Research Article

Latent profiles of AI learning conditions among university students: Implications for educational intentions

Izida I. Ishmuradova 1 * , Alexey A. Chistyakov 2 , Tatyana A. Brodskaya 3 , Nikolay N. Kosarenko 4 , Natalia V. Savchenko 5 , Natalya N. Shindryaeva 6
More Detail
1 Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, RUSSIA2 Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, RUSSIA3 Almetyevsk State Technological University “Petroleum High School”, Almetyevsk, RUSSIA4 Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, RUSSIA5 Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, RUSSIA6 Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, RUSSIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), April 2025, ep565, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15907
Published Online: 30 January 2025, Published: 01 April 2025
OPEN ACCESS   3272 Views   2454 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This investigation aimed to ascertain latent profiles of university students predicated on fundamental factors influencing their intentions to acquire knowledge in artificial intelligence (AI). The study scrutinized four dimensions: supportive social norms, facilitating conditions, self-efficacy in AI learning, and perceived utility of AI. Through the utilization of latent profile analysis (LPA), the investigation endeavored to unveil distinct subgroups of students delineated by unique amalgamations of these factors. The study was carried out with a cohort of 391 university students from diverse academic disciplines. LPA disclosed five unique subgroups of students: Cautious Participants, Enthusiastic Advocates, Reserved Skeptics, Pragmatic Acceptors, and Disengaged Critics. These categories showed somewhat different goals to learn AI; Enthusiastic Advocates showed the highest intention while Disengaged Critics showed the lowest. The findings enhance the growing corpus of research on AI education in higher education by providing a sophisticated knowledge of the variation among university students about their attitudes and preparedness to learn AI. Subgroups of students show that learners need unique educational strategies and interventions to meet their diverse needs and attitudes. AI is changing many fields, therefore college students must learn about it and prepare for it. The findings advance AI education research and impact curriculum and policy.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, higher education, latent profile analysis, situated expectancy-value theory, intention to learn AI

CITATION (APA)

Ishmuradova, I. I., Chistyakov, A. A., Brodskaya, T. A., Kosarenko, N. N., Savchenko, N. V., & Shindryaeva, N. N. (2025). Latent profiles of AI learning conditions among university students: Implications for educational intentions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), ep565. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15907

