Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

From chatting to self-educating: Can AI tools boost student

learning outcomes?
Omar Boubker 1
Research Laboratory on Development and Valorization of Resources in Desert Zones (LARDEVAR-ZS), Laayoune Higher School of Technology, Ibn Zohr University,
Agadir, Morocco

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the power to revolutionize the field of education by enhancing teaching and
Artificial intelligence learning experiences, improving student outcomes, and streamlining administrative tasks. The current study
AI Usefulness seeks to address the role of ChatGPT in enhancing students’ learning outcomes. A sample of Moroccan higher
Chatbots
education institutions (HEIs) students was collected through an online questionnaire using a convenience sam­
ChatGPT
Students
pling method. The gathered data were processed through partial least squares technique. The findings reveal that
output quality influence on perceived usefulness, ChatGPT use, and student satisfaction. Similarly, social in­
fluence significantly influences on perceived usefulness and ChatGPT use. The perceived ease of use significantly
influence on perceived usefulness and student satisfaction. In addition, the ChatGPT perceived usefulness
positively influence ChatGPT use, and students’ satisfaction, leading to enhance individual impact. These out­
comes provide a number of useful recommendations and implications for HEIs’ managers to consider regarding
how they might take action to renovate teaching practices in today’s digital age.

1. Introduction academic panacea, the Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer

Artificial intelligence (AI) derives from developing computing tech­
nology capable of undertaking many activities that require a higher
degree of human intelligence, including speech and visual recognition,
as well as natural language processing and decision-making (Joiner,
2018). AI is a relatively young branch of technology, which has several
uses, including in the fields of healthcare (Schwalbe & Wahl, 2020),
finance (Cao, 2022), manufacturing (Sahoo & Lo, 2022), energy (He
et al., 2022), transportation (Abduljabbar et al., 2019), education
(Hwang et al., 2020), and many others.
In recent years, there has been a significant interest in AI and its role
in education, attracting increased academic, professional, and govern­
mental interest (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). The importance given to
AI tools is driven by its direct influence on the HEIs, instructors and
students’ lives. It is apparent that the rapid technological advancement
of AI significantly affect education and classroom practices (Chiu et al.,
2023).
AI significantly affected HEIs and students’ lives, providing both
opportunities and challenges. Hence, AI powered learning systems can
deliver personalized recommendations to students. Considered as a new
(ChatGPT) represents a model of language generation published by
OpenAI in November 2022. This tool consists of neural networks, which
learn to perform specific tasks from existing text generated by humans.
Quintans-Júnior et al. (2023) have labeled the ChatGPT tool as a new
panacea of the academic world. This attribute is due to the ability of this
artificial intelligence (AI) tool to generate a variety of content, written
and unpublished, which is generally distinguished by a high degree of
uniqueness, consistency of ideas and depth of existing scientific under­
standing (Quintans-Júnior et al., 2023).
Nowadays many artificial intelligence resources have been devel­
oped. As an open artificial intelligence platform, ChatGPT is able to
deliver text in reply to users’ questions, claims and information requests
(Choi et al., 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2022). This tool offer to students a
wide range of self-learning possibilities for preparing homework, text
translation, coding, or learning a new language. For more precision, AI
and its resources are useful tools for education and learning, but they are
no alternative to the teacher’s role, nor to his ability to support students
in a specific learning process. Therefore, experts regard ChatGPT as a
double-edged sword (Palal et al., 2023).
Evaluating the IS systems success has been an area of major interest

E-mail address: o.boubker@uiz.ac.ma.

1
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6365-2653.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121820
Received 26 April 2023; Received in revised form 12 September 2023; Accepted 22 September 2023
Available online 28 September 2023
0957-4174/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Boubker
in different areas of studies. A significant number of studies have applied
the ISSM (DeLone & McLean, 1992, 2003) to evaluating e-learning
systems in the university context (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020; Cidral et al.,
2020; Ouajdouni et al., 2021). In contrast, a very limited body of
empirical studies in management information systems (MIS) has
explored the potential efficacy of AI tools and pedagogical chatbots in
higher educational institutions (Chen et al., 2023). Hence, our research
follows the line of studies that called for exploring the educational
changes and outcomes provided by using ChatGPT in HEIs (Hwang
et al., 2020; Quintans-Júnior et al., 2023).
