult to understand 3.12 0.726 Common
how AI comes up with its decisions. It is always dangerous to use things you
cannot understand.
Total 3.17 0.761 Common
Privacy and Ethical Issues
3. AI technologies are too strong that they can obtain our private information 3.03 0.805 Common
easily.
4. I want to know whether I am dealing with an AI bot or AI-generated content. 3.14 0.750 Common
Right now, it is somewhat easy to detect, but as the technology improves, it
may not be so easy.
Total 3.09 0.778 Common
Holistic Competencies
5. The overreliance of AI may lead to a decrease in critical thinking and make 3.39 0.683 Common
decisions only based on the information that AI provides to them.
6. Some people may rely too much on AI technologies to generate ideas causing 3.51 0.681 Most Common
them to lose the capacity or willingness to think by themselves.
Total 3.45 0.682 Common
Career Prospects
7. As a student, I will probably lose my job in the future due to the advent of 2.82 0.894 Common
ChatGPT.
8. AI may replace the job that I’m interested in (e.g., GIS analyst) 2.63 0.972 Common
9. This development will pose a test for future graduates, since those who fall 3.01 0.798 Common
behind on this might have difficulty finding employment or catching up.
Total 2.82 0.888 Common
Human Values
10. AI could misalign with our human values and become a danger to us. 3.11 0.784 Common
11. It may contribute to social injustice and inequality. It may widen the gap 3.08 0.783 Common
between the rich and the poor and be unfair to those students who don’t use it.
12. AI might also might affect the student–teacher relationship, since students 3.09 0.807 Common
may be disappointed and lose respect for teachers.
Total 3.09 0.791 Common
Uncertain Policies
13. I am cautious. There should be implementation strategies and plans to 3.28 0.693 Common
navigate with these technologies.
14. A well-balanced usage guideline needs to be in place so that the benefits of 3.45 0.646 Common
the tech can be leveraged.
Total 3.37 0.700 Common
Overall 3.134 0.773 Common
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common
SD – standard deviation

Accuracy and Transparency

Table 9 presents the perceived challenges of students on accuracy and transparency on the use of GenAI in education. It is shown that
the students have an overall common perception regarding its challenge in accuracy and transparency. The statement "We cannot
predict or accurately verify the accuracy or validity of AI generated information. Some people may be misled by false information"
has a mean score of 3.22 (s = 0.796), which is slightly higher than the statement "The AI system is complex and opaque, which makes
it difficult to understand how AI comes up with its decisions. It is always dangerous to use things you cannot understand" which has a
mean score of 3.12 (s = 0.726). This implies that students are more concerned about the potential for misinformation and lack of
transparency in AI-generated content than they are about the complexity of the technology itself. This may be due to the increasing
prevalence of misinformation in today's digital age, leading to a heightened awareness of the importance of accurate information.
Additionally, the lack of transparency in AI systems may contribute to a sense of distrust among users, further emphasizing the need
for clarity and accountability in AI technology. This is supported by the study of Kumar (2023) that although the text output produced
by GenAI was largely original and pertinent to the issues, the generated responses reveal that the responses lacked personal perspectives
and contained inappropriate references. In addition, Narayanan's (2024) research on the transparency of GenAI revealed disparities and
inconsistencies in the transparency, comprehensibility, and standard terms of use of the wide range of generative AI companies
operating across different domains, necessitating standards that demand consistency in disclosure practices.
Privacy and Ethical Issues
The perceived challenges of students on the privacy and ethical issues of GenAI in education are illustrated in Table 9. It indicates that
Pablo et al. 251/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

the students have a common perception of GenAI's privacy and ethical issues. The statement "AI technologies are too strong that they
can obtain our private information easily" has a lower mean score (x = 3.03, s = 0.805) than the statement "I want to know whether I
am dealing with an AI bot or AI-generated content. Right now, it is somewhat easy to detect, but as the technology improves, it may
not be so easy" (x = 3.14, s = 0.750). This suggests that students are more concerned with their ability to distinguish between AI and
human-generated content rather than the potential privacy breaches of GenAI. This difference in perception highlights the importance
of addressing ethical issues in the development and implementation of GenAI in educational settings. This corroborates with the
findings of various authors. Most plagiarism checkers cannot detect AI-generated output, making it difficult to determine if a given
piece of writing is the author's original work (Peres et al., 2023). Within the context of AI-generated content, Chan (2023) states that
AI-plagiarism "raises the question of what constitutes unethical behavior in academic writing, including plagiarism, attribution,
copyrights, and authorship." As Zhai (2022) warns, the use of text-to-text generators like ChatGPT may jeopardize the validity of
assessment practices, particularly those that involve written assignments. As a result, widespread use of GenAI may pose a serious
threat to academic integrity in secondary education.
Holistic Competencies
Table 9 presents the perceived challenges of students on holistic competencies in the use of GenAI in education. The overall result
indicates that the students have a common perception of the challenges to their holistic competencies. The statement "The overreliance
of AI may lead to a decrease in critical thinking and make decisions only based on the information that AI provides to them" (x = 3.39,
s = 0.683) is a common perception among the students. Besides that, however, it is interesting to note that the other statement, "Some
people may rely too much on AI technologies to generate ideas causing them to lose the capacity or willingness to think by themselves,"
is a most common perception among students (x = 3.51, s = 0.681). These findings suggest that students are highly aware of the
drawbacks of relying too heavily on AI for decision-making and idea generation. They recognize the importance of maintaining their
own capacity of thinking and critical thinking skills and not becoming overly dependent on AI technology. This is supported by the
study of Chan and Li (2023), which revealed that there is a concern about students' over-reliance on AI tools, which could result in a
more disjointed educational experience in which students may do well in terms of knowledge acquisition but struggle to acquire critical
life skills. Furthermore, the students themselves understand that the development of holistic competencies—like communication,
critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork—is essential to their long-term success in both their personal and professional lives.
Career Prospects
The perceived challenges of students about career prospects with the use of GenAI in education can be seen in Table 9 above. The
students have an overall common perception about the challenges of GenAI in the future careers of students. The statement "This
development will pose a test for future graduates, since those who fall behind on this might have difficulty finding employment or
catching up" has a significantly higher mean score (x = 3.01, s = 0.798) than the statement "As a student, I will probably lose my job
in the future due to the advent of ChatGPT" (x = 2.82, s = 0.894), and "AI may replace the job that I’m interested in (e.g., GIS analyst)"
(x = 2.63, s = 0.972). This implies that students are more concerned about the challenges of keeping up with GenAI in their future
careers and falling behind in skills related to GenAI technology rather than the immediate threat of losing their job due to the
advancements of AI technology. It suggests that there is a recognition of the need to adapt and stay competitive in a rapidly changing
job market influenced by artificial intelligence. It aligns with the study of Hsu et al. (2022) which highlights the importance of self-
regulated learning in building employability among young people. It emphasizes that metacognitive and motivational self-regulated
learning significantly contribute to perceived employability, suggesting that students who actively engage in self-regulated learning
are better prepared to adapt to technological advancements, including GenAl. This aligns with the students’ perception that staying
competitive in a rapidly changing job market requires continuous learning and adaptation. The study also indicates that early career
maturity is associated with better self-regulated learning, which can help students keep up with the evolving demands of the job market.
Human Values
Table 9 also shows the perceived challenges of students on human values on to the use of GenAI in education. There is an overall
common perception among the students regarding the challenges to human values due to GenAI use. The statement "AI could misalign
with our human values and become a danger to us" has a slightly higher mean score (x = 3.11, s = 0.784), followed by "AI might also
might affect the student–teacher relationship, since students may be disappointed and lose respect for teachers" (x = 3.09, s = 0.807),
and "It may contribute to social injustice and inequality. It may widen the gap between the rich and the poor and be unfair to those
students who don’t use it" (x = 3.08, s = 0.783). The slight difference in mean scores suggests that there is concern about the negative
impacts of AI on human values across various aspects of society. These findings highlight the challenges of integrating AI into
education and the potential consequences it may have on student-teacher relationships and social equality. This corroborates with the
study of Eden et al. (2024), which underscores the importance of ethical foresight in AI integration to ensure that educational
environments remain equitable and inclusive. Furthermore, it also highlighted ethical considerations and challenges of GenAI, such as
data privacy, accessibility, and the digital divide.
Uncertain Policies
The perceived challenges of students about uncertain policies are presented in Table 9. The students have an overall common perception

