Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024, 16(4), ep536

ISSN: 1309-517X (Online)

OPEN ACCESS Research Article

The role of generative AI in education: Perceptions of Saudi

students

Aminah Saad Aldossary 1*

0000-0002-6706-4370

Alia Abdullah Aljindi 2

0000-0001-6808-6101

Jamilah Mohammed Alamri 2

0000-0001-6331-5307
1
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, King Faisal University, Al-Hasa, SAUDI ARABIA
2
Department of Educational Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAUDI ARABIA
*
Corresponding author: aldossary@kfu.edu.sa

Citation: Aldossary, A. S., Aljindi, A. A., & Alamri, J. M. (2024). The role of generative AI in education: Perceptions of Saudi
students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15496

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: 27 Jul 2024 Purpose: This study aims to provide an analysis of students’ perceptions of the role of generative
Accepted: 2 Oct 2024 artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools in education, through five axes: (1) level of knowledge and
awareness, (2) level of acceptance and readiness, (3) the role of GenAI in education, (4) level of
awareness of potential concerns and challenges, and (5) The impact of GenAI tools on achieving
the sustainable development goals in education.
Materials and methods: The study followed a descriptive quantitative methodology based on
surveying through a questionnaire. The sample consisted of 1390 students from 15 Saudi
universities.
Results: The students have positive perceptions towards the role of GenAI tools in education,
as students have a high level of awareness and acceptance of adopting these tools. In addition,
students are highly aware of the role of GenAI tools in improving their understanding of
complex concepts, developing skills, improving their self-efficacy, learning outcomes, providing
feedback, and making learning meaningful. The results also confirm their general awareness of
the concerns and challenges. A relationship exists between students’ perceptions of GenAI and
their scientific specializations, as students in computer sciences showed greater awareness
regarding concerns and challenges, whereas students in agricultural sciences showed greater
awareness of the impact of GenAI tools on achieving sustainable development goals.
Conclusions: The study offers valuable insights on GenAI adoption in higher education, also
there is an urgent need to consider developing appropriate use policies, spreading awareness,
and creating systems capable of detecting unethical cases.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, LLM, technology role, education filed, perceptions of
Saudi students

INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the prominent features of the 21st century, with AI
technologies contributing to significant qualitative advancements in various areas, including the education
sector. In recent years, AI has witnessed substantial research efforts by leading technology companies,
research centers, scholars, and academics, aiming to develop its fields, techniques, and applications in diverse
contexts. These efforts have contributed to the emergence of many new concepts, including generative
artificial intelligence (GenAI), a recent advancement that marks a turning point in the history of AI (Obenza et
al., 2023). GenAI generates new content through statistical analysis of vocabulary distribution and parts

Copyright © 2024 by authors; licensee CEDTECH by Bastas. This article is an open access article distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Aldossary et al.

(tokens) and common patterns, encompassing the production of texts, images, videos, music, programming
codes, and scenarios (Holmes et al., 2023). It’s worth noting that GenAI models have been trained on massive
datasets known as Big Data, collected from diverse sources, such as web pages, social media, reports,
conversations, media, and databases. GenAI models can be retrained on specific data within a particular
domain (Holmes et al., 2023). This technological development carries profound implications, including the
ability to continuously improve performance, adapt to individual needs, align with the sustainable
development goals approved by the United Nations to solve societal problems and achieve a better future,
enhance resource management, and promote environmentally friendly practices (Silva et al., 2024).
Several GenAI tools have been described as powerful innovations capable of revolutionizing the education
field (Silva et al., 2024). The utilization of GenAI tools in the educational context contributes to enhancing the
overall learning experience for students, delivering more personalized formats (Kalota, 2024). Additionally, it
improves students’ results (Sullivan et al., 2023) and increases the quality of the educational process, making
it easier, more enjoyable, and engaging (Jauhiainen & Guerra, 2023). In this connected context, higher
education institutions are facing major challenges related to adopting GenAI tools in curricula, as well as the
need to establish policies, regulations, and ethical standards regarding usage (Johnston et al., 2024).
Therefore, it is essential to engage students by uncovering their perceptions and understanding their
viewpoints, particularly because they are key stakeholders playing a pivotal role in the success of integration,
development, and policy implementation processes (Zastudil et al., 2023). GenAI is still in the discovery phase,
with limited research focusing on it (Kasneci et al., 2023). Studies focusing on students’ perceptions of GenAI
are also scarce (Chan & Hu, 2023; Johnston et al., 2024). Consequently, there is uncertainty within academic
environments regarding university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education. Likewise, several
studies have highlighted the need to explore students’ perceptions of GenAI in education (Bahroun et al.,
2023; Chan & Hu, 2023).
In the context of higher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the integration of GenAI is still relatively
new, and students’ perceptions of GenAI’s role in education have not received sufficient attention.
Undoubtedly, uncovering this aspect is important in contributing to the successful integration and utilization
of GenAI in education, including the establishment of appropriate and implementable regulatory policies.
Therefore, this paper presents an analysis of university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in
education, with a focus on their level of knowledge and awareness of GenAI tools and their level of acceptance
and readiness to adopt these tools. To provide a more comprehensive analysis, we have also analyzed
students’ perceptions regarding their awareness of the challenges and concerns arising from using GenAI
tools in education. To complete this picture, it was necessary to analyze students’ perceptions of the impact
of GenAI tools on the sustainable development goals in education.
This study contributes to helping fill the research gap by revealing university students’ perceptions of the
role of GenAI in Saudi education. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first in Saudi Arabia to examine
undergraduate students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education. Moreover, Studying the relationship
between scientific disciplines and students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education. Targeting a larger
sample size compared to most existing studies. Considering the diversity of GenAI tools compared to most
current studies, which focused only on Chat GPT. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following
hypotheses and questions:

Questions
1. What are university students’ perceptions of the role of generative artificial intelligence in education?
2. Is there a relationship between university students’ perceptions of the role of generative artificial
intelligence in education and their scientific disciplines?

Hypotheses
There is no relationship between university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education and
their scientific disciplines.