In spite of increased scientific interest regarding the use of ChatGPT
in various fields, including education, there still exists a gap in terms of
empirical studies assessing its effectiveness in improving students’
learning outcomes. As such, the purpose of this paper is to fill in this
research gap, by attempting to bring a new understanding of how
ChatGPT might influence students in a developing country context.
This research is conducted in Morocco, which has an important and
growing higher education system. Thus, to initiate a new age of
improvement and modernization to boost both the quality and efficiency
of the Higher Education ecosystem and to turn this ecosystem into a
lever for acceleration of the country’s development trajectory, the
Moroccan Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Inno­
vation (MHESRI) has launched the National Plan for Accelerating the
Transformation of the ESRI Ecosystem (PACTE ESRI 2030). This stra­
tegic plan is focused on three operational drivers, including digital
transformation, adaptation of the regulatory framework and mobiliza­
tion of partnerships and cooperation opportunities. Conscious of the
impact of AI on higher education, the Moroccan Ministry of Higher
Education, Scientific Research and Innovation has organized a
conference-debate entitled “The ChatGPT revolution, impact on the
world of higher education and scientific research”, which took place on
March 22 in Sultan Moulay University. In this regard, and faced with
developing AI tools, public policy-makers called for a change in para­
digms and learning, indicating that teachers can use ChatGPT to save
time by creating, among other things, a lesson plan or proposing as­
sessments. As students also benefit from the ability to quickly answer
questions, reinforce their understanding of key concepts, and develop
writing skills, ChatGPT also provides high quality, student-friendly
educational content.
To our knowledge, literature on AI and teaching and learning in
higher education topics reports no quantitative studies regarding the
assessment of ChatGPT impact on student success. Therefore, this is the
first study to address this topic, by exploring variables that help to
enhance ChatGPT use and students’ satisfaction, which my turn to
improve students’ learning outcomes in the Moroccan context. Hence,
this paper focuses on addressing the following questions:
• RQ1. What are the drivers of ChatGPT use and students’ satisfaction?
• RQ2: Does perceived usefulness affect ChatGPT use and students’
satisfaction?
• RQ3: Does perceived usefulness affect students’ learning outcomes?
• RQ4. How does ChatGPT use enhance students’ learning outcomes?
The current research contributes to the educational information
systems literature through identifying the antecedents and conse­
quences of AI tool use in the academic context. The rest of this article is
ordered as follows; the next section provides a literature review
regarding the role of AI in education, with justification for choosing the
research hypotheses. The third section provides a brief explanation of
the adopted methodology. Next, section 4 presents and discusses the
findings from PLS structural equation modeling. The last section high­
lights the major conclusions and study implication.
2
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
2. Literature
2.1. Artificial intelligence (AI) in Education: The case of ChatGPT
In today’s digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) is now everywhere
(Williamson & Eynon, 2020). AI is an interdisciplinary discipline orig­
inating from the field of computing and engineering, and highly influ­
enced by other fields including cognitive science, philosophy,
neuroscience, and economics (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). AI was
originally introduced by John McCarthy in 1956 during the Dartmouth
Conference, who was involved in a “Dartmouth Summer Research Project
on Artificial Intelligence”. McCarthy aimed to explore ways in which
machines could be engineered to simulate human intelligence and carry
out tasks including problem solving and language translation. Since
then, the AI space has expanded considerably to include many areas. AI
represents “ a system’s ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn
from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks
through flexible adaptation” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019, p. 15). Thus, AI is
when machines learn to do things that only humans can usually do, such
as learn, reason, process natural language, and solve problems.
