GenAI Tools in Education Disrupt Learners Thinking Process: A Study for Education Sector in Sindh, Pakistan.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.15.03.02Keywords:
GenAI tools, Education sector, Sindh, Pakistan, Thinking ProcessAbstract
The study aims to investigate the effective use of GenAI tools in education that may disrupt the learners' thinking and problem-solving skills in the education sector in Sindh, Pakistan. The study focused on understanding the factors determining whether the use of GenAI tools in academic learning is productive or whether it is risk-promoting dependence on AI-generated solutions. In this context, the proposed model with four suggested hypotheses was developed from past theories based on technology adoption. For quantitative methods, 300 responses were gathered for data analysis using PLS-SEM techniques. In our findings, all constructs, such as PE, EE, SI, and FC, have a stronger impact on BI. This research contributes to the expanding body of literature on integrating technology in education, particularly in leveraging GenAI tools that negatively impact learners, reducing cognitive efforts and limiting opportunities for critical reflection and exploration.
Downloads
References
Strzelecki, A. (2024). Students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: An extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Innovative higher education, 49(2), 223-245.
Tiwari, C. K., Bhat, M. A., Khan, S. T., Subramaniam, R., & Khan, M. A. I. (2024). What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 333-355.
Sobaih, A. E. E., Elshaer, I. A., & Hasanein, A. M. (2024). Examining Students’ Acceptance and Use of ChatGPT in Saudi Arabian Higher Education. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(3), 709-721.
Bhat, M. A., Tiwari, C. K., Bhaskar, P., & Khan, S. T. (2024). Examining ChatGPT adoption among educators in higher educational institutions using extended UTAUT model. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 22(3), 331-353.
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive learning environments, 1-14.
Camilleri, M. A. (2024). Factors affecting performance expectancy and intentions to use ChatGPT: Using SmartPLS to advance an information technology acceptance framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123247.
Ramayah, T. J. F. H., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis.
Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
Goretzko, D., Siemund, K., & Sterner, P. (2024). Evaluating model fit of measurement models in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(1), 123-144.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-39.
Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2015). Structural equation modeling with the SmartPLS. Bido, D., da Silva, D., & Ringle, C.(2014). Structural Equation Modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal Of Marketing, 13(2).
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2024). Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4501-4520.
Strzelecki, A. (2024). Students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: An extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Innovative higher education, 49(2), 223-245.
Kim, H. J. (2023). A study on the intentions of ChatGPT users using the extended UTAUT model. Journal of Digital Contents Society, 24(7), 1465-1473.
Budhathoki, T., Zirar, A., Njoya, E. T., & Timsina, A. (2024). ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: a cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Studies in Higher Education, 1-16.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long range planning, 46(1-2), 1-12.
Sharka, R., Sedayo, L., Aldahwani, S., Alyamani, L., Budayri, R., & Qari, A. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption of teledentistry based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Cureus, 15(9).
Kassim, W. Z. W. (2024). Google Classroom: Malaysian University Students’ attitudes towards its use as learning management system. Brazilian Journal of Development, 10(1), 207-223.
Naqid, I. A., Mosa, A. A., Ibrahim, S. V., Ibrahim, N. H., & Hussein, N. R. (2023). Hepatitis B vaccination status and knowledge, attitude, and practice towards Hepatitis B virus among medical sciences students: A cross-sectional study. Plos one, 18(11), e0293822.
Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., Zhou, P., Kwon, Y. D., Metwally, A. H. S., ... & Hui, P. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100027.
Morgan, D. L. (2023). Exploring the use of artificial intelligence for qualitative data analysis: The case of ChatGPT. International journal of qualitative methods, 22, 16094069231211248.
García, E., Sarmiento, P., & Antonovica, A. (2022). Exploring AI integration in higher education: The case of ChatGPT. Journal of Educational Technology Research, 15(3), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedtech.2022.03.012
Sohn, J., & Kwon, T. (2020). Artificial intelligence in globalized education: ChatGPT’s role in fostering critical bilingualism. Asian Journal of Education Technology, 18(4), 88-99.
Hassan, M., Islam, R., Yusof, N., Nasir, N., & Huda, A. (2023). AI-driven tools and their impact on educational equity: A case study of ChatGPT. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.01.005
Al-kfairy, M. (2024). Factors impacting the adoption and acceptance of ChatGPT in educational settings: A narrative review of empirical studies. Applied System Innovation, 7(6), 110.