Pablo et al. 252/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

about the uncertain policies on GenAI. It can be seen in the table that the statement "A well-balanced usage guideline needs to be in
place so that the benefits of the tech can be leveraged" has a higher mean score (x = 3.45, s = 0.646) than the statement "I am cautious.
There should be implementation strategies and plans to navigate with these technologies" (x = 3.28, s = 0.693). This implies that
students believe that having clear guidelines in place for the use of GenAI technology is more important than simply being cautious
and having implementation strategies. It shows a preference for proactive measures rather than reactive ones when it comes to
navigating uncertain policies related to GenAI. This corroborates with the study of Chan and Hu (2023), which indicates that even for
those students who acknowledge the beneficial effects of GenAI, they also believe that a policy is necessary at present. Uncertain
guidelines may lead to the misuse or unexpected effect of GenAI, which could pose threats to themselves and society.
Generally, the respondents’ understanding of the challenges of using GenAI in education is presented in Table 8. As presented in the
table, the overall mean (x = 3.134, s = 0.773) of students shows that the perceived challenges of GenAI in education stated above are
common perceptions among the students. The holistic competencies had the highest mean (x = 3.45, s = 0.682), while the career
prospects had the lowest mean (x = 2.82, s = 0.888). This implies that students show the highest concern about the negative effect of
GenAI on holistic competencies such as critical thinking skills and academic performance. Specifically, the statement “Some people
may rely too much on AI technologies to generate ideas causing them to lose the capacity or willingness to think by themselves” under
holistic competencies had the highest mean (x = 3.51, s = 0681), and it is a most common perception among the students. This implies
that students are concerned about the overreliance on GenAI, which can significantly affect their critical thinking skills and their
capacity to think by themselves. Moreover, the statement “AI may replace the job that I’m interested in (e.g., GIS analyst)” had the
lowest mean (x = 2.63, s = 0.972), implying that students are less concerned about the idea that GenAI might replace them in their
future careers. What is more interesting to take note of is that the overall mean of the perceived challenges of students on GenAI (x =
3.134) is significantly higher than the perceived benefits of GenAI in education (x = 2.773). This suggests that students are more
focused on the potential drawbacks and obstacles posed by GenAI rather than the advantages it may bring to their learning experience.
This may be influenced by the uncertainty and fear surrounding the impact of GenAI on their academic performance and future
prospects. This is indicative of a cautious approach towards the integration of GenAI in education, as students seem to be more wary
of the challenges it may present. This may imply that for students to be able to comfortably use GenAI, its benefits need to outweigh
its drawbacks considerably. It is important for educators and policymakers to address these concerns and ensure that the benefits of
GenAI are effectively communicated to students. This is supported by the study of Barrett and Pack (2023), which found that both
students and teachers responded more cautiously when asked if AI would have a positive impact on education. Both groups reported
concern about how AI might be used by teachers and students. Moreover, the research conducted by Obenza et al. (2023) highlights a
more nuanced perspective of possible constraints to the development of important skills such as problem-solving and collaboration. A
solid amount of concern was also raised regarding the possible decline in cognitive thinking and critical thinking skills brought on by
an excessive reliance on AI.
Section 4. Comparison between the Students’ Perception of GenAI when grouped according to their Demographic Variables
Table 10. Comparison between the Student’s Perception of GenAI when
grouped according to Sex
Sex N Mean p-value
Male 122 2.951 0.107
Female 152 2.844
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – highly negative perception; 1.50-2.49 – negative perception; 2.50-3.49 – positive perception;
3.50-4.00 – highly positive perception; P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 10 shows the comparison between the students' perceptions of GenAI when grouped according to sex. As shown in the table, the
p-value is 0.107, suggesting that there is no significant difference between the students’ perception of the respondents when grouped
according to sex. This implies that sex does not play a major role in influencing students' perceptions of GenAI. This may be due to
the fact that students, regardless of sex, have similar exposure and experiences with GenAI technology in their academic settings. This
is supported by the study of Tala et al. (2024), wherein gender did not emerge as a decisive factor in adopting AI-generated content
models.
This may be because of the widespread integration of technology in education, leading to equal opportunities for both male and female
students to interact with AI tools. However, it contradicts previous research findings of Elshear et al. (2024), which indicated fostering
ChatGPT usage was stronger in male than in female students. Therefore, further research is needed to explore the reasons behind these
differing results and to determine if there are any underlying factors influencing gender differences in the adoption of specific AI
technologies in educational settings.
Table 11 presents the comparison between students’ perceptions of GenAI when grouped according to strand. The TVL strand has the
highest mean score of 2.982, followed by STEM with 2.910, HUMSS by 2.898, AD by 2.738, and ABM with 2.692. All strands
received a qualitative description of "common" for their perceptions on the use of GenAI in education. The one-way ANOVA shows
a p-value of 0.502, suggesting that there is no significant difference in students' perceptions of the use of GenAI in education by strand.
This infers that students from different strands have similar perceptions of GenAI in education despite the slight variations in mean
scores.