2 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

LITERATURE REVIEW
The Roles of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education
Due to rapid qualitative developments in AI technologies, academics and educational institutions are
interested in integrating these new concepts and technologies into educational practices. This integration is
seen as a crucial step towards creating efficient educational environments, improving learning experiences,
and developing skills and capabilities to build sustainable knowledge societies. In this context, GenAI tools
have reshaped education by providing innovative solutions and opening new horizons for more efficient,
effective, and inclusive educational practices (Bahroun et al., 2023). Numerous literatures have highlighted
the role of GenAI in education. One of the prominent roles played by GenAI is enhancing learning experiences,
achieved through the adoption of natural language processing techniques, LLMs, and GPT, enabling
immediate responses tailored to students’ needs (Silva et al., 2024). Text-to-text GenAI tools, such as ChatGPT
and Bard, can provide textual support to students by answering questions, addressing inquiries, simplifying
complex concepts, and offering individualized feedback based on students’ academic and cognitive levels
(Atlas, 2023). GenAI tools also enable students to engage in interactive conversations simulating real-life
situations, contributing to the practice of language skills in diverse and authentic contexts (Nghi & Tran, 2023).
Furthermore, these tools are useful in academic writing, including checking for errors and spelling, improving
sentences and paragraphs coherence, translating, summarizing, and conducting data analysis, thereby
enhancing the quality of scholarly works and scientific papers (Castillo-González et al., 2022). In the field of
programming education, ChatGPT has the ability to understand and analyze programming instructions,
assisting in error identification and prediction (Surameery & Shakor, 2023). In the healthcare education field,
GenAI tools have been able to generate personalized scenarios for real-life cases and provide immediate
feedback on students’ therapeutic responses to those scenarios (Sallam et al., 2023).
In a related context, text-to-image generation tools, such as DALL-E and Stable Diffusion, have proven to
be valuable tools in teaching artistic concepts in design and art disciplines (Dehouche & Dehouche, 2023).
These tools have added new dimensions related to expression, experimentation, prototyping, and cost. GenAI
also stimulates human creativity by enhancing various dimensions, such as divergent thinking, interaction,
and collaboration; it improves the quality and evaluation of ideas, surpassing the philosophy of knowledge
and expertise monopolization (Kalota, 2024). Additionally, GenAI tools can be employed in the early stages of
innovation processes, such as exploration, idea generation, and digital prototype design, leading to faster
improvements and lower development costs (Bilgram & Laarmann, 2023). These tools also enhance students’
self-efficacy and self-directed learning (Chan & Hu, 2023). GenAI tools have been able to play an effective role
in educating people with disabilities. For example, Kuzdeuov et al. (2023) confirmed the capabilities of
ChatGPT in supporting learning for the visually impaired by converting text into speech, which facilitates
access to digital content. It also has improved communication with and integration of students with disabilities
(Lyerly, 2023).
Despite the roles and advantages that GenAI offers in education, several previous studies have identified
challenges and concerns. The most prominent challenges are the ethical considerations of data privacy,
algorithmic bias, plagiarism, academic integrity, and intellectual property rights for works and projects
submitted by students. In academic environments, there is a clear need for more specialized software to
detect the use of these tools (Williams, 2024). A study conducted by Emsley (2023) examined the accuracy and
reliability of medical articles and reports generated by ChatGPT, revealing that out of 155 references
generated, 47% were fake, 46% were authentic but inaccurate, and only 7% were true and accurate
references. This finding aligns with Kumar’s (2023) analysis, which revealed that academic reports generated
by ChatGPT, though mostly authentic and on-topic, contained inaccurate references. The analysis also
highlighted that these reports lack the personal perspectives and beliefs stemming from emotional
intelligence dimensions. In a related context, Harrer (2023) explained that GenAI systems fundamentally rely
on data, so if trained on inaccurate, biased, or harmful data, it directly affects the accuracy and reliability of
the output. Additionally, GenAI tools are exposed to several cybersecurity risks. A survey conducted among IT
leaders worldwide indicated that 79% of them have concerns about the security aspects of these tools (Kalota,
2024). Furthermore, irresponsible and excessive use of GenAI tools can lead to a decline in students’ academic
self-efficacy, decreased levels of participation and human interaction, and a lack of authentic learning

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 3 / 18

Aldossary et al.

experiences (Williams, 2024). In addition, using GenAI tools can lead to a decline in critical thinking skills and
problem-solving abilities (Ruiz-Rojas et al., 2023).

Students’ Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education

In higher education, understanding students’ perceptions is of utmost importance as it significantly
impacts the quality of the educational experience provided (Cladera, 2021). In his 3P model (presage-process-
product) of teaching and learning, Biggs (2011) emphasized the importance of uncovering students’
perceptions and their influence on learning outcomes. Students’ perceptions of their abilities and their
educational environment have a significant and direct impact on their learning style (Biggs, 1999) and, thus,
on their learning outcomes. Students who have positive perceptions of their abilities and their educational
environment, including its content, teaching techniques, assessment methods, and educational resources,
are likely to possess confidence levels that enable them to adopt a deeper approach to learning (Biggs & Tang,
2011). Such an approach focuses on higher-order thinking levels, such as making connections and
relationships between concepts. On the other hand, students’ negative perceptions of their abilities and their
educational environment lead them to adopt a surface-level approach to learning, thereby focusing on recall
and memorization, achieving minimal results (Biggs & Tang, 2011).Therefore, uncovering, understanding, and
addressing university students’ perceptions and deriving real indicators from them will contribute to enriching
educational practices and consequently increasing students’ confidence levels, leading to the development of
their thinking skills, and improving their learning outcomes.
In addition, individuals’ perceptions are important factors in ensuring success in adopting technological
innovations (Al-Abdullatif, 2023). Therefore, students’ perceptions and views on technical innovations like
GenAI are essential in determining their readiness to use these innovations in educational practices in a way
that ensures maximum benefit (Kelly et al., 2023; Lokmic-Tomkins et al., 2022). It is worth noting that higher
education institutions face real challenges in devising methods and approaches to employ GenAI technologies
in curricula and in adopting appropriate policies (Johnston et al., 2024). Therefore, it is essential to engage
students by uncovering their perceptions and understanding their viewpoints, as they are key stakeholders
who play an active role in the success of integration and development processes (Zastudil et al., 2023).
Unveiling university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education will provide valuable insights for
teachers and administrators seeking to implement successful integration and development processes and
adopt appropriate and applicable policies.
Despite this, most literature has not examined students’ perceptions and viewpoints. For instance, the
study by Yilmaz and Yilmaz (2023) particularly focused on studying the effect of using ChatGPT on developing
computational thinking skills, self-efficacy in programming, and motivation toward learning. The results of the
study concluded that computational thinking skills, self-efficacy in programming, and motivation toward
learning among the students in the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. Also,
the study by Shailendra et al. (2024) proposed a framework for integrating GenAI tools into university courses.
The study emphasized the importance of restructuring curricula to align with the capabilities offered by GenAI
tools and empowering both students and teachers. Furthermore, it proposed a matrix to measure the
effectiveness of the integration processes. While Chiu’s (2023) study evaluated the potential of GenAI in
changing education from the point of view of teachers and educational leaders. One of the most prominent
results is the need to provide learners with appropriate skills for using GenAI tools, such as digital and media
literacy, and critical thinking skills. While the study by Bahroun et al. (2023) aimed to conduct a systematic
review of recent scientific research published between 2018 and 2023 that dealt with the employment of
GenAI in education, it highlighted the applications of GenAI in assessment, supporting personalized learning,
smart tutoring systems, ethical considerations, interdisciplinary cooperation, and responsible use of
technology. Moreover, the study by Baidoo-Anu and Ansah (2023) aimed to determine the potential benefits
and risks of integrating ChatGPT into educational practices through an analysis of relevant recent literature
and publications. It was found that one of the most prominent benefits is enhancing self-directed and
collaborative learning, as well as customizing formative assessment processes. Conversely, generating
incorrect data is one of the most significant risks.
Although there is a paucity of existing literature on student perceptions of GenAI tools in education, most
of it has not considered students’ perceptions and perspectives on a large scale, which includes large sample