The exponential increase in AI tools is incrementally changing the
patterns of interaction, communication, living, learning, and working
for humans (Chiu et al., 2022; Chiu, Xia, et al., 2023). AI has increas­
ingly gained popularity and prominence in the human’s daily lives (Xie,
2023). AI tools have the potential to be applied across a wide range of
contexts and learners, contributing to improving educational quality
globally and providing better support and insight for instructors, and
learners (Vincent-Lancrin & Van der Vlies, 2020).
According to Popenici and Kerr (2017), AI in education refers to
“computing systems that are able to engage in human-line processes such as
learning, adapting, synthesizing, self-correction and the use of data for
complex processing tasks” (Popenici & Kerr, 2017, p. 6). These tools have
the ability of revolutionizing the field of education and learning by of­
fering customized educational experiences, and providing intelligent
tutoring systems. Fig. 1 shows some examples of AI tools used in edu­
cation and learning, including, Chatbots, intelligent tutoring systems,
learning analytics, automated grading, and many others.
The creation of Chatbots, also known as conversational agents,
which are intended to communicate with people via messaging services,
websites, or voice assistants, is one area of AI that has attracted a lot of
Fig. 1. Examples of AI tools in education.
O. Boubker
interest over the past years. Because of its ability to automate a variety of
processes and offer round-the-clock customer service, Chatbots are
becoming more and more popular. Although Chatbots offer these ad­
vantages, specialists have pointed out several weaknesses and threats of
these tools, including failure in user intent understanding, and data se­
curity (Adamopoulou & Moussiades, 2020).
ChatGPT, a natural language processing model, constitutes one of the
well-used Chatbots platforms. This tool has attracted considerable in­
terest among students around the world (Tlili et al., 2023). ChatGPT is
an artificial intelligence application developed by OpenAI,2 which en­
ables users to chat with a robot in a natural way. OpenAI’s ChatGPT
achieved 100 million users within just 2 months after its launch, thereby
becoming the fastest-growing consumer application of all time. A deep
learning neural network that has been trained using a sizable corpus of
internet-sourced text data is the foundation of ChatGPT. The model can
generate responses to user input that resemble those of a human, and it
can be tailored for use in particular domains or applications (Fig. 2).
Using AI tools, such as ChatGPT, allows for personalized interactions
with users, as it can learn from previous conversations and adapt to
individual preferences and needs. Thus, AI tools can deliver a mass-
personalized content. First coined by Zhao (2016) the concept of mass
personalization refers to the practice of tailoring experiences, services,
or content to meet the individual needs, preferences, and interests of
each person. It involves leveraging data, algorithms, and technology to
deliver customized and relevant experiences on a large scale, aiming to
provide a more personalized and engaging interaction for each indi­
vidual. Mass personalization in education involves using algorithms and
machine learning to tailor communication content to the unique in­
terests, preferences, and needs of individual recipients on a large scale
(Hermann, 2022; Sokhranyaeva, 2021). AI tools, such as ChatGPT, use
algorithms and machine learning techniques to analyze user data and
behavior in order to deliver customized and relevant content.
ChatGPT is capable of generating human-like text, strikingly intel­
ligent texts in reply to user requests (Aydın & Karaarslan, 2022),
including homework and exam-style questions. Hence, this tool can help
students to prepare homework, to answer questions, to generate, classify
and summarize a text, to make a presentation, to translate a language,
etc. (Fig. 3). Thereby, this tool has the promise of revolutionizing edu­
cation by delivering personalized and interactive learning experiences.
Recent AI models including ChatGPT are frequently black boxes in
terms of text generation (Cai & Cui, 2023), where the internal workings
or processes are neither transparent nor understandable for the end user
(Liu et al., 2023). This means that the user does not have access to the
tool’s underlying algorithms, parameters or decision-making processes.
In other words, the tool receives input data and produces output data,
but the user does not know how the tool reaches its outcomes (Wu et al.,
2016). When students rely heavily on ChatGPT as part of their learning
and cognitive development, it is likely that their cognitive system will be
influenced and shaped as a result of the intervention of this tool. As such,
the structure of the student’s cognitive system evolved following the use
of such a tool can be significantly different from the student’s cognitive
system structure. As a potential result, this could lead to a future gen­
eration of students whose cognitive systems have been significantly
shaped by AI tools, enhancing their critical and analytical abilities (Gill
et al., 2024).
