Research Article

Factors influencing the use of artificial intelligence in Peruvian university context

Ivan Iraola-Real 1 2 * , Carla Vasquez Cespedes 3 , Roberto Cotrina-Portal 1 4
More Detail
1 Universidad de Ciencias y Humanidades, Lima, PERU2 Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, PORTUGAL3 Unidad de Posgrado de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Ciencias y Humanidades, Lima, PERU4 Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, PERU* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(4), October 2026, ep693, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19498
Published: 06 October 2026
OPEN ACCESS   117 Views   51 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made significant advances in education, but ethical debates surrounding its use persist. Given this issue, this article aims to analyze the factors influencing the use of AI among students at a private university in Lima, Peru. Three studies were conducted in this regard. The first study (N = 125) took a qualitative approach and analyzed the category called “benefits of AI in university education,” in which students expressed that AI is useful for optimizing their studies and research. However, in the category “disadvantages of using AI in university education,” the students recognized that using AI is risky because it generates information without citing authors; furthermore, it undermines autonomous and critical thinking. Being similar to studies in other countries. For these reasons, in the second study (N = 402), a confidence scale toward the use of AI was adapted, demonstrating reliability and confirmatory validity. Finally, in the third study (N = 928), a path analysis showed that digital self-efficacy and virtual educational performance predicted the perception of the benefits of AI, the reasons for not using it, and educational improvement with AI. Digital anxiety then played a mediating role between virtual educational performance and attitudes toward AI.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, higher education, digital self-efficacy, digital anxiety

CITATION (APA)

Iraola-Real, I., Vasquez Cespedes, C., & Cotrina-Portal, R. (2026). Factors influencing the use of artificial intelligence in Peruvian university context. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(4), ep693. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19498