4 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

size and explores differences among scientific disciplines as well as the diversity of GenAI tools. For instance,
Firat’s (2023) study unveiled the perceptions of doctoral students regarding the implications of using Chat
GPT; however, the small sample size of 14 and specific context of students specializing in education-related
fields remains a limitation. Similarly, Shoufan’s (2023) study aimed to assess the perceptions of 56 computer
engineering students towards the capabilities and challenges of Chat GPT, a small sample size with specific
academic backgrounds. Limna et al.’s (2023) study also featured a small sample size seeking to identify the
perceptions of 15 students regarding the use of Chat GPT in educational contexts. Haensch et al.’s (2023)
study identified students’ perceptions of the Chat GPT tool by analyzing 100 posts on the TikTok platform but
failed to consider the diversity of scientific disciplines. Some studies have larger sample sizes, but still face the
limitation of only considering one discipline or one GenAI tool. Yilmaz et al.’s (2023) study aimed to uncover
the perceptions of 239 science and mathematics education students towards the role of the Chat GPT tool in
the educational context. Meanwhile, Singh et al.’s (2023) study aimed to assess the perceptions of 430 master’s
students in computer science regarding using the Chat GPT tool in education and teaching. Therefore, this
study aims to fill the research gap by revealing university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in
education, targeting a larger sample (1,390) and taking into account the diversity of scientific disciplines and
GenAI tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Methodology
The current study followed a descriptive quantitative methodology based on surveying through a
questionnaire (Appendix A). This research approach aims to achieve a deeper and more comprehensive
understanding of social phenomena and experiences by providing a quantitative description of the attitudes,
preferences, and perceptions of the study population by studying the opinions of a sample of that population
(Creswell, 2009). Survey studies are considered reliable and are widely used in research with social and
psychological dimensions (Singleton & Straits, 2009). Furthermore, survey studies allow access to a large
segment of participants, as well as the possibility of generalizing results, and the speed and cost-effectiveness
of data collection (Creswell, 2009). Thus, this methodology was the most suitable for this study seeking to
uncover university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education.

Data Collection and Participants

This study aimed to uncover university students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education. Data were
collected from a random sample of university students at fifteen universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
from late March to the mid of May during the second semester of the 2024 academic year. Ultimately, 1390
complete responses were received. Table 1 presents the sample profile. females make up the majority 58%,
while males represent 42%. Regarding age demographics, the largest group falls within the 20-25 years
(45.5%), followed by those under 20 years old (22.2%). Other age groups include 26-30 years (13.5%), 31-35
years (8.3%), 36-40 years (6.1%), and those over 40 years old (4.4%). In terms of scientific specialization, the
results present a varied landscape. Educational specializations emerge as the most prevalent (18.8%),
followed by computer and information technology (IT) specializations (13.5%) and health specialties (11.0%).
Additionally, administrative specializations (9.9%), social sciences and arts (8.8%), engineering (8.7%), and
natural sciences (chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology) (8.3%) are also notable. Tourism and archeology
specializations (7.1%), agricultural and food sciences (7.3%), and law specializations account for (6.7%).

Measurement
In this study, a questionnaire was designed as a data collection tool to uncover university students’
perceptions of the role of GenAI in education. Questionnaire preparation involved several steps, including
drafting based on the study’s objectives; a comprehensive review of tools, findings, and recommendations
from numerous relevant studies and official reports; and expert opinions and suggestions (Idroes et al., 2023;
Neshovski, 2019; Obenza et al., 2024; Sustainable Development, 2024; Williams, 2024). The final questionnaire
consisted of 38 statements distributed across six main axes: demographic data (5 questions), level of
awareness and knowledge of GenAI tools (5 statements), level of acceptance and readiness (5 statements),

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 5 / 18

Aldossary et al.

Table 1. Sample profile (N = 1,390)

Characteristics n %
Gender Male 584 42.0
Female 806 58.0
Age Less than 20 years 309 22.2
20-25 years 633 45.5
26-30 years 187 13.5
31-35 years 115 8.3
36-40 years 85 6.1
More than 40 years 61 4.4
Scientific specialization Education 261 18.8
Administration 137 9.9
Health 153 11.0
Engineering 121 8.7
Natural sciences (chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology) 116 8.3
Computer and information technology 187 13.5
Social sciences and arts 123 8.8
Tourism and archaeology 98 7.1
Agricultural and food sciences 101 7.3
Law 93 6.7

the role of GenAI in education (13 statements), potential fears and challenges (5 statements), and the impact
of GenAI on sustainable development (5 statements). Participants were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree
= 2, and strongly disagree = 1).

Reliability
The analysis of reliability using Cronbach’s alpha indicates satisfactory internal consistency for the
questionnaire utilized in the study, as recommended by Hair et al. (2019). An acceptable level of reliability is
achieved when Cronbach’s alpha exceeds 0.70. Specifically, the knowledge and awareness of GenAI tools
scale, comprising 5 items, demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.833, indicating good reliability. The level of
acceptance and readiness scale, which consists of 5 items, showed a good Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.798.
Similarly, the role of GenAI in education scale, comprising 13 items, exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.918,
suggesting excellent internal consistency. Similarly, the fears and potential challenges scale, comprising 5
items, had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.718, suggesting good internal consistency. Lastly, the impact of GenAI on
sustainable development scale, comprising 5 items, exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.813, suggesting
excellent internal consistency. Table B1 in Appendix B shows reliability information for the questionnaire.

Validity
Validity refers to how well the items in a measure accurately represent the concept they are supposed to
measure. In this study, we assessed the validity of questionnaire items using inter-construct correlation
validity. This method helps us understand how each item relates to the overall score of its respective variable.
The results showed that, for items related to knowledge and awareness of GenAI tools, all correlation
coefficients fell between 0.677 and 0.833, each statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Similarly, items
measuring acceptance and readiness showed correlation coefficients ranging from 0.652 to 0.811, also
statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The correlation coefficients for items concerning the role of GenAI in
education ranged from 0.557 to 0.803, again significant at the 0.01 level. Likewise, correlation coefficients for
elements of fears and potential challenges ranged from 0.644 to 0.771, all statistically significant at the 0.01
level. Finally, items related to the impact of GenAI on sustainable development had correlation coefficients
ranging from 0.742 to 0.808, each statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Therefore, all scales were validated
and removing items did not increase alpha beyond the given value. Table B2 in Appendix B shows
information about the questionnaire’s validity.

6 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses regarding knowledge and awareness of GenAI tools
S/NStatements Mean Standard deviation Level Rank
1 Realize that GenAI tools can generate inaccurate output. 4.003 0.989 High 2
2 Realize that GenAI tools can generate output out of context. 3.846 1.012 High 3
3 Realize that GenAI tools can generate outdated output. 3.456 1.107 High 5
4 Realize that GenAI tools have limitations in handling complex tasks. 4.120 0.971 High 1
5 Realize that GenAI tools have limited emotional intelligence, which may 3.632 1.096 High 4
lead to inappropriate output.
Overall score 3.811 1.035 High

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses regarding level of acceptance and readiness
S/NStatements Mean Standard deviation Level Rank
1 Interacting with GenAI tools is easy and clear. 4.476 0.740 High 2
2 GenAI tools are useful in performing my learning tasks. 4.367 0.780 High 4
3 GenAI tools are innovative tools. 4.658 0.680 High 1
4 I enjoy in using GenAI tools in education. 4.117 0.866 High 5
5 I am likely to use GenAI tools for educational purposes more in the 4.448 0.760 High 3
future.
Overall score 4.413 0.765 High