When exploring both the positive and negative sides of using
ChatGPT by researchers and students, Qasem (2023) showed that
ChatGPT has the potential of being a valuable and beneficial tool if it is
properly and ethically used in academic fields. In contrast, he high­
lighted several negative aspects of the extensive use of ChatGPT, which
leads to the spread of plagiarism and makes students machine
2
OpenAI is a research and deployment company focused on AI tools, working
to bring these to the benefit of all humanity https://openai.com. (accessed
March 20th 2023).
3
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
dependent, non-self-sufficient and lazy. Therefore, experts regard
ChatGPT as a double-edged sword (Palal et al., 2023).
2.2. Hypotheses development
This research borrows the Information System Success Model (ISSM)
and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to explore how ChatGPT
affects student achievement. These two models have been tested and
validated in various contexts. The initial ISSM consists of six concepts,
including system quality, information quality (output quality), use, end-
user satisfaction, individual impact and organizational impact. The TAM
model states that intention to use a given technology is shaped by the
perceived usefulness and ease of use of this technology. Such percep­
tions are affected by several factors including personal, social and cul­
tural beliefs.
2.2.1. Information quality (IS Output Quality)
The output from ChatGPT can include several types i.e., text, code,
speech, translations, summaries and dialogues based upon the input and
the context. Quintans-Júnior et al. (2023) indicated that ChatGPT
generate content with a high degree of uniqueness, consistency of ideas
and depth of existing scientific understanding. In other words, the
generated content has a high level of accuracy and quality, which en­
courages more and more students to use this tool. Defined as the overall
quality of the output provided by the IS (DeLone & McLean, 1992), in­
formation quality “output quality” is a key determinant of technology
perceived usefulness (Chen, 2010; Seddon, 1997; Venkatesh & Davis,
2000; Wang & Wang, 2009). Likewise, this variable additionally pro­
vides a positive influence to technology use and user satisfaction (Cidral
et al., 2018; Lin & Lee, 2006; Machado-Da-Silva et al., 2014). Accord­
ingly, we can assume that improved ChatGPT output quality will result
in enhanced perceived usefulness, students’ satisfaction, and ChatGPT
use. Therefore, we posit that:
H1: ChatGPT output quality has a positive effect on perceived usefulness
of ChatGPT.
H2: ChatGPT output quality has a positive effect on ChatGPT use.
H3: ChatGPT output quality has a positive effect on user satisfaction.
2.2.2. Social influence
Social influence reflects the perceptions of prominent people around
the students concerning use and importance of technology use. In our
study, social influence is defined as the student’s social environment
influencing ChatGPT use. In several fields of research, social environ­
ment has been recognized as an important factor that shapes people’s
behavior (Bhukya & Paul, 2023). In MIS, social influence (subjective
norm) has been found to predict the technology perception of usefulness
(Alshurideh et al., 2020; Martínez-Gómez et al., 2022); and use of a
particular technology (Ouajdouni et al., 2021; Wang & Wang, 2009).
Hence, we assume that:
H4: Social influence has a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
ChatGPT.
H5: Social influence has a positive effect on ChatGPT use.
2.2.3. Perceived ease of use
According to Davis (1989, p. 320), perceived ease of use refers to
“the degree to which the person believes that using a particular system
would be free of effort”. Perceived ease of use provides a measure of how
effortless and easy to use a new technology is seen to be by an individual.
In relation to ChatGPT technology, Roose (2022) stated that, “it’s the
first time such a powerful tool has been made available to the general
public through a free, easy-to-use web interface“ (Roose, 2022).
The positive influence of perceived ease of use on technology
perceived usefulness (Al-Emran & Teo, 2020; Hsieh & Cho, 2011; Iancu
& Iancu, 2023; Khlaisang et al., 2021; Sukendro et al., 2020, p. 202;
O. Boubker
Fig. 2. ChatGPT’s interface.