REFERENCES

  1. Abdelhamid, G., Hidalgo, M., French, B., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2024). Partitioning dichotomous items using Mokken scale analysis, exploratory graph analysis and parallel analysis: A Monte Carlo simulation. Methodology, 20(3), 187-217. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.12503
  2. Acosta-Enriquez, B., Farroñan, E., Zapata, L., Garcia, F., Rabanal-León, H., Angaspilco, J., & Bocanegra, J. (2024). Acceptance of artificial intelligence in university contexts: A conceptual analysis based on UTAUT2 theory. Heliyon, 10(19), Article e38315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38315
  3. Aiken, R. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment (11th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  4. Akinwalere, S., & Ivanov, V. (2022). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Border Crossing, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.33182/bc.v12i1.2015
  5. Almasri, F. (2024). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning of science: A systematic review of empirical research. Research in Science Education, 54, 977-997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10176-3
  6. Alqahtani, T., Badreldin, H. A., Alrashed, M., Alshaya, A. I., Alghamdi, S. S., bin Saleh, K., Alowais, S. A., Alshaya, O. A., Rahman, I., Al Yami, M. S., & Albekairy, A. (2023). The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 19(8), 1236-1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.016
  7. Atlas ti. (2025). Master your research projects with the power of AI. Atlas.ti. https://atlasti.com/
  8. Awogbemi, A., Alagbe, A., & Oloda, S. (2022). On the path analysis techniques and decomposition of correlation coefficients. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 20(4), 208-219. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajpas/2022/v20i4450
  9. Ayduğ, D., & Altınpulluk, H. (2025). Are Turkish pre-service teachers worried about AI? A study on AI anxiety and digital literacy. AI & Society, 40, 5823-5834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02348-0
  10. Ayed, A., Ejheisheh, A., Al-Amer, R., Aqtam, I., Ali, A., Othman, E., Farajallah, M., Qaddumi, J., & Batran, A. (2025). Insights into the relationship between anxiety and attitudes toward artificial intelligence among nursing students. BMC Nursing, 24, Article 812. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03490-2
  11. Barrett, M., Branson, L., Carter, S., DeLeon, F., Ellis, J., Gundlach, C., & Lee, D. (2019). Using artificial intelligence to enhance educational opportunities and student services in higher education. Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 22(1). https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry/vol22/iss1/11
  12. Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: A critical literature review. Higher Education, 86(2), 369-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2
  13. Bellini, C., Filho, M., de Moura, P., & Pereira, R. (2016). Self-efficacy and anxiety of digital natives in face of compulsory computer-mediated tasks: A study about digital capabilities and limitations. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.015
  14. Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-H., Tu, Y.-F., & Yang, K.-H. (2022). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 22-42. https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/7526
  15. Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
  16. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
  17. Davis, D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  18. Dong, L., Tang, X., & Wang, X. (2025). Examining the effect of artificial intelligence in relation to students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Computer and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100400
  19. Farrelly, T., & Baker, N. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Implications and considerations for higher education practice. Education Sciences, 13(11), Article 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111109
  20. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). SAGE.
  21. Flores-Mamani, E., Rojas-Salazar, A. O., Tapia-Espinoza, P.-B., Nieves-Barreto, C.-M., Inquilla-Mamani, J., FloresYapuchura, A.-Y., & Vilca-Cutipa, G. (2026). Factor structure of artificial intelligence use in university teaching pedagogy. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(4), Article ep682. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19132
  22. Fusch, P., Fusch, G., Ness, L. (2018). Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02
  23. Gerlich, M. (2024). Navigating trust and anxiety: Understanding public perceptions of IA and their implications for ethical IA integration. In Proceedings of the International Experts Summit on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4972893
  24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  25. International Business Machines. (2026a). IBM SPSS Amos. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/products/structural-equation-modeling-sem
  26. International Business Machines. (2026b). IBM SPSS statistics. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics
  27. Iraola-Real, I., Vasquez, C., Diaz-Leon, I., & Iraola-Arroyo, A. (2023). Self-efficacy and digital anxiety and their influence on virtual educational performance: A diagnostic study in a sample of students from a private university in Lima – Peru. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(9), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i09.36183
  28. Isma’il, A., & Ibrahim, H. B. (2025). Teachers’ professional identity in the era of artificial intelligence: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Professional Development, Learners and Learning, 7(2), Article e2517. https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/17416
  29. Keravnos, N., & Eleftheriou, M. (2026). Trust as a mediating mechanism in ai-enabled school leadership: Navigating benefits, risks, and ethical tensions in Education 4.0. Educational Point, 3(3), Article e182. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/18914
  30. Khor, T., Chan, L., Koh, E., & Seow, P. (2026). Exploring students’ perceptions of generative AI-generated feedback in learning programming. Educational Psychology, 46(1), 150-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2564894
  31. Klimova, B., & Pikhart, M. (2025). Exploring the effects of artificial intelligence on student and academic well-being in higher education: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1498132
  32. Kuleto, V., Ilić, M., Dumangiu, M., Ranković, M., Martins, O., Păun, D., & Mihoreanu, L. (2021). Exploring opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence and machine learning in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 13(18), Article 10424. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810424
  33. Liang, J., Stephens, J., & Brown, G. (2025). A systematic review of the early impact of artificial intelligence on higher education curriculum, instruction and assessment. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1522841
  34. Magaldi, D., & Berler, M. (2020). Semi-structured Interviews. In V. Zeigler-Hill, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 4825-4830). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_857
  35. Mahmoud, A. (2025). The relationship of digital self-efficacy and future orientation with graduate students’ attitudes towards the use of artificial intelligence applications in scientific research. Al-Azhar Journal of Education, 44(205), 305-398. https://doi.org/10.21608/JSREP.2025.422550
  36. Moon-Yong, K., & Heayon, Ch. (2025). Prior AI experience and attitude toward AI-based smart home services: A moderated mediation model of perceived benefits of AI and digital self-efficacy. International Journal of Advanced Smart Convergence, 14(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJASC.2025.14.1.111
  37. Morandín-Ahuerma, F. (2023). Principios normativos para una ética de la inteligencia artificial [Normative principles for an ethics of artificial intelligence]. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/dgnq8
  38. Mortensen, O. (2024). How many users does ChatGPT have? Statistics & facts (2025). SEO.AI. https://seo.ai/blog/how-many-users-does-chatgpt-have
  39. Nazaretsky, T., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). An instrument for measuring teachers’ trust in ai-based educational technology. In Proceedings of the 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. 56-66). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506866
  40. Peker, C. (2026). Optimal linear aggregation of correlated expert judgments. Economics Letters, 261, Article 112855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2026.112855
  41. Qing, G., Muhd, O., & Ahmad, H. (2026). Teachers’ professional development on self-efficacy, attitudes, and digital competencies in the digital era. Acta Psychologica, 265, Article 106683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106683
  42. Saborío-Taylor, S., & Rojas-Ramírez, F. (2024). Universal design for learning and artificial intelligence in the digital era: Fostering inclusion and autonomous learning. International Journal of Professional Development, Learners and Learning, 6(2), Article ep2408. https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/14694
  43. Salas-Pilco, Z., & Yang, Y. (2022). Artificial intelligence applications in Latin American higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00326-w
  44. Samuel, S., & Merkebu, J. (2026). Exploring sampling strategies to maximize qualitative research studies in adult education. Adult Learning, 37(2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595251349183
  45. Silva, G., Oliveira, G., & Silva, M. (2021). Estudo de caso único: Uma estratégia de pesquisa [Single case study: A research strategy]. Revista Prisma, 2(1), 78-90. https://revistaprisma.emnuvens.com.br/prisma/article/view/44
  46. Storozhyk, M. (2024). Philosophy of future: Analytical overview of interaction between education, science, and artificial intelligence in the context of contemporary challenges. Futurity Philosophy, 3(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2024.03.30.02
  47. Taber, S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
  48. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, LIX, 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
  49. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2024). Guía para el uso de IA generativa en educación e investigación [Guide to the use of generative AI in education and research]. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389227.locale=es
  50. University of Oxford. (2021). Informed consent. University of Oxford. https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/ethics/resources/consent#collapse281091
  51. Usak, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in biology education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(5), 806-808. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.806
  52. Uygun, E. (2026). Clashing AIs: Artificial intelligence literacy and academic integrity in an EFL context. Journal of Academic Ethics, 24, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09676-2
  53. Venkatesh, V., Morris, G., Davis, G., & Davis, D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  54. Wang, Sh., Sun, Z., Wang, H., Yang, D., & Zhang, H. (2025). Enhancing student acceptance of artificial intelligence-driven hybrid learning in business education: Interaction between self-efficacy, playfulness, emotional engagement, and university support. The International Journal of Management Education, 23(2), Article 101184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2025.101184
  55. Zada, A., & Urquhart, C. (2026). 5: Open coding qualitative data: An essential first step in grounded theory analysis. In G. Hadley, & A. Bryant (Eds.), Grounded theory in action (pp. 60-68). Edgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035321919.00012
  56. Zhou, C., & Wang, Y. (2026). University students’ writing feedback literacy in the AI era: The interplay of generative AI acceptance, writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy in Chinese EMI educational contexts. European Journal of Education, 61(1) Article e70478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70478