RESULTS
Level of Knowledge and Awareness of GenAI Tools
Table 2 illustrates a comprehensive analysis of participants’ perceptions regarding knowledge and
awareness of GenAI tools. Measurement of this aspect sought to gain a deeper understanding of the extent
of participants’ knowledge and awareness of GenAI tools in terms of their philosophy, mechanism of
operation, quality of output, and limitations. Undoubtedly, this measurement will contribute to employing
GenAI tools in appropriate educational contexts. The data demonstrate a high level of consensus among
participants, as indicated by an overall mean score of 3.811 ± 1.035, falling within the range of 3.456 to 4.120.
This finding confirms that participants have a great deal of knowledge and awareness about the capabilities
and limitations of GenAI tools. Among the five statements evaluated, all received high mean scores, with the
lowest-rated aspect being, “Realize that generative artificial intelligence tools can generate outdated output,”
achieving a mean score of 3.456 ± 1.107. This finding implies that participants are generally aware of some
limitations in GenAI tools. Conversely, the highest-rated aspect, “Realize that generative artificial intelligence
tools have limitations in handling complex tasks” garnered a mean score of 4.120 ± 0.971, indicating strong
recognition of this limitation among participants. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of
understanding the capabilities and constraints of GenAI tools in educational contexts to maximize their utility
effectively.

Level of Acceptance and Readiness

Table 3 presents a comprehensive analysis of participants’ perceptions regarding their acceptance and
readiness to use GenAI tools. The results show a high level of consensus among participants, with an overall
mean score of 4.413 ± 0.765, falling within the range of 4.117 to 4.658, indicating their strong satisfaction with
the tools. Among the five evaluated statements, all received high mean scores, with the highest-rated
statement being, “Generative artificial intelligence tools are innovative tools,” achieving a mean score of 4.658
± 0.680. This score signifies widespread acknowledgment of the innovative nature of these tools within the
educational context. Conversely, the statement, “I enjoy in using generative artificial intelligence tools in
education” obtained a slightly lower mean score of 4.117 ± 0.866, still indicating a high level of enjoyment.
Overall, the findings point to a high level of acceptance and readiness to incorporate GenAI tools into
educational practices, emphasizing the tools’ perceived utility and innovation. These results suggest a
promising trajectory for the continued utilization and advancement of these tools in educational contexts.

The Role of GenAI in Education

Table 4 illustrates a comprehensive assessment of participants’ perspectives on the role of GenAI in
education. The data exhibit a high level of consensus among respondents, with an overall mean score of 4.221

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 7 / 18

Aldossary et al.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses regarding the role of GenAI in education
S/N Statements Mean Standard deviation Level Rank
1 GenAI tools contribute to my access to diverse educational resources. 4.194 0.860 High 11
2 GenAI tools contribute to improving my understanding of complex 4.484 0.717 High 1
academic vocabulary and concepts.
3 Employing GenAI tools in teaching strategies contributes to saving time 4.374 0.693 High 2
and effort.
4 GenAI tools contribute to enhancing my learning outcomes. 4.225 0.846 High 9
5 GenAI tools contribute to developing my critical thinking and problem- 3.510 1.159 High 13
solving skills.
6 GenAI tools contribute to enhancing my self-directed learning and better 4.321 0.808 High 3
access to knowledge.
7 GenAI tools contribute to providing feedback tailored to my academic 4.299 0.857 High 5
and cognitive level.
8 GenAI tools contribute to providing immediate feedback. 4.312 0.923 High 4
9 GenAI tools contribute to increasing the speed and efficiency of my 4.181 0.968 High 12
brainstorming process.
10 GenAI tools are useful tools for academic editing of scientific papers. 4.217 0.957 High 10
11 GenAI tools are useful in practicing language skills. 4.234 0.884 High 7
12 GenAI tools are useful tools for proposing real-life exercises and 4.290 0.889 High 6
scenarios related to study topics.
13 GenAI tools contribute to improving my self-efficacy level. 4.229 0.931 High 8
Overall score 4.221 0.884 High

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses regarding fears and potential challenges
S/N Statements Mean Standard deviation Level Rank
1 GenAI tools can limit opportunities for human interaction and 3.918 0.988 High 2
communication in the educational process.
2 GenAI tools can limit my critical thinking and problem-solving skills. 3.752 1.082 High 4
3 GenAI tools can cause a breach in the privacy, security, and 4.011 0.818 High 1
confidentiality of individuals’ data.
4 I will likely use GenAI tools excessively to perform educational tasks. 3.795 1.168 High 3
5 I may use GenAI tools without following ethical principles and 3.131 1.532 Moderate 5
guidelines.
Overall score 3.721 1.118 High

± 0.884, falling within the range of 3.510 to 4.484, indicating substantial satisfaction with these tools. It is worth
noting that all thirteen statements received high mean scores, which reflects positive perceptions of the
impact of these tools on improving learning experiences, developing skills, and building capabilities. It also
reflects an understanding of how to benefit from these tools in various educational contexts. In particular,
“Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to improving my understanding of complex academic
vocabulary and concepts” received the highest mean score of 4.484 ± 0.717, emphasizing their efficacy in
enhancing comprehension. Conversely, the item, “Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to
developing my critical thinking and problem-solving skills” obtained a lower mean score of 3.510 ± 1.159,
suggesting a potential area for improvement. Given the roles that GenAI tools provide in different educational
contexts and the significant awareness students have of these roles, teachers, educational institutions, and
developers may need to address the shortcomings of these tools and employ them in a way that ensures full
benefit.

Fears and Potential Challenges

Table 5 illustrates an in-depth examination of participants’ perspectives on potential challenges regarding
GenAI tools in education. The results indicate a high level of consensus among participants, with an overall
mean score of 3.721 ± 1.118, falling within the range of 3.131 to 4.011, which indicates that there is significant
awareness of the potential challenges of GenAI tools in education. Among the fears expressed, the highest
mean score was for the concern that GenAI tools could potentially lead to violations of individuals’ privacy
and data security (4.011 ± 0.818), followed by concerns about limiting opportunities for human interaction
and communication (3.918 ± 0.988). Interestingly, the lowest-rated concern was the possibility of using GenAI

8 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses regarding the impact of GenAI on sustainable
development
S/N Statements Mean Standard deviation Level Rank
1 GenAI tools can contribute to enhancing equitable and transparent access 4.081 0.787 High 2
to educational resources.
2 GenAI tools can contribute to promoting lifelong learning opportunities. 4.384 0.925 High 1
3 GenAI tools can contribute to opening new horizons for thinking about 4.030 0.949 High 4
ways and methods to overcome the economic and environmental
challenges facing societies, such as climate change, poverty, and hunger.
4 GenAI tools can contribute to eliminating gender disparities in education. 3.990 1.807 High 5
5 GenAI tools can contribute to empowering young people and adults with 4.080 0.927 High 3
technical and vocational skills, qualifying them to work in appropriate jobs
or engage in self-employment.
Overall score 4.113 1.079 High

tools without adhering to ethical principles, which received a moderate level of agreement (3.131 ± 1.532);
this finding indicates a lack of sufficient awareness of the importance of adhering to ethical principles when
using GenAI tools in educational contexts. Undoubtedly, this phenomenon represents a real challenge for
academic institutions, requiring appropriate policies and awareness raising among learners about the
importance of ethical principles in using these tools in educational contexts.