Pablo et al. 253/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Table 11. Comparison between the Students’ Perception of GenAI when

grouped according to Strand
Strand N Mean f p-value
STEM 188 2.910 0.804 0.524
HUMSS 54 2.898
ABM 15 2.692
AD 10 2.738
TVL 7 2.982
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – highly negative perception; 1.50-2.49 – negative perception; 2.50-3.49 – positive perception;
3.50-4.00 – highly positive perception; P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

This suggests that despite pursuing different courses, such as business, social sciences, or STEM-related fields, all respondents
recognize the potential benefits and challenges that GenAI brings to the educational setting. This contradicts the study of Daher and
Hussein (2024), which found that the intention of use of college students of AI technologies in education varied significantly based on
their degrees. This implies that further research is needed to explore the factors influencing students' perceptions of GenAI in education
across different academic disciplines.
Table 12. Comparison between the Students’ Perception of GenAI when
grouped according to Frequency of Usage of AI
Frequency of Usage of AI N Mean f p-value
Always 15 3.092 17.645 0.000
Often 61 3.166
Sometimes 150 2.892
Rarely 48 2.479
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – highly negative perception; 1.50-2.49 – negative perception; 2.50-3.49 – positive perception;
3.50-4.00 – highly positive perception; P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

The comparison between the students' perceptions of GenAl when grouped according to frequency of usage of Al is shown in Table
12. Students who frequently use AI, categorized as always (x = 3.092) and often (x = 3.166), have higher mean perception scores
compared to those who use it sometimes (x = 2.892) or rarely (x = 2.479). As can be seen in the table, the p-value (p = 0.000) is lower
than the alpha 0.05; therefore, there is a significant difference in the mean level of perception of students who always, often, sometimes,
or rarely use GenAI. Students who always use GenAI have significantly higher mean perception scores compared to those who use it
rarely. This suggests that less frequent use of AI technology leads to a lower positive perception of the use of generative AI tools in
education.
An important finding in this study showed that students have a significantly higher concern over the perceived challenges of using
GenAI than its perceived benefits. This could be one factor contributing to the lower perception scores among students who rarely use
GenAI. These challenges hinder their willingness to engage with the technology, ultimately impacting their perception of the use of
GenAI in education. This is in line with the study of Stohr et al. (2024), which found that experience with ChatGPT was strongly
negatively associated with concerns about the impact of AI on future learning and ethical concerns surrounding chatbot usage in
education. Furthermore, the study of Alzahrani (2023) underscores the relationship between exposure, hands-on experience, and beliefs
about technological innovations in educational contexts.
Table 13. Comparison between the Students’ Perception of GenAI when
grouped according to Academic Standing
Academic Standing N Mean p-value
With Honor 157 2.889 0.942
Without Honor 117 2.894
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – highly negative perception; 1.50-2.49 – negative perception; 2.50-3.49 – positive perception;
3.50-4.00 – highly positive perception; P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 13 presents the comparison between the students’ perceptions of GenAI when grouped according to academic standing. The
mean level of perception of students without honor (x = 2.894) is slightly higher than students with honor (x = 2.889). The p-value
shown in the table is p = 0.942, suggesting that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of perceptions between
students with honors and without honors. This suggests that academic standing does not have a significant impact on students'
perceptions of GenAI. This may be due to other factors such as familiarity with AI technology or individual preferences influencing
students' perceptions more than academic standing.
The findings from Pellas (2024) support this as they indicate that creativity mediated the relationship between academic achievements
and attitudes toward machine learning, but its moderating impact was not significant. According to the study of Bhandari et al. (2021),
students' perceptions of technology use in the classroom can be influenced by societal views, personal preferences, and social norms.
This implies that students' attitudes towards technology are shaped by a variety of factors beyond just academic achievement.
Section 5. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Benefits of GenAI when grouped according to their Demographic

Pablo et al. 254/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Variables
Table 14. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived
Benefits of GenAI when grouped according to Sex
Sex N Mean p-value
Male 122 2.838 0.060
Female 152 2.724
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common;
3.50-4.00 – most common; P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 14 shows the comparison between the perceived benefits of the students when grouped according to sex. The mean score for
males (x = 2.838) is slightly higher than that of females (x = 2.724). However, the difference in means is not statistically significant
with a p-value of 0.060. This suggests that there is no significant difference in the perceived benefits between males and females. This
indicates that both male and female students generally perceive the benefits similarly. This may be due to similar experiences or
perspectives shared by both genders. This contradicts the study of Asma (2024) which showed that in efficiency, affect, and intention,
male students had significantly higher perceptions of the advantages of AI tools than female students. Additionally, it goes against the
Gesser-Edelsburg et al.’s (2024) study findings, which showed that males (31%) are more likely than women (24%) to see the benefits
of AI and GenAI. This discrepancy can be explained by the differing levels of exposure to and engagement with AI, GenAI, and
machine learning in academic and professional contexts, particularly in historically male-dominated professions. This suggests that
there may be other factors at play influencing the differing perceptions of AI tools between male and female students, such as individual
interests or exposure to technology. Hence, further research could explore these potential factors to gain a deeper understanding of the
gender differences in perceptions of AI tools.
Table 15. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Benefits of GenAI
when grouped according to Strand
Strand N Mean f p-value
STEM 188 2.788 0.928 0.448
HUMSS 54 2.735
ABM 15 2.700
AD 10 2.650
TVL 7 3.057
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common;
P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