Fig. 3. ChatGPT output: What are the potential applications of ChatGPT in education? What make ChatGPT usefulness for students?
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), and user satisfaction (Isaac et al., 2019;
Kashive et al., 2020; Mohammadi, 2015) has been confirmed in several
earlier empirical studies. In other words, when technologies are viewed
as easier to use they lead to an improved perceived usefulness and
enhanced level of user satisfaction. Accordingly, we suppose that:
H6: Perceived ease of use of ChatGPT has a positive effect on perceived
usefulness
H7: Perceived ease of use of ChatGPT has a positive effect on students’
satisfaction
2.2.4. Perceived usefulness
Perceived usefulness constitutes one of the key components of TAM
model (Davis, 1989). It reflects the individual’s assessment of benefits
gained when using a particular technology, in this case the ChatGPT
technology. Previous studies have shown the direct and positive effect of
perceived usefulness on technology use (Islam, 2013), and user satis­
faction (Kuo, 2018; Loh et al., 2022). In a recent study among students of
a British university, Al-Fraihat et al. (2020) empirically verified the
positive impact of perceived usefulness of e-learning systems, use, and e-
learner satisfaction. Which means that when students realize that they
4
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
are benefiting from using ChatGPT, they will use it more, and conse­
quently their satisfaction level will increase. Therefore, we assume the
following hypotheses:
H8: Perceived usefulness of ChatGPT has a positive effect on ChatGPT
use
H9: Perceived usefulness of ChatGPT has a positive effect on students’
satisfaction
2.2.5. ChatGPT use and students’ satisfaction
The use of AI in education has garnered increased scientific interest
over the last three decades. With its ability to create a wide scope of
written and non-written content, ChatGPT enhances educational success
by empowering instructors and students to acquire knowledge in
different fields (Tlili et al., 2023). Students use ChatGPT for volunteer
purposes, for preparing their assignments, answering questions, gener­
ating, classifying and summarizing text, and translating language, etc.
For many previous studies, technology use has a direct and positive
influence on user satisfaction (Banafo Akrong et al., 2022; DeLone &
McLean, 2003; Isaac et al., 2019; Tam & Oliveira, 2016; Urbach et al.,
2010). Hence, we assume that:
O. Boubker Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820

H10: ChatGPT use has a positive effect on students’ satisfaction. The conceptual model includes three main exogenous constructs
(Fig. 4), including ChatGPT output quality (OQU), social influence
2.2.6. AI and individual impact (SIN), and perceived ease of use (PEU). In addition, the study includes
Past studies have shown that applications of AI contribute to higher four endogenous variables, i.e., perceived usefulness (PUS), ChatGPT
education modernization and enhance students’ abilities by enabling them use (USE), students’ satisfaction (SSA), and individual impact (IMP).
to learn from where they stand (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Chatterjee & Bhat­
tacharjee, 2020). According to several researchers, using technology 3. Methods
significantly influences the end-user’s individual performance (DeLone &
McLean, 2002; Tam & Oliveira, 2016). This implies that the more students 3.1. Survey development
engage in using ChatGPT, the more they recognize individual impacts on
their learning process (Cidral et al., 2018). Technology use combined with The measures employed in the current research were drawn from
user satisfaction has the potential to impact individuals (Al-Fraihat et al., existing literature. ChatGPT output quality was measured using 2 items
2020; Aparicio et al., 2016; Cidral et al., 2018; Ouajdouni et al., 2022; Tam selected from previous studies (Davis et al., 1992; Venkatesh & Davis,
& Oliveira, 2016; Urbach et al., 2010). By studying factors related to e- 2000). Social influence was measured using 3 items (Queiroz et al.,
learning success among Brazilian students, Cidral et al. (2018) found that 2021). Perceived usefulness was measured using 4 items (Davis, 1989).
e-learning system use and student satisfaction have a positive impact on Perceived ease of use was measured using 3 items (Davis, 1989).