The Impact of GenAI Tools on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in Education
Table 6 illustrates a comprehensive assessment of participants’ perspectives on the impact of GenAI tools
on sustainable development. The results unveiled a high level of agreement among participants, with an
overall mean score of 4.113 ± 1.079, which suggests a significant positive view of GenAI tools’ potential in
fostering sustainable development. Among the five statements evaluated, all received high mean scores,
indicating substantial agreement regarding their potential contributions. The highest-rated statement,
“Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to promoting lifelong learning opportunities,” garnered
a mean score of 4.384. In fact, this awareness may indicate the high probability of students using GenAI tools
to enhance lifelong learning opportunities. This usage will undoubtedly contribute to spreading learning,
knowledge, and culture among individuals, which will reflect positively on human societies. Conversely, the
statement, “Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to eliminating gender disparities in
education,” received the lowest mean score of 3.990, indicating slightly less consensus on this aspect.
Nonetheless, the overall high scores signify a general acknowledgment of the transformative impact that
GenAI can have on some sustainable development goals.

Test of Hypothesis
This study hypothesized that there is no relationship between university students’ perceptions of the role
of GenAI in education and their scientific disciplines. To test this hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA test was
conducted. The results (presented in Table B3 in Appendix B) show that knowledge and awareness of GenAI
tools across various scientific disciplines yielded non-significant differences among groups (F = 1.935, p >
0.05). Similarly, for the level of acceptance and readiness towards GenAI tools, the ANOVA test did not show
statistically significant variations across disciplines (F = 1.410, p > 0.05). Moreover, the role of GenAI in
education did not demonstrate significant differences among scientific disciplines (F = 1.195, p > 0.05).
However, fears and potential challenges associated with GenAI showcased statistically significant
discrepancies across disciplines (F = 3.067, p < 0.001). Among the educational specializations, computer and
IT specializations reported the highest mean fear and challenge score (mean [M] = 4.276), followed by health
specialties (M = 4.229) and engineering specializations (M = 4.122). These findings suggest that there are
indeed variations in perceived fears and challenges among different educational specializations, with
computer and IT fields exhibiting comparatively higher levels. Also, the results reveal significant differences
in the perceived impact of GenAI on sustainable development across various educational specializations (F =
3.167, p < 0.001). The results show that agricultural and food sciences students (M = 4.662) perceive the
highest impact, followed by tourism and archaeology students (M = 4.407).

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 9 / 18

Aldossary et al.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

GenAI tools have reshaped education by providing innovative solutions and opening new horizons for
more efficient, effective, and inclusive educational practices. Therefore, it is essential to engage students by
uncovering their perceptions and understanding their viewpoints, as they are key stakeholders who play a
pivotal role in the success of integration, development, and policy implementation processes (Zastudil et al.,
2023). This study is distinguished from existing work in that it focuses on a study of undergraduate students’
perceptions of the role of GenAI in education, targeting a larger number of students and studying the
relationship between different scientific specializations and its impact on students’ perceptions. In addition,
to our knowledge, this study is one of the first in Saudi Arabia to examine undergraduate students’
perceptions of the role of GenAI in education. The study provides new insights and data that can be relied
upon when implementing programs, policies, and development plans related to GenAI in education. This
section discusses the study results and their implications.

Answering the First Question: What Are University Students’ Perceptions of the Role of
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education?
In terms of level of knowledge and awareness of GenAI tools, the data indicate a high level of consensus
and positive reception. The findings also reflect a generally favorable view of these tools and their potential
value in educational environments. However, participants also demonstrate awareness of the limitations of
GenAI tools, notably recognizing the potential for outdated output. Conversely, there is strong recognition of
the tools’ limitations in handling complex tasks. These findings underscore the importance of understanding
both the capabilities and constraints of GenAI tools in educational contexts. This positive direction can be
explained by the fact that current university students are classified as “digital natives”; They have sufficient
ability to understand technology and awareness of its capabilities, and thus, they can deal with new
technology better, such as ChatGPT, Bard, Tomi.ai, and others. This interpretation reinforces the idea that
digital awareness is one of the most important attributes of a digital citizen (Bernard, 2011). Furthermore,
digital transformation, a program in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 (Digital Transformation, 2023),
has significantly contributed to spreading technical awareness among members of society, forming positive
perceptions regarding the importance of technology in improving the quality of people’s lives.
For the level of acceptance and readiness to integrate GenAI, analysis of participants’ perceptions reveals
strong consensus and satisfaction among participants. All data evaluated received high average scores, with
particular emphasis on recognizing these tools as innovative in the educational field. In addition to their ease
of use, perceived usefulness, and participants’ desire to use these tools in the future. While enjoyment in
using these tools showed a slightly lower mean score, it still indicated a notable level of satisfaction. These
positive perceptions can be explained according to the technology acceptance model theory (TAM), which
asserts that ease of use and perceived usefulness are factors related to the extent to which individuals are
willing to accept and adopt new technologies (Al-Abdullatif, 2023). In this context, the value-based adoption
model (VAM) identifies the main factors that indicate the extent to which individuals are willing to adopt
technology. These factors include perceived value, which encompasses benefits and enjoyment, as well as
potential risks (Al-Abdullatif, 2023). Accordingly, the results indicate that students perceive that the benefits
of GenAI tools outweigh the risks associated with them, and therefore students have an acceptance and
willingness to integrate these tools into their educational practices. There are positive perceptions regarding
the benefits derived from using these tools in educational environments, along with the enjoyment during
interaction. This is despite their awareness of the limitations and challenges associated with these tools. This
level of acceptance and readiness is undoubtedly a strong and encouraging sign for the success of integration
and development processes that can be carried out by teachers and educational institutions. Therefore,
efforts must be intensified towards developing theoretical and practical frameworks to integrate these tools
into educational contexts.
As for the role of GenAI in education, the comprehensive assessment reveals a high level of consensus
among respondents, indicating substantial satisfaction with these tools. What explains these positive
perceptions towards enhancing education, developing skills, building capabilities, and improving learning
outcomes is that GenAI tools support active learning principles (Salinas-Navarro et al., 2024). Because GenAI