As shown in Table 15, the mean scores for the different strands vary, with the highest mean score belonging to TVL at 3.057, followed
by STEM at 2.788, HUMSS at 2.735, ABM at 2.700, and AD at 2.650. With a p-value of 0.448, there is no significant difference in
the perceptions of the benefits of GenAI among the different strands. This implies that students generally have the same perceptions of
the benefits of GenAI regardless of their strand, indicating a consistent understanding and appreciation of its benefits among students
from various disciplines. This uniform perception can contribute to a more cohesive integration of AI technology in education,
regardless of the specific field of study. According to studies by Bisdas et al. (2021), Gong et al. (2019), and Sit et al. (2020), the
majority of students felt that artificial intelligence (AI) has a significant influence on their fields and future careers. They also stated
that they intended to use AI in their education and future practice (Bisdas et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022). As a result, they see AI
integration as a crucial component of university curricula (Abdelwahab et al., 2022; Bisdas et al., 2021; Gong et al., 2019; Yüzbaşioğlu,
2021).
Table 16. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Benefits of GenAI
when grouped according to Frequency of Usage of AI
Frequency of Usage of AI N Mean f p-value
Always 15 2.867 7.876 0.000
Often 61 2.971
Sometimes 150 2.765
Rarely 48 2.527
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common;
P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

The comparison between the students' perceived benefits of GenAI, when grouped according to the frequency of usage, is shown in
Table 16. Students who use GenAI often had the highest mean, with a mean score of 2.971, while those who rarely use GenAI had the
lowest mean score of 2.527, indicating that those who use GenAI more frequently tend to perceive more benefits compared to those
who use it rarely. This suggests that increased usage of GenAI may lead to a greater understanding and appreciation of its advantages.
This may be due to the fact that frequent users have more opportunities to explore and experience the benefits of GenAI, leading to a
more positive perception overall. Chan and Hu (2023) reported that students assess the potential benefits of utilizing GenAI in teaching
and learning positively, depending on aspects such as understanding of GenAI and frequency of use. It was discovered that exposure
to these technologies and hands-on experience might help students better grasp and adopt GenAI.
Table 17. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Benefits of GenAI
Pablo et al. 255/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

when grouped according to Academic Standing

Academic Standing N Mean p-value
With Honor 157 2.767 0.144
Without Honor 117 2.826
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common;
P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 17 shows the comparison between the students’ perceived benefits of GenAI when grouped according to their academic standing.
As can be seen in the table, students without honors (x = 2.826) have a slightly higher mean score compared to students with honors (x
= 2.767). The difference in mean scores between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.144), indicating that academic
standing does not have a significant impact on how students perceive the benefits of GenAI. This suggests that regardless of academic
achievement, students generally view GenAI positively based on their knowledge and experience with the technology. This implies
that the tools and capabilities of GenAI prove to be useful and beneficial to students in terms of their academic achievements, regardless
of their academic status. In relation to the findings in Baidoo-Anu et al.’s (2024) study, students of different backgrounds of education
have a generally positive perception toward the benefits of ChatGPT as a learning tool that helped them to improve their overall
academic performance. This indicates that AI-powered tools like ChatGPT have the potential to bridge educational gaps and support
students in their learning journey.
Section 6. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Challenges of GenAI when grouped according to their Demographic
Variables
Table 18. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived
Challenges of GenAI when grouped according to Sex
Sex N Mean p-value
Male 122 3.078 0.058
Female 152 3.179
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common;
3.50-4.00 – most common; P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 18 shows the comparison between the students’ perceived challenges of GenAI when grouped according to sex. The data reveals
that females (x = 3.179) have a slightly higher perception of the challenges of GenAI compared to males (x = 3.078). However, with a
p-value of 0.058, this suggests that there is no significant difference in the perception of students of the challenges of GenAI when
grouped according to sex. This implies that regardless of sex, students have the same perception of the challenges of GenAI. This could
be because of the similar exposure and experience that both male and female students have with GenAI technology, leading to a shared
understanding of its challenges. This contradicts the study of Yigitcanlar et al. (2022), which found that women perceived AI to be
riskier than men, while men and more experienced individuals will put more trust in AI. Nader et al. (2022) also found that women
were more likely to believe AI can replace jobs. These differing perceptions may be attributed to varying levels of exposure and
experience with AI technology among different groups.
Table 19. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Challenges of GenAI
when grouped according to Strand
Strand N Mean f p-value
STEM 188 3.135 0.580 0.677
HUMSS 54 3.081
ABM 15 3.267
AD 10 3.186
TVL 7 3.153
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common;
P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

The comparison between the students' perceived challenges of GenAI, when grouped according to strand, is shown in Table 19. As can
be seen in the table, students in the ABM strand have the highest mean score of 3.267, followed by AD with 3.186, TVL with 3.153,
STEM with 3.135, and HUMMS with 3.081. Overall, the one-way ANOVA test shows a p-value of 0.667, indicating that there is no
significant difference in students' perceptions of the challenges of GenAI when grouped according to strand. This suggests that
regardless of the academic strand, students generally face similar perceived challenges of GenAI. These findings imply that the
challenges posed by GenAI are universal among students from different academic backgrounds. This corroborates with Gesser-
Esselberg et al.'s (2024) study, which discovered that despite familiarity gaps, there was no discernible difference in the real use of AI
and GenAI tools across disciplines. This suggests that although knowledge of AI and GenAI may be uneven, its application has spread
to a wider range of academic fields. Despite differing degrees of familiarity, the universality of AI and GenAI tool usage emphasizes
the expanding significance of AI across all academic fields, not only those that are often associated with technology (Gesser-Esselberg
et al., 2024). The study of O'Dea et al. (2024) further elaborates on this. Depending on their field of study, students may have different
perspectives about the limitations of AI and how they intend to use it in their personal or professional lives in the future; however,
subject discipline by itself may not have a substantial impact on students' ethical considerations about AI, as evidenced by the lack of
significant outcomes regarding students' awareness and application of ethics in AI (O'Dea et al., 2024).

Pablo et al. 256/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Table 20. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Challenges of GenAI

when grouped according to Frequency of Usage of AI
Frequency of Usage of AI N Mean df f p-value
Always 15 2.838 3 2.541 0.057
Often 61 3.157
Sometimes 150 3.141 270
Rarely 48 3.176
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common;
P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 20 illustrates the comparison between the students’ perceived challenges of GenAI when grouped according to the frequency of
usage of AI. As shown in the table, students who always use AI have the lowest mean score of 2.838. While students who rarely use
AI have the highest mean score of 3.176. This could be because students who perceive the challenges of GenAI less tend to use it more,
while students with a higher perception of the challenges posed by GenAI tend to use it less. However, with a p-value of 0.057, there
is no significant difference in the students' perceived challenges of GenAI when grouped according to their frequency of usage. This
implies that students, regardless of how often they use GenAI, have general knowledge regarding the challenges GenAI may bring to
their education. This may be due to the fact that students are exposed to information about the potential challenges of GenAI through
various sources such as media, academic discussions, and personal experiences. In spite of lower usage, respondents to the study by
Gesser-Etelburg et al. (2024) acknowledged the transformative potential of AI and GenAI in boosting qualitative research, improving
healthcare outcomes, and informing social policy, albeit with a cautious approach to its application. This cautious approach may stem
from concerns about data privacy, ethical implications, and the potential for AI to replace human jobs. Despite these reservations, many
students recognize the value of GenAI in advancing society and are open to exploring its benefits while addressing its challenges.
Table 21. Comparison between the Students’ Perceived Challenges of GenAI
when grouped according to Academic Standing
Academic Standing N Mean p-value
With Honor 157 3.192 0.011
Without Honor 117 3.056
Legend: Mean Range: 1.00-1.49 – not common at all; 1.50-2.49 – less common; 2.50-3.49 – common; 3.50-4.00 – most common;
P-value: p-value>0.05: there is no significant difference; p-value<0.05: there is a significant difference