Maheshwari, P. (2023). Generative AI in Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges. Springer.
Bhat, M. A., Tiwari, C. K., Bhaskar, P., & Khan, S. T. (2024). Examining ChatGPT adoption among educators in higher educational institutions using extended UTAUT model. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 22(3), 331-353.
Romero-Rodríguez, J. M., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Buenestado-Fernández, M., & Lara-Lara, F. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 323-339.
Lee, T., & Hernandez, M. (2022). Generative AI and its impact on student learning behaviors. Computers & Education, 182, 104584. https://doi.org/10.
Brown, L. M., & Carter, P. J. (2024). Creativity and AI: Understanding the implications of generative tools in K-12 education. Educational Psychology Today, 38(1), 90-112.
Smith, J. A., & Johnson, R. T. (2023). The role of generative AI in education: Balancing innovation and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Technology Research, 45(2), 150-167. https://doi.org/10.
Jain, A., Shah, M. A., & Jiwani, C. K. (2024). A Study On Evaluating The Antecedents Of The Adoption Of Chatgpt. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 2243-2262.
Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M., Salim, N. A., Abazid, H., Malaeb, D., ... & Sallam, M. (2024). A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1983.
Emon, M. M. H., Hassan, F., Nahid, M. H., & Rattanawiboonsom, V. (2023). Predicting adoption intention of artificial intelligence. AIUB Journal of Science and Engineering (AJSE), 22(2), 189-199.
Budhathoki, T., Zirar, A., Njoya, E. T., & Timsina, A. (2024). ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: a cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Studies in Higher Education, 1-16.
Camilleri, M. A. (2024). Factors affecting performance expectancy and intentions to use ChatGPT: Using SmartPLS to advance an information technology acceptance framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123247.
Menon, D., & Shilpa, K. (2023). “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users' intention to Use the Open AI's ChatGPT using the UTAUT model. Heliyon, 9(11).
Masoomi, H. A. S., Dharejo, N., Mahar, Z. A., Nazeer, M. I., Khoso, I. A., & Shah, A. (2024). Significant Predictors Influencing the Adoption of ChatGPT Usage in the Academia in Sindh, Pakistan: Extension of UTAUT Model. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 14(4), 135-145.
Shah, M. H. A., Ali, Z., & Shah, A. (2024). Challenging factors towards the effective use of ChatGPT in Education in Province Sindh, Pakistan: Application of TAM Model. International" Journal of Academic Research for Humanities", 4(2), 86-94.
Shah, M. H. A., Dharejo, N., Shah, S. A. A., Dayo, F., & Murtaza, G. (2024, January). Designing a Conceptual Model: Predictors Influencing the Acceptance of ChatGPT Usage in the Academia of Underdeveloped Countries. In 2024 IEEE 1st Karachi Section Humanitarian Technology Conference (KHI-HTC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Rashid, K., & Mukhtar, S. (2012). Education in Pakistan: Problems and their solutions. International journal of academic research in business and social sciences, 2(11), 332.
Brookfield, S. (1985). A critical definition of adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(1), 44-49.
Chiu, T. K. (2023). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17.
Alasadi, E. A., & Baiz, C. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965-2971.
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), 43.
Schiff, D. (2021). Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: the future of artificial intelligence in education. AI & society, 36(1), 331-348.
Haseski, H. I. (2019). What do Turkish pre-service teachers think about artificial intelligence?. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(2), 3-23.
Alier, M., García-Peñalvo, F., & Camba, J. D. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education: From Deceptive to Disruptive.
Aberšek, B., Flogie, A., & Pesek, I. (2023). AI and Cognitive Modelling for Education. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Majeed, S., Khan, A. Y., Munir, M., Rafiq, F., Khan, K., & ul Shan, R. (2024). Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) in Academia: University Teachers’ Perspective within Pakistani Higher Education Context.
Naseer, M. A., & Shaheen, G. (2023). Significance of Critical Thinking through Education in Countering Violent Extremism in Pakistan. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Arts, 2(1), 140-148.
Hamilton, A., Wiliam, D., & Hattie, J. (2023). The Future of AI in Education: 13 things we can do to minimize the damage.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