10 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

tools allow students to ask questions, have discussions, and develop ideas; they also provide immediate
feedback. These tools enable students to interact with various educational resources, encouraging them to
build their knowledge independently and enhancing their independence and initiative. In addition, GenAI
tools can provide innovative and sustainable educational experiences to make education meaningful, such as
proposing questions or exercises about real-life problems related to academic topics and offering the
possibility of practicing language skills in realistic contexts. This is consistent with the theory of meaningful
learning, which emphasizes the importance of supporting the learner to connect new knowledge to his or her
existing cognitive structure (Cottingham et al., 2023). Moreover, these tools can be used to implement
problem-based learning strategies, which aim to equip learners with the knowledge and skills by suggesting
related problems (Schmidt & Moust, 2024). These tools stimulate human creativity, innovation, and
brainstorming processes while adding new dimensions to teaching in many fields, such as the arts, medicine,
programming, and working with people with disabilities. On the other hand, this finding emphasizes the
necessity of redesigning active learning experiences that are compatible with the capabilities of GenAI tools.
As for fears and potential challenges, the findings reveal notable apprehension among participants
regarding the use of GenAI tools in education. Privacy and data security emerge as paramount concerns, with
participants expressing significant unease about potential breaches. In addition, concerns about limiting
human interaction and communication underscore the value placed on interpersonal engagement in
educational environments. Although participants show comparatively less concern about adherence to
ethical standards, it remains a pertinent issue deserving attention. These findings emphasize the necessity
for proactive measures to address these apprehensions effectively. Safeguarding privacy, fostering
meaningful human interaction, and ensuring ethical AI usage should be integral to any GenAI tools integration
strategy in education. To improve students’ ethical awareness, educational institutions can focus more on
designing courses that address important ethical issues such as plagiarism, intellectual property rights,
privacy, and others. Implementing training programs on how to use GenAI tools responsibly and ethically in
different educational contexts. Establish specialized committees to adopt clear regulations and policies that
define mechanisms for the responsible and ethical use of GenAI tools. Encouraging academics to conduct
more research on the ethical challenges resulting from the use of GenAI tools and suggest solutions to reduce
them. Creating systems capable of detecting unethical cases. Dialogue sessions can also be held with students
to spread awareness of the importance of adhering to ethical standards when using GenAI tools. Through
such actions, educators and policymakers can navigate potential challenges while harnessing the
transformative potential of GenAI tools to enrich learning experiences.
When it comes to the impact of GenAI on sustainable development, it is evident that GenAI holds
substantial promise for advancing sustainable development goals. Participants displayed consistent and
strong agreement on the positive potential of GenAI across the various aspects assessed. Particularly notable
is the widespread belief in GenAI capacity to promote lifelong learning opportunities, indicating a recognition
of its role in fostering continuous education. Overall, these findings underscore the transformative impact
that GenAI can have on sustainable development initiatives, indicating a favorable outlook for its integration
into broader strategies aimed at addressing societal challenges. This level of positive perception can be
explained by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s recent promotion of sustainable development in many areas of
life, including the education sector (Sustainable Development, 2024). The concept of sustainable development
has been included in academic curricula, creating colleges specializing in sustainability (King Faisal University,
2019), and initiatives have been implemented related to food (General Food Security Authority (GFSA)–
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2024) and more. These policies have created awareness among educational
community members regarding the importance of achieving the sustainable development goals and their role
in addressing problems facing societies in the Arabian Gulf region, such as female education, climate change,
global warming, desertification, and wildlife endangerment.
The results of this study are consistent with the expectations of Kelly’s (2023) study, which asserted that
future studies related to students’ perceptions of GenAI would show positive results due to the greater spread
of these tools in educational environments and the passage of time, allowing students to become accustomed
to these GenAI tools. Due to this exposure, students now have more pronounced perceptions and opinions.
The findings of this study agree with the results of studies, including the studies of (Chan & Hu, 2023; Chan &

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 11 / 18

Aldossary et al.

Lee, 2023; Obenza et al., 2023). On the other hand, the findings of this study contradict the results of studies
by (Johnston et al., 2024; Kelly et al., 2023).

Answering the Second Question: Is there a Relationship Between University Students’

Perceptions of the Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education and their
Scientific Disciplines?
The study explored the relationship between students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education and
their different scientific specializations. Surprisingly, there were no significant differences in knowledge,
acceptance, or perceived role of GenAI across disciplines. However, the concerns and challenges associated
with GenAI varied widely, with the computer and IT fields expressing greater awareness regarding these
concerns and challenges. Furthermore, perceptions of the impact of GenAI on sustainable development
varied across disciplines, with agricultural and food sciences ranking highest, followed by tourism and
archaeology. Based on these results, the null hypothesis is rejected. This finding highlights the need to spread
awareness among students in various disciplines about the challenges inherent to integrating GenAI tools
into education. It also underscores the necessity of focusing efforts to discover ways to benefit from GenAI
tools within various disciplines to achieve sustainable development goals

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

This study aimed to reveal undergraduate students’ perceptions of the role of GenAI in education and
explored the relationship between students’ perceptions and their different scientific specializations. The
main results of this study confirm that students accept and positively perceive the role of GenAI tools in
education. It is worth noting that students are highly aware of the role of GenAI tools in improving their
understanding of complex academic concepts, developing skills, building capabilities, improving their self-
efficacy and learning outcomes, providing feedback at levels consistent with their needs, and making their
learning meaningful by placing it in contexts relevant to real-life problems. The results also confirm their
general awareness of the concerns and challenges related to these tools. The results demonstrated a
concerning trend: students lack sufficient awareness of the importance of following ethical principles when
using these tools. The results confirmed the existence of a relationship between students’ perceptions of
GenAI in education and their different scientific specializations.
This study also aims to contribute to bridging the research gap by revealing university students’
perceptions of the role of GenAI in Saudi education. To our knowledge, it is one of the first studies in Saudi
Arabia to examine undergraduate students’ perceptions of GenAI in this context. Additionally, the study
explores the relationship between academic disciplines and students’ perceptions of GenAI in education.
Moreover, it targets a larger sample size compared to most existing studies. The research also considers the
diversity of GenAI tools, unlike most current studies that focus solely on ChatGPT. Future studies could focus
on several directions. First, studying the effectiveness of employing GenAI tools and the field of prompt
engineering in designing educational environments and training programs. Second, study the impact of GenAI
tools in different educational contexts, such as: developing programming problem-solving skills among
computer science students, enhancing non-native English speaking and reading skills, and improving
diagnostic skills among medical students. and critical thinking skills and collaborative learning among
students. Third, conducting more longitudinal studies to reveal the impact of GenAI tools on learning
outcomes and educational methods. Fourth, examining ethical issues related to the use of GenAI tools in
education, with an emphasis on designing and implementing theoretical and practical frameworks to ensure
the ethical and responsible use of these tools. Future studies could explore tailored interventions leveraging
GenAI to tackle challenges. Overall, this study lays a solid foundation for understanding students’ perspectives
on GenAI integration in education. However, further research is needed to address the limitations and explore
promising avenues for maximizing the benefits of GenAI while mitigating its associated challenges.

Author contributions: All authors have contributed significantly to this work. All authors approved the final version of
the article.
Funding: This research is financially supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate
Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (KFU242097).

12 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

Ethics declaration: This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee of King
Faisal University (approval code KFU-REC-2024-MAR-ETHICS2151). Participants indicated their consent to participate in
this study through Google Form. All data was kept confidential and accessible only by the researchers.
Declaration of interest: The authors declare no competing interest.
Data availability: Data generated or analyzed during this study are available from the authors on request.