Table 21 presents the comparison of students' perceived challenges of GenAI based on their academic standing. The mean score for
students with honors is 3.192, which is higher than the mean score of 3.056 for students without honors, indicating that students with
honors perceived more challenges in GenAI compared to their students without honors. The p-value of 0.011 suggests that there is a
statistically significant difference in the perceived challenges between students with and without honors. This suggests that students'
academic standing has an impact on how they perceive challenges in GenAI, with those with honors having a higher perception of
challenges. This finding could be attributed to the higher academic expectations of students with honors, leading them to be more
critical of GenAI. The study by Dai (2024) found that the reluctance to use GenAI stemmed from a broader concern that GenAI did
not align with the educational objectives students valued most—personal growth through direct engagement, collaboration, and the
intrinsic satisfaction of working through complex challenges. Additionally, the same study discovered that students' lack of trust in
GenAI results and their limitations were a big factor in their decisions to not utilize them. These restrictions were mostly caused by the
intrinsic limits of GenAI models. Many students cited the resulting output's inaccuracy as a major drawback, especially when technical
precision was needed (Dai et al., 2024).
Section 7. Recommendations to Policymakers on the Integration of GenAI in Education
Table 22. Thematic Analysis of the Respondents’ Recommendations to Policymakers on the Integration of GenAI in Education
Recommendations Sample Statements Frequency Percentage
1. Add restrictions and 1. Adding or incorporating AI technologies in the curriculum could help 133 48.36%
limitations for AI enhance students’ awareness and learning about AI. Furthermore, having
limitations placed in the educational use of AI, like word or prompt limits would
help lessen the responsibilities of total creation of outputs by AI.
2. My suggestion is that policymakers should add limitations in integrating AI
in the field of education because if there would be limitations, students can
properly use AI to the extent of its supposed use.
2. Strengthen AI policies 1. The best policy I could think of is to have AI be taught in school and be 47 17.09%
reminded of the consequences of totally using AI for schoolwork. Moreover,
the AI policies should be strengthened and implemented, similar to plagiarism
policies.
2. To enhance learning outcomes, policymakers should make AI [policies]
strictly [stricter] so that the use of these sites could avoid adverse effects.
3. Fully support in the 1. AI helps millions of students. 15 5.45%
integration of AI 2. GenAI now is already good for education.
4. Integrate AI tools that Perhaps [policymakers should] only provide mathematic features or any subject 12 4.36%

Pablo et al. 257/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

only generate factual and that requires concrete information, facts, equations, and solutions etc., as
objective information service instead of creative services like art, writing, and the like.
5. Improve AI based on 1. Make it safer for students and teachers to use. We use AI with no kind of 11 4.00%
privacy, accessibility, protection making it easy for them to do dangerous things using our identity.
and transparency 2. They must be easy to use in all ages so that it can be used for everyone.
6. Create guidelines for AI I suggest that GenAI can be used for generating ideas or prompts the same way 9 3.27%
that Google and other sources of information can be used but strict guidelines
should also be implemented to prevent just blatant plagiarism, guidelines like
ensuring a less than 10% AI generated result when testing or checking if one's
work is AI-generated.
7. Proper investigation on Integrating GenAI in education must be challenging. The policymakers should 2 0.73%
GenAI tools investigate and check if GenAI does really help in education.
Total 229 83.26%

The thematic analysis of students' recommendations to policymakers on integrating GenAI in education is presented in Table 22. As
can be seen in the table, most students recommend that restrictions and limitations be implemented regarding the use of GenAI in
education (48.36%). Some of them also suggest that AI policies should be strengthened to ensure that students are not relying solely
on AI for their academic work (17.09%), as well as opinions saying that they fully support the integration of GenAI in education
(5.45%). Further recommendations include the integration of GenAI tools that only allow objective and fact-based information to be
generated. (4.36%), AI tools should also be improved for privacy, easier accessibility, and transparency (4.00%), policymakers should
also create guidelines on GenAI that focus on enhancing personalized learning and fostering critical thinking (3.27%), and a proper
investigation on the possible integration of GenAI in education (0.73%). Not included in the table, however, is the recommendations
on rejecting the integration of AI in education (8.00%). Lastly, 24 (8.73%) students gave no recommendations.
This implies that there is still some uncertainty among students regarding the integration of GenAI in education. Overall, the data shows
that there is a mix of opinions and perspectives on the use of GenAI in education among students wherein there are various insights
and suggestions on the use of GenAI. It is important for policymakers to address these issues, especially the potential integration of
GenAI with restrictions, limitations, rules, and policies implemented to ensure an effective and beneficial learning experience.
However, the opinions of students who contradict this should not be ignored, and their reasons and concerns must be adequately
addressed in order to integrate GenAI into education effectively.
In accordance with UNESCO's assessment of the progress of SDG 4, which aims to ensure an inclusive and equitable quality education
and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, it supports the implications of this study, wherein UNESCO harnesses the potential
of AI technologies in education and proposes important measures for the regulation of GenAI tools based on a humanistic approach,
including mandating the protection of data privacy and setting an age limit for the independent conversations with GenAI platforms.
This is further supported by the research done by Chan and Hu (2023), who found that students are generally willing to use GenAI in
their studies and future work. Though students have also shown to express reservations on the overreliance on this technology and its
effects on education and issues related to accuracy, privacy, and ethics, as well as comprehension regarding the possibility of GenAI
hindering critical thinking and creativity.
Conclusions
GenAI tools have significantly disrupted teaching and learning practices in universities worldwide. Although GenAI technologies have
been shown to improve student learning and accessibility, a scarcity of studies on students' perceptions of these tools to date restricts
the conclusions that can be made regarding the practice that students will do. By shedding light on the viewpoint of the students, this
study deepens the understanding of how GenAI technologies will influence students. The study shows that students have a positive
perception of GenAI in education, with it being most beneficial for writing and brainstorming support. However, they face challenges
with its integration, such as concerns about holistic competencies and potential loss of critical thinking and creativity. Intriguingly,
students perceive GenAI as having more perceived challenges than benefits, indicating a greater focus on potential negative impacts
rather than the benefits. Furthermore, the analysis found that students' perceptions and perceived benefits of GenAI in education were
not significantly influenced by sex, strands, or academic standing. Frequency of usage, however, was found to have a significant impact
on students' perceptions and perceived benefits, with those who used GenAI less frequently expressing lower positive attitudes towards
its integration and benefits in education. The analysis on the perceived challenges of GenAI in education though revealed that academic
standing has a significant impact on students' perceived challenges, with those with honors having a higher perception of challenges.
The research provides valuable insights to decision-makers in the field of education and to the important members of the academic
community, namely students and teachers, into the perceptions, benefits, and challenges of students when using GenAI. It suggests that
conducting seminars on its proper usage and practical applications could enhance understanding and improve educational outcomes,
bridging the gap between theory and practice. However, there are some limitations to this research that need to be acknowledged. The
study's small sample size and restriction to one institution, Saint Mary's University Senior High School, limit the analysis of students'
perspectives on GenAI adoption. Furthermore, the study's limited exposure to Gen AI in formal academic settings and lack of research
on its impact on learning outcomes are also limitations. Future research should consider these limitations to provide a more