REFERENCES

  1. Abgaryan, H., Asatryan, S., & Matevosyan, A. (2023). Revolutionary changes in higher education with artificial intelligence. Main Issues of Pedagogy and Psychology, 10(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.24234/miopap.v10i1.454
  2. Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), Article ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
  3. Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
  4. Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Alsubaie, M. A. (2024). ChatGPT in learning: Assessing students’ use intentions through the lens of perceived value and the influence of AI literacy. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090845
  5. Aleshkovski, I. A., Gasparishvili, A. T., Narbut, N. P., Krukhmaleva, O. V., & Savina, N. E. (2024). Russian students on the potential and limitations of artificial intelligence in education. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 24(2), 335–353.
  6. Alyahyan, E., & Düştegör, D. (2020). Predicting academic success in higher education: Literature review and best practices. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0177-7
  7. Alyoussef, I. Y. (2021). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning in higher education: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Electronics, 10(24), Article 3171. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10243171
  8. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2024). Gender distribution of bachelor’s degrees in the humanities. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/higher-education/gender-distribution-bachelors-degrees-humanities
  9. Bouteraa, M., Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Al-Daihani, M., Ahmed Dirie, K., Benlahcene, A., Sadallah, M., Omar Zaki, H., Lada, S., Ansar, R., Fook, L. M., & Chekima, B. (2024). Understanding the diffusion of AI-generative (ChatGPT) in higher education: Does students’ integrity matter? Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 14, Article 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100402
  10. Buabbas, A. J., Miskin, B., Ali Alnaqi, A., Ayed, A. K., Abdulmohsen Shehab, A., Syed-Abdul, S., & Uddin, M. (2023). Investigating students’ perceptions towards artificial intelligence in medical education. Healthcare, 11(9), Article 1298. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091298
  11. Chai, C. S., Wang, X., & Xu, C. (2020). An extended theory of planned behavior for the modelling of Chinese secondary school students’ intention to learn artificial intelligence. Mathematics, 8(11), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8112089
  12. Chan, C. K. Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). An expectancy value theory (EVT) based instrument for measuring student perceptions of generative AI. Smart Learning Environments, 10, Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00284-4
  13. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
  14. 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
  15. Dai, Y., Liu, A., Qin, J., Guo, Y., Siu M., Jong, Y., Chai, C. S., & Lin, Z. (2023). Collaborative construction of artificial intelligence curriculum in primary schools. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20503
  16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  17. Demir, K., & Güraksın, G. E. (2022). Determining middle school students’ perceptions of the concept of artificial intelligence: A metaphor analysis. Participatory Educational Research, 9(2), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.41.9.2
  18. Dietrich, J., Moeller, J., Guo, J., Viljaranta, J., & Kracke, B. (2019). In-the-moment profiles of expectancies, task values, and costs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01662
  19. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
  20. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
  21. Hair Jr, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  22. Hascoët, M., Giaconi, V., & Jamain, L. (2021). Family socioeconomic status and parental expectations affect mathematics achievement in a national sample of Chilean students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420965731
  23. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education. Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_107-1
  24. Jain, R., Garg, N., & Khera, S. N. (2022). Adoption of AI-enabled tools in social development organizations in India: An extension of UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893691
  25. Kim, J., Lee, H., & Hoan Cho, Y. (2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6069–6104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6
  26. Kirkham, J., Chapman, E., & Male, S. (2023). Measuring motivation for mathematics course choice in secondary school students: Interrelationships between cost and other situated expectancy-value theory components. SAGE Open, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231180671
  27. Lavidas, K., Voulgari, I., Papadakis, S., Athanassopoulos, S., Anastasiou, A., Filippidi, A., Komis, V., & Karacapilidis, N. (2024). Determinants of humanities and social sciences students’ intentions to use artificial intelligence applications for academic purposes. Information, 15(6), Article 314. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15060314
  28. Lin, X. F., Chen, L., Chan, K. K., Peng, S., Chen, X., Xie, S., Liu, J., & Hu, Q. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of teaching sustainable artificial intelligence: A design frame perspective. Sustainability, 14(13), Article 7811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137811
  29. Maheshwari, G. (2024). Factors influencing students’ intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context. Education and Information Technologies, 29(10), 12167–12195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12333-z
  30. Martinot, D., Sicard, A., Gul, B., Yakimova, S., Taillandier-Schmitt, A., & Maintenant, C. (2022). Peers and teachers as the best source of social support for school engagement for both advantaged and priority education area students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.958286
  31. Mehta, N., Harish, V., Bilimoria, K., Morgado, F., Ginsburg, S., Law, M., & Das, S. (2021). Knowledge and attitudes on artificial intelligence in healthcare: A provincial survey study of medical students. MedEdPublish, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2021.000075.1
  32. Mena-Guacas, A. F., Urueña Rodríguez, J. A., Santana Trujillo, D. M., Gómez-Galán, J., & López-Meneses, E. (2023). Collaborative learning and skill development for educational growth of artificial intelligence: A systematic review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep428. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13123
  33. Moeller, J., Viljaranta, J., Tolvanen, A., Kracke, B., & Dietrich, J. (2022). Introducing the DYNAMICS framework of moment-to-moment development in achievement motivation. Learning and Instruction, 81, Article 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101653
  34. Pucchio, A., Rathagirishnan, R., Caton, R., Gariscsak, P. J., Del Papa, J., Justino Nabhen, J., Vo, V., Lee, W., & Moraes, F. Y. (2022). Exploration of exposure to artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: A Canadian cross-sectional mixed-methods study. BMC Medical Education, 22, Article 815. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03896-5
  35. Renz, A., & Hilbig, R. (2020). Prerequisites for artificial intelligence in further education: Identification of drivers, barriers, and business models of educational technology companies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00193-3
  36. Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001
  37. Sharma, R. (2023). The transformative power of AI as future GPTs in propelling society into a new era of advancement. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 51(4), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2023.3315191
  38. Slimi, Z. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: An empirical study. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v10no1a17
  39. Solórzano-García, M., Navio-Marco, J., & Laguia, A. (2022). The influence of intrinsic motivation and contextual factors on MOOC students’ social entrepreneurial intentions. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(9), 1768–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1769680
  40. Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Glover, J. N., Reed, D., McCarty, C., Brendemuhl, J., & Thomas, A. (2023). Developing a model for AI across the curriculum: Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in AI literacy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100127
  41. Strzelecki, A., & ElArabawy, S. (2024). Investigation of the moderation effect of gender and study level on the acceptance and use of generative AI by higher education students: Comparative evidence from Poland and Egypt. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1209–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13425
  42. Šumak, B., López-De-Ipiña, D., Dziabenko, O., Duarte Correia, S., Serrano De Carvalho, L. M., Lopes, S., Şimşek, I., Can, T., Ivanuša Kline, D., & Pušnik, M. (2024). AI-based education tools for enabling inclusive education: Challenges and benefits. In Proceedings of the 47th ICT and Electronics Convention (pp. 472–477). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO60963.2024.10569714
  43. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  44. Wagner, G., Raymond, L., & Paré, G. (2023). Understanding prospective physicians’ intention to use artificial intelligence in their future medical practice: Configurational analysis. JMIR Medical Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.2196/45631
  45. Wang, F., King, R. B., Sing Chai, C., & Zhou, Y. (2023). University students’ intentions to learn artificial intelligence: The roles of supportive environments and expectancy-value beliefs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00417-2
  46. Wang, L., & Li, W. (2024). The impact of AI usage on university students’ willingness for autonomous learning. Behavioral Sciences, 14(10), Article 956. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100956
  47. Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education: An analysis of teachers’ perspectives using structural equation modeling. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202107_24(3).0009
  48. Wu, W., Zhang, B., Li, S., & Liu, H. (2022). Exploring factors of the willingness to accept AI-assisted learning environments: An empirical investigation based on the UTAUT model and perceived risk theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870777
  49. Yurt, E., & Kasarci, I. (2024). A questionnaire of artificial intelligence use motives: A contribution to investigating the connection between AI and motivation. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(2), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.725
  50. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0