REFERENCES
Al-Abdullatif, A. M. (2023). Modeling students’ perceptions of chatbots in learning: Integrating technology
acceptance with the value-based adoption model. Education Sciences, 13(11), Article 1151.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111151
Atlas, S. (2023). ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to conversational AI.
College of Business Faculty Publications. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/548
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023). Transforming education: A comprehensive review of
generative artificial intelligence in educational settings through bibliometric and content analysis.
Sustainability, 15(17), Article 12983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712983
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI):
Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic
Journal, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484
Bernard, C. (2011). Digital natives: How do they learn? How to teach them? UNESCO.
Biggs, J. B. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research &
Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Mcgraw-
Hill.
Bilgram, V., & Laarmann, F. (2023). Accelerating Innovation with generative AI: AI-augmented digital
prototyping and innovation methods. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 51(2), 18–25.
https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2023.3272799
Castillo-González, W., Lepez, C. O., & Bonardi, M. C. (2022). Chat GPT: A promising tool for academic editing.
Data and Metadata, 1, Article 23. https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202223
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, Article 43.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. (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? Smart Learning Environments, 10, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
Chiu, T. (2023). The impact of generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education:
A case of ChatGPT and midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.
2023.2253861
Cladera, M. (2021). Let’s ask our students what really matters to them. Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Education, 13(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-07-2019-0195
Cottingham, S., Ausubel, D., & Caviglioli, O. (2023). Ausubel’s meaningful learning in action. John Catt Educational
Limited.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Dehouche, N., & Dehouche, K. (2023). What’s in a text-to-image prompt? The potential of stable diffusion in
visual arts education. Heliyon, 9(6), Article 16757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16757
Digital Transformation. (2023). Digital transformation. my.gov.sa. https://www.my.gov.sa/wps/portal/snp/
aboutksa/digitaltransformation
Emsley, R. (2023). ChatGPT: These are not hallucinations–They’re fabrications and falsifications. Schizophrenia,
9, Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-023-00379-4
Firat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied
Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22
General Food Security Authority (GFSA)–Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2024). General Food Security Authority
(GFSA). https://www.my.gov.sa/wps/portal/snp/agencies/agencyDetails/AC048/

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 13 / 18

Aldossary et al.

Haensch, A.-C., Ball, S., Herklotz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2023). Seeing ChatGPT through students’ eyes: An analysis
of TikTok data 2023. In Proceedings of the Big Data Meets Survey Science (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/bigsurv59479.2023.10486710
Hair Jr, J. F., Gabriel, M. L. D. S., da Silva, D., & Braga Junior, S. (2019). Development and validation of attitudes
measurement scales: Fundamental and practical aspects. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 490–507.
https://doi.org/10.1108/rausp-05-2019-0098
Harrer, S. (2023). Attention is not all you need: The complicated case of ethically using large language models
in healthcare and medicine. EBioMedicine, 90, Article 104512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.
104512
Holmes, W., Miao, F., & UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
Idroes, G. M., Noviandy, T. R., Maulana, A., Irvanizam, I., Jalil, Z., Lensoni, L., Lala, A., Abas, A. H., Tallei, T. E., &
Idroes, R. (2023). Student perspectives on the role of artificial intelligence in education: A survey-based
analysis. Journal of Educational Management and Learning, 1(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.60084/
jeml.v1i1.58
Jauhiainen, J. S., & Guerra, A. G. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT in school children’s education: Evidence
from a school lesson. Sustainability, 15(18), Article 14025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814025
Johnston, H., Wells, R. F., Shanks, E. M., Boey, T., & Parsons, B. N. (2024). Student perspectives on the use of
generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 20, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4
Kalota, F. (2024). A primer on generative artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 14(2), Article 172.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020172
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G.,
Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O.,
Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Stadler, M. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges
of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kelly, A., Sullivan, M., & Strampel, K. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: University student awareness,
experience, and confidence in use across disciplines. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice,
20(6). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.6.12
King Faisal University. (2019). King Faisal University. kfu.edu.sa. https://www.kfu.edu.sa/en/Colleges/Energy/
Pages/Home.aspx
Kumar, A. H. (2023). Analysis of ChatGPT tool to assess the potential of its utility for academic writing in
biomedical domain. Biology, Engineering, Medicine and Science Reports, 9(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/
10.5530/bems.9.1.5
Kuzdeuov, A., Nurgaliyev, S., & Varol, H. A. (2023). ChatGPT for visually impaired and blind. TechRxiv.
https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22047080.v1
Limna, P., Kraiwanit, T., Jangjarat, K., Klayklung, P., & Chocksathaporn, P. (2023). The use of ChatGPT in the
digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.32
Lokmic-Tomkins, Z., Choo, D., Foley, P., Dix, S., Wong, P., & Brand, G. (2022). Pre-registration nursing students’
perceptions of their baseline digital literacy and what it means for education: A prospective COHORT
survey study. Nurse Education Today, 111, Article 105308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105308
Lyerly, E. (2023). Utilizing ChatGPT to help students with disabilities. Disability Compliance for Higher Education,
28(9), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/dhe.31479
Neshovski, R. (2019). United Nations sustainable development. United Nations. https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment
Nghi, T. T., & Phuc, T. H. (2023). Exploring the role of ChatGPT in developing critical digital literacies in language
learning: A qualitative study. Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference, 4, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.2341
Obenza, B. N., Salvahan, A., Rios, A. N., Solo, A., Alburo, R. A., & Gabila, R. J. (2023). University students’
perception and use of ChatGPT: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education. International
Journal of Human Computing Studies, 5(12), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10360697

14 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence
for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 84–93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
Ruiz-Rojas, L. I., Acosta-Vargas, P., De-Moreta-Llovet, J., & González, M. (2023). Empowering education with
generative artificial intelligence tools: Approach with an instructional design matrix. Sustainability, 15(15),
Article 11524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511524
Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Montesinos, L. (2024). Using generative
artificial intelligence tools to explain and enhance experiential learning for authentic assessment.
Education Sciences, 14(1), Article 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010083
Sallam, M., Salim, N., Barakat, M., & Al-Tammemi, A. (2023). ChatGPT applications in medical, dental,
pharmacy, and public health education: A descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations.
Narra J, 3(1), Article e103. https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v3i1.103
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2024). Towards a taxonomy of problems used in problem-based learning
curricula. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11(2&3), 57–72. https://celt.miamioh.edu/ojs/index.
php/JECT/article/view/821
Shailendra, S., Kadel, R., & Sharma, A. (2024). Framework for adoption of generative artificial intelligence
(GenAI) in education. IEEE Transactions on Education. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2024.3432101
Shoufan, A. (2023). Exploring students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic analysis and follow-up survey. IEEE
Access, 11, 38805–38818. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3268224
Silva, C. A. G. da, Ramos, F. N., de Moraes, R. V., & Santos, E. L. dos. (2024). ChatGPT: Challenges and benefits
in software programming for higher education. Sustainability, 16(3), Article 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su16031245
Singh, H., Tayarani-Najaran, M.-H., & Yaqoob, M. (2023). Exploring computer science students’ perception of
ChatGPT in higher education: A descriptive and correlation study. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 924.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090924
Singleton, R., & Straits, B. C. (2009). Approaches to social research. Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic
integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/
jalt.2023.6.1.17
Surameery, N. M. S., & Shakor, M. Y. (2023). Use Chat GPT to solve programming bugs. International Journal of
Information Technology and Computer Engineering, 3(31), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.55529/ijitc.31.17.22
Sustainable Development. (2024). Sustainable development. moe.gov.sa. https://moe.gov.sa/en/aboutus/
aboutministry/Pages/sustainabledevelopment.aspx
Williams, R. T. (2024). The ethical implications of using generative chatbots in higher education. Frontiers in
Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1331607
Yilmaz, H., Maxutov, S., Baitekov, A., & Balta, N. (2023). Student attitudes towards Chat GPT: A technology
acceptance model survey. International Educational Review, 1(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.58693/ier.114
Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on
students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and
Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
Zastudil, C., Rogalska, M., Kapp, C., Vaughn, J. V., & MacNeil, S. (2023). Generative AI in computing education:
Perspectives of students and instructors. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343467

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 15 / 18

Aldossary et al.