Pablo et al. 258/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

comprehensive understanding of students' perspectives on GenAI adoption.

For the formulation of policies and guidelines on the use of GenAI in education, the conclusion drawn from this study is that a majority
of the respondents suggest that restrictions and limitations be implemented regarding the use of GenAI in education and that AI policies
should be strengthened to ensure that students are not relying solely on AI for their academic work. These policies are seen as effective
in maintaining the balance between human input and AI assistance in educational settings.
Recommendations
Based on the significant findings of this study, the researchers propose the following recommendations:
The school may use this study as a basis for the formulation of policies and guidelines on the use of GenAI in education to enhance
learning outcomes. This approach will help provide better quality education and act as a support to give personalized learning
experiences to students by utilizing GenAI technology effectively.
Seminars can also be conducted to inform the public, students, and teachers on the proper use, benefits, and challenges of using AI in
education and how it can positively impact student learning. Based on the study's findings on the perceived benefits and challenges of
GenAI integration in education, increasing awareness and understanding of AI in education can help stakeholders make informed
decisions on its implementation and maximize its potential for improving learning outcomes.
Policymakers may consider implementing policies and guidelines to ensure the ethical and responsible use of GenAI in education.
Government agencies such as the Department of Education could consider doing pilot programs to test out the use of GenAI in schools
in order to gather data to determine its actual effectiveness and possible areas of problems and improvement to help decide the future
direction in integrating GenAI in education. Collaboration between stakeholders is essential to ensure that GenAI is used in a way that
maximizes its benefits while minimizing potential risk.
For future researches:
Expanding the scope by adding a more significant number of samples may result in a more thorough understanding.
Studying how these technologies are incorporated into secondary education curricula and monitoring changes in students' perceptions
of generative AI over time using longitudinal designs may offer important insights into the long-term effects of GenAI adoption.
Prior experience with technology could be considered as a potential variable to investigate in future research, as it may impact
individuals' willingness to adopt AI in educational settings.
Exploring the potential ethical implications of using generative AI in educational settings could also provide valuable insights for
policymakers and educators.
Tracking the academic and career outcomes of students who have used or experienced GenAI overtime could help determine if there
are any notable benefits or drawbacks of GenAI.
Investigating the ways in which AI-driven tools and platforms can increase student motivation and engagement across a range of
academic subjects could shed light on the effectiveness of integrating AI in educational practices.
Analyzing the connection between learning outcomes and GenAI use could help identify areas where AI can be most beneficial in
improving student performance and understanding.
References
Abdelwahab, H. R., Rauf, A., & Chen, D. (2022). Business students’ perceptions of Dutch higher education institutions in preparing
them for artificial intelligence work environments. Industry and Higher Education, 37(1), 22–34.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222221087614
Alammar, A., & Amin, E. A. (2023). EFL students’ perception of using AI paraphrasing tools in English language research projects.
Arab World English Journal, 14(3), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no3.11
Al‐Badi, A. H., Khan, A. I., & Eid-Alotaibi. (2022). Perceptions of learners and instructors towards artificial intelligence in
personalized learning. Procedia Computer Science, 201,445–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.03.058
Ajlouni, A. O., Almahaireh, A. S., & Whaba, F. A. (2023). Students’ perception of using CHATGPT in Counseling and Mental Health
education: the benefits and challenges. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 18(20), 199–218.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i20.42075
Alzahrani, L. (2023). Analyzing students’ attitudes and behavior toward artificial intelligence technologies in higher education.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 11(6), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.f7475.0311623
Pablo et al. 259/264
 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Amyatun, R. L., & Kholis, A. (2023). Can artificial intelligence (AI) like QuillBot AI assist students’ writing skills? Assisting learning
to write texts using AI. English Language Education Reviews, 3(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.22515/elereviews.v3i2.7533
Atlas, Stephen (2023). "ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to conversational AI." (2023).
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/548
Baek, C., Tate, T. P., & Uci, M. W. (2023, December 12). “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions
of generative AI. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6tjpk
Baidoo-Anu, D., Asamoah, D., Amoako, I., & Mahama, I. (2024). Exploring student perspectives on generative artificial intelligence
in higher education learning. Discover Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00173-z
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Leticia, O. A. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential
benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484
Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to A.I.: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in
the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-
00427-0
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
Berg, C. (2023). The case for generative AI in scholarly practice. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4407587
Bisdas, S., Topriceanu, C.-C., Zakrzewska, Z., Irimia, A.-V., Shakallis, L., Subhash, J., Casapu, M.-M., Leon-Rojas, J., Pinto dos
Santos, D., Andrews, D. M., Zeicu, C., Bouhuwaish, A. M., Lestari, A. N., Abu-Ismail, L., Sadiq, A. S., Khamees, A., Mohammed, K.
M. G., Williams, E., Omran, A. I., … Ebrahim, E. H. (2021). Artificial intelligence in medicine: A multinational multi-center survey
on the medical and dental students’ perception. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 795284. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.795284
Bhandari, A., Purchuri, S. N., Sharma, C., Ibrahim, M., & Prior, M. (2021). Knowledge and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in
imaging: a look at the quantitative survey literature. Clinical Imaging, 80, 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.08.004
Bower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J. W. M., Petocz, P., & Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response
to increasingly powerful generative Artificial Intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information
Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12405-0
Chan, C.K.Y. (2023). Is AI changing the rules of academic misconduct? An in-depth look at students’ perceptions of ‘AI-giarism’.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03358
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such
as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and Millennial Generation teachers? https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02878
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2023). The AI revolution in Education: Will AI replace or assist teachers in higher education? arXiv
(Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.01185
Chan, C. K. Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). Deconstructing student perceptions of Generative AI (GenAI) through an Expectancy Value
Theory (EVT)-based Instrument [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01186
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (n.d.). The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532274
Collins, C., Dennehy, D., Conboy, K., & Mikalef, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in information systems research: A systematic
literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102383
Dai, Y. (2024). Why students use or not use generative AI: Student conceptions, concerns, and implications for engineering education.
Digital Engineering., 100019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dte.2024.100019
Daher, W., & Hussein, A. (2024). Higher education students’ perceptions of GenAI tools for learning. Information, 15(7), 416.
https://doi.org/10.3390/info15070416
Dehouche, N., & Dehouche, K. (2023). What’s in a text-to-image prompt: The potential of Stable Difusion in visual arts education.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.01902
Ding, L., Li, T., Jiang, S., & Gapud, A. (2023). Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor. International

Pablo et al. 260/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00434-1
Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data – evolution,
challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021
Duong, C. D., Vu, T. N., & Ngo, T. V. N. (2023). Applying a modified technology acceptance model to explain higher education
students’ usage of ChatGPT: A serial multiple mediation model with knowledge sharing as a moderator. The International Journal of
Management Education, 21(3), 100883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100883
Eden, C. A., Chisom, O. N., & Adeniyi, I. S. (2024). Integrating AI in education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations.
Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), 006-013. https://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2024.10.2.0039
Eken, S. (2023). Ethic wars: Student and educator attitudes in the context of ChatGPT.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4365433
Elshaer, I. A., Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2024). The moderating effects of gender and study discipline in the relationship
between university students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education,
14(7), 1981–1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14070132
Farhi, F., Jeljeli, R., Aburezeq, I., Dweikat, F. F., Al-Shami, S. A., & Slamene, R. (2023). Analyzing the students’ views, concerns,
and perceived ethics about chat GPT usage. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100180
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2023). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1),
111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
Gesser-Edelsburg, A., Hijazi, R., Eliyahu, E., & Tal, A. (2024). Bridging the Divide: An empirical investigation of artificial intelligence
and generative artificial intelligence integration across genders, disciplines and academic roles. European Journal of Open Distance
and E-Learning, 26(s1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2024-0008
Ghotbi, N., Ho, M. T., & Mantello, P. (2021). Attitude of college students towards ethical issues of artificial intelligence in an
international university in Japan. AI & Society, 37(1), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01168-2
Gocen, A., & Aydemir, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education and schools. Research on Education and Media, 12(1), 13–21.
https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2020-0003
Gökçearslan, Ş., Tosun, C., & Erdemir, Z. G. (2024). Benefits, challenges, and methods of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in
education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 19–39.
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.600
Gong, B., Nugent, J. P., Guest, W., Parker, W., Chang, P. J., Khosa, F., & Nicolaou, S. (2019). Influence of artificial intelligence on
Canadian medical students’ preference for radiology specialty: A national survey study. Academic Radiology, 26(4), 566–577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.10.007
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review.
Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
Harrer, S. (2023). Attention is not all you need: The complicated case of ethically using large language models in healthcare and
medicine. EBioMedicine, 90, 104512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104512
Heeg, D. M., & Avraamidou, L. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence in school science: a systematic literature review. Educational
Media International, 60(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2023.2264990
Hsu, A.J.C., Chen, M.YC. & Shin, NF. From academic achievement to career development: Does self-regulated learning matter?. Int
J Educ Vocat Guidance 22, 285–305 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-021-09486-z
Hu, K. (2023, February 2). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base—analyst note. Reuters. Retrieved from
https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/
Hutson, James, "Integrating art and AI: Evaluating the educational impact of AI tools in digital art history learning" (2024). Faculty
Scholarship. 578.https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/faculty-research-papers/578
Jangjarat, K., Kraiwanit, T., Limna, P., & Sonsuphap, R. (2023). Public perceptions towards ChatGPT as the Robo-Assistant. Online
Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(3), e202338. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13366