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Table A1. Questionnaire
Constructs
Level of 1. Realize that generative artificial intelligence tools can generate inaccurate output.
knowledge and 2. Realize that generative artificial intelligence tools can generate output out of context.
awareness of 3. Realize that generative artificial intelligence tools can generate outdated output.
generative 4. Realize that generative artificial intelligence tools have limitations in handling complex tasks.
artificial 5. Realize that generative artificial intelligence tools have limited emotional intelligence, which may
intelligence tools lead to inappropriate output.
Level of 1. Interacting with generative artificial intelligence tools is easy and clear.
acceptance and 2. Generative artificial intelligence tools are useful in performing my learning tasks.
readiness 3. Generative artificial intelligence tools are innovative tools.
4. I enjoy in using generative artificial intelligence tools in education.
5. I am likely to use generative artificial intelligence tools for educational purposes more in the
future.
The role of 1. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to my access to diverse educational resources.
generative 2.Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to improving my understanding of complex
artificial academic vocabulary and concepts.
intelligence in 3. Employing generative artificial intelligence tools in teaching strategies contributes to saving time
education and effort.
4. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to enhancing my learning outcomes.
5. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to developing my critical thinking and problem-
solving skills.
6. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to enhancing my self-directed learning and better
access to knowledge.
7. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to providing feedback tailored to my academic
and cognitive level.
8. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to providing immediate feedback.
9. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to increasing the speed and efficiency of my
brainstorming process.
10. Generative artificial intelligence tools are useful tools for academic editing of scientific papers.
11. Generative artificial intelligence tools are useful in practicing language skills.
12. Generative artificial intelligence tools are useful tools for proposing real-life exercises and
scenarios related to study topics.
13. Generative artificial intelligence tools contribute to improving my self-efficacy level.
Fears and 1. Generative artificial intelligence tools can limit opportunities for human interaction and
potential communication in the educational process.
challenges 2. Generative artificial intelligence tools can limit my critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
3. Generative artificial intelligence tools can cause a breach in the privacy, security, and
confidentiality of individuals’ data.
4. I will likely use generative artificial intelligence tools excessively to perform educational tasks.
5. I may use generative artificial intelligence tools without following ethical principles and guidelines.
The impact of 1. Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to enhancing equitable and transparent
generative access to educational resources.
artificial 2. Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to promoting lifelong learning opportunities.
intelligence on 3. Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to opening new horizons for thinking about
sustainable ways and methods to overcome the economic and environmental challenges facing societies, such as
development climate change, poverty, and hunger.
4. Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to eliminating gender disparities in education.
5. Generative artificial intelligence tools can contribute to empowering young people and adults with
technical and vocational skills, qualifying them to work in appropriate jobs or engage in self-
employment.

16 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536

 Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024

APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Reliability
Table B1. Reliability of the questionnaire
V Number of items Cronbach's alpha
Level of knowledge and awareness of generative artificial intelligence tools 5 0.833
Level of acceptance and readiness 5 0.798
The role of generative artificial intelligence in education 13 0.918
Fears and potential challenges 5 0.718
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on sustainable development 5 0.813

Validity
Table B2. Validity of the questionnaire
The impact of
Level of knowledge and
The role of generative generative artificial
awareness of Level of acceptance Fears and potential
artificial intelligence in intelligence on
generative artificial and readiness challenges
education sustainable
intelligence tools
development
Correlation Correlation Correlation Correlation Correlation
Items Items Items Items Items
coefficients coefficients coefficients coefficients coefficients
1 .805** 1 .753** 1 .565** 1 .644** 1 .774**
2 .833** 2 .782** 2 .683** 2 .713** 2 .756**
3 .759** 3 .652** 3 .557** 3 .654** 3 .808**
4 .727** 4 .811** 4 .712** 4 .660** 4 .742**
5 .677** 5 .681** 5 .597** 5 .771** 5 .797**
6 .779**
7 .795**
8 .711**
9 .783**
10 .703**
11 .697**
12 .738**
13 .803**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Test of Hypothesis
Table B3. Test of hypothesis
Scientific disciplines N Mean SD F p
Level of Educational specializations 261 3.776 .946 1.935 0.120
knowledge Administrative specializations 137 3.832 .684
and Health specialties 153 3.916 .644
awareness Engineering specializations 121 4.084 .461
of Natural sciences specializations (chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology) 116 3.950 .978
generative Computer and information technology specializations 187 4.044 .784
artificial Social sciences and arts 123 3.863 .714
intelligence
Tourism and archeology specializations 98 3.907 .419
tools Agricultural and food sciences 101 4.038 .640
Law specializations 93 3.888 .529
Level of Educational specializations 261 4.104 0.589 1.410 0.138
acceptance Administrative specializations 137 4.320 0.741
and Health specialties 153 4.319 0.541
readiness Engineering specializations 121 4.302 0.420
Natural sciences specializations (chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology) 116 4.285 0.666
Computer and information technology specializations 187 4.122 0.549
Social sciences and arts 123 4.240 0.435

Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536 17 / 18

Aldossary et al.

Table B3. (continued)

Scientific disciplines N Mean SD F p
Tourism and archeology specializations 98 4.350 0.301
Agricultural and food sciences 101 4.197 0.358
Law specializations 93 4.236 0.355
The role of Educational specializations 261 4.160 0.607 1.195 0.141
generative Administrative specializations 137 4.186 0.727
artificial Health specialties 153 4.125 0.576
intelligence Engineering specializations 121 4.068 0.775
in education Natural sciences specializations (chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology) 116 4.237 0.639
Computer and information technology specializations 187 4.040 0.569
Social sciences and arts 123 4.165 0.578
Tourism and archeology specializations 98 4.303 0.357
Agricultural and food sciences 101 4.254 0.374
Law specializations 93 4.252 0.531
Fears and Educational specializations 261 3.280 0.991 3.067 0.000
potential Administrative specializations 137 3.952 0.829
challenges Health specialties 153 4.229 0.798
Engineering specializations 121 4.122 0.525
Natural sciences specializations (chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology) 116 3.590 0.823
Computer and information technology specializations 187 4.276 0.700
Social sciences and arts 123 3.793 0.579
Tourism and archeology specializations 98 3.907 0.543
Agricultural and food sciences 101 3.890 0.485
Law specializations 93 3.760 0.440
The impact Educational specializations 261 4.123 0.699 3.167 0.000
of generative Administrative specializations 137 4.016 0.791
artificial Health specialties 153 3.763 0.667
intelligence Engineering specializations 121 4.110 0.708
on Natural sciences specializations (chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology) 116 4.180 0.682
sustainable Computer and information technology specializations 187 3.996 0.677
development Social sciences and arts 123 3.973 0.534
Tourism and archeology specializations 98 4.407 0.709
Agricultural and food sciences 101 4.662 0.708
Law specializations 93 4.036 0.475



18 / 18 Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536