Pablo et al. 261/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Kee, T., Kuys, B., & King, R. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence to enhance architecture education to develop digital literacy and
holistic competency. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Architecture, 3(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.24002/jarina.v3i1.8347
Keleş, P. U., & Aydın, S. (2021). University students’ perceptions about artificial intelligence. Shanlax International Journal of
Education, 9(S1-May), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9is1-may.4014
Kelly, A., Sullivan, M., & Strampel, K. (n.d.). Generative artificial intelligence: University student awareness, experience, and
confidence in use across disciplines. Research Online. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol20/iss6/12/
Kim, J., & Cho, Y. H. (2023). My teammate is AI: Understanding students’ perceptions of student-AI collaboration in drawing tasks.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2286206
Kim, T., & Cho, W. (2023). Employee voice opportunities enhance organizational performance when faced with competing demands.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231190327
Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2022). Are two heads better than one?: The effect of student-AI collaboration on students’ learning task performance.
TechTrends, 67(2), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00788-9
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R. et al. Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing. Educ Inf Technol
(2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7
Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology, 307(2),
e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171
Kumar, A. H. S. (2023). Analysis of ChatGPT tool to assess the potential of its utility for academic writing in biomedical domain.
BEMS Reports, 9(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.5530/bems.9.1.5
Lee, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, P.-Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based chatbot on college students’ after-class review, academic
performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 1843–1865.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10142-8
Li, Z., Liang, C., Peng, J., & Yin, M. (2024). The value, benefits, and concerns of generative AI-powered Assistance in Writing. The
Value, Benefits, and Concerns of Generative AI-Powered Assistance in writing. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642625
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök
or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Liu, Binghan. (2023). Chinese university students’ attitudes and perceptions in learning English using ChatGPT. International Journal
of Education and Humanities. 3. 132-140. 10.58557/(ijeh).v3i2.145. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373693120
Lubowitz, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, is impacting medical literature. Arthroscopy, 39(5),1121-1122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.01.015
Maerten, A., & Soydaner, D. (2023, February 14). From paintbrush to pixel: A review of deep neural networks in AI-generated art.
arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10913
McMurtrie, B. (2023) 'How ChatGPT could help or hurt students with disabilities', The chronicle of higher education. Available at:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-chatgpt-could-help-or-hurt-students-with-disabilities
Miao, F., and W. Holmes. 2023. “Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research.”
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research.
Mohammed, P. S., & Watson, E. ‘. (2019). Towards inclusive education in the age of artificial intelligence: Perspectives, challenges,
and opportunities. In Perspectives on rethinking and reforming education (pp. 17–37). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8161-4_2
Moqbel, M. S. S., & Al-Kadi, A. M. T. (2023). Foreign language learning assessment in the age of CHATGPT. Journal of English
Studies in Arabia Felix, 2(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.62
Nader, K., Toprac, P., Scott, S., & Baker, S. (2022). Public understanding of artificial intelligence through entertainment media. AI
and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01427-w
Narayanan, S. (2024). Decoding the digital fine print: Navigating the potholes in terms of service/ use of GenAI tools against the
emerging need for transparent and trustworthy tech futures. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.11845
Obaid, O. I., Ali, A. H., & Yaseen, M. G. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on scientific research: Opportunities, risks, limitations, and
ethical issues. Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics, 13–17. https://doi.org/10.52866/ijcsm.2023.04.04.002
Obenza, B., Salvahan, A., Rios, A. N., Solo, A., Alburo, R. A., & Gabila, R. J. (2024, February 13). University students’ perception

Pablo et al. 262/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

and use of ChatGPT: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4724968
O’Dea, X., Ng, D. T. K., O’Dea, M., & Shkuratskyy, V. (2024). Factors affecting university students’ generative AI literacy: Evidence
and evaluation in the UK and Hong Kong contexts. Policy Futures in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241287401
Olatunde-Aiyedun, T. G. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) in education: Integration of AI into science education curriculum in
Nigerian. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31699.76320
Peres, R., Shreier, M., Schweidel, D., & Sorescu, A. (2023). On ChatGPT and beyond: How generative artifcial intelligence may affect
research, teaching, and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijresmar.2023.03.00
Petricini, T., Wu, C., & Zipf, S. T. (2023). Perceptions about Generative AI and ChatGPT use by faculty and college students.
https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/jyma4
Pu, S., Ahmad, M. N., Khambari, M. N. M., & Yap, N. K., (2021). Identification and analysis of core topics in educational artificial
intelligence research: A Bibliometric analysis. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 16(3), 995-1009
https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i3.5782
Robinson, S., Yasar, K., & Lewis, S. (2024, October 18). What is a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)? Search Enterprise AI.
Retrieved November 30, 2024, from https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/generative-adversarial-network-GAN
Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives
and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11(6), 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887
Schönberger, D. (2019). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: A critical analysis of the legal and ethical implications. International
Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(2), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaz004
Sekeroglu, B., Dimililer, K. and Tuncal, K. (2019) Student performance prediction and classification using Machine Learning
Algorithms. Proceedings of the 2019 8th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology, New York, 2-4 March
2019, 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3318396.3318419
Siregar, F., Hasmayni, B., & Lubis, A. (2024, February 1). The analysis of ChatGPT usage impact on learning motivation among scout
students. ResearchHub. https://www.researchhub.com/paper/4484890/the-analysis-of-chat-gpt-usage-impact-on-learning-motivation-
among-scout-students/conversation
Sit, C., Srinivasan, R., Amlani, A., Muthuswamy, K., Azam, A., Monzon, L., & Poon, D. S. (2020). Attitudes and perceptions of UK
medical students towards artificial intelligence and radiology: A mutilcentre survey. Insights into Imaging.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0830-7
Slimi, Z. (2023b). The impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: An empirical study. European Journal of Educational
Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v10no1a17
Stöhr, C., Ou, A. W., & Malmström, H. (2024). Perceptions and usage of AI chatbots among students in higher education across
genders, academic levels and fields of study. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 100259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100259
Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
Sun, G. H., & Hoelscher, S. H. (2023). The ChatGPT storm and what faculty can do. Nurse Educator, 48(3), 119–124.
https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000001390
Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research
in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tala, M. L., Müller, C. B., Nastase, I. A., State, O., & Gheorghe, G. (2024b). Exploring university students’ perceptions of generative
artificial intelligence in education. Amfiteatru Economic, 26(65), 71. https://doi.org/10.24818/ea/2024/65/71
Tominc, P., & Rožman, M. (2023, June 16). Perception of artificial intelligence by students. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45643
Tseng, W., & Warschauer, M. (2023). AI-writing tools in education: If you can’t beat them, join them. Journal of China Computer-
Assisted Language Learning, 3(2), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2023-0008
UNESCO (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. MINISTERIO DE
EDUCACIÓN. http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/handle/20.500.12799/6533
Van Dis, E. a. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., Van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature,

Pablo et al. 263/264

 Psych Educ, 2025, 35(3): 242-264, Document ID:2025PEMJ3360, doi:10.70838/pemj.350304, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7

Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q, & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-
generated text for second language writers. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.440438
Yang, & Xiaochen. (n.d.). Foundations of generative AI. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-54252-7_1
Yigitcanlar, T., Degirmenci, K., & Inkinen, T. (2022). Drivers behind the public perception of artificial intelligence: Insights from
major Australian cities. AI and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01566-0
Y Yüzbaşioğlu, E. (2021). Attitudes and perceptions of dental students towards artificial intelligence. Journal of Dental Education,
85(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12385
Zawacki‐Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence
applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418
Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers & Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 2, 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025
Zhu, C., Sun, M., Luo, J., Li, T., & Wang, M. (2023). How to harness the potential of ChatGPT in education? Knowledge Management
& E-Learning, 15(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2023.15.008
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Keira Danielle B. Pablo
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Kale Gezler A. Cadorna
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Roman S. Cabanag
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Aaron Lucky B. Berganio
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Reine Patrize I. Roberto
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Jhoanna MJ F. Guieb
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Eloisa C. Barbieto
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Kristel Joy C. Dapiawen
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines
Lady Valen Charon A. Dela Peña
Saint Mary’s University – Philippines

Pablo et al. 264/264