learners, allowing them to accomplish tasks more quickly, to increase their ChatGPT use was measured using 3 items (DeLone & McLean, 2003).
productivity, and to facilitate task accomplishment. Borrowing the task Student satisfaction was measured using 3 items (Mohammadi, 2015).
technology fit (TTM) model and ISS model, Tam and Oliveira (2016) Finally, individual impact was measured using 3 items selected from
studied the impact of m-banking on individual performance, their earlier studies (Damnjanovic et al., 2015; Hsieh & Cho, 2011). The
empirical study results supported the positive impact of technology use Likert scale of one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree) was
and user satisfaction on individual performance. Furthermore, Al-Fraihat employed to assess questions associated with latent constructs. The
et al. (2020) found that perceived usefulness, e-learning system use, e- operationalization process allowed developing a questionnaire, which is
learner’s perceived satisfaction positively influences on learners, as articulated in two parts. Part 1 concerned collecting data on the study
regards enhancing their knowledge and helping them to succeed, participants’ characteristics. While the second part is used to assess the
improving their learning process and supporting their learning goals. In different research constructs.
other words, if students perceive that using ChatGPT matches their re­
quirements, they can be more satisfied and can accomplish their assign­ 3.2. Sampling and study participants
ments more successfully. From this literature review, we assume that:
The study sample was chosen using a convenience sampling strate­
H11: Perceived usefulness of ChatGPT has a positive effect on individual gy from students at Moroccan HEIs who had prior experience with Chat
impact. GPT. Since we have no database on all the Moroccan higher education
H12: ChatGPT use has a positive effect on individual impact. institutions (HEIs) students, a convenience sampling procedure was
H13: Students’ satisfaction has a positive effect on individual impact. followed to gather data through a online questionnaire. Convenience
sampling was chosen due to practical considerations and limited re­
The purpose of this research study is to investigate the impact of sources (Sarstedt et al., 2018). This method allowed for easy access to
ChatGPT on students’ learning outcomes (individual impact). From the potential participants, as they were readily available and willing to
literature review previously outlined, research hypotheses were participate in the study. However, it is important to acknowledge that
formulated, leading to a proposed research model (Table 1). the findings may not be representative of all supply chain members due
to the non-random selection process.
Prior to conducting the online data collection, a questionnaire pre­
Table 1
test was performed among three education researchers and six univer­
Research hypotheses.
sity students from Ibn Zohr University. All comments raised were used to
Null Hypothesis Alternative Hypothesis ensure readability, appropriateness and clarity of the questions.
H0 : OQU has no significant H1 : OQU has a significant and Accordingly, we included a new question related to the students’ reasons
effect on PUS positive effect on PUS for using ChatGPT.
H0 : OQU has no significant H2 : OQU has a significant and In order to screen potential participants for our study and to deter­
effect on USE positive effect on USE
H0 : OQU has no significant H3 : OQU has a significant and
mine whether the participant meets the eligibility criteria, we have
effect on SSA positive effect on SSA included a question entitled, “Have you ever used ChatGPT to assist you
H0 : SIN has no significant H4 : SIN has a significant and in your studies”. If the response is “yes”, then the participant will be able
effect on PUS positive effect on PUS to complete the questionnaire further. Otherwise, the survey will be
H0 : SIN has no significant H5 : SIN has a significant and
closed automatically. This question designed to exclude students who do
effect on USE positive effect on USE
H0 : PEU has no significant H6 : PEU has a significant and not meet the requirements.
effect on PUS positive effect on PUS The survey was administrated by online Google Forms in three
H0 : PEU has no significant H7 : PEU has a significant and different languages (Arabic, French, and English) to ensure that students
effect on SSA positive effect on SSA could choose the most appropriate language. At this level, the Google
H0 : PUS has no significant H8 : PUS has a significant and
effect on USE positive effect on USE
Forms survey link was sent out by email, and shared through social
H0 : PUS has no significant H9 : PUS has a significant and networks, in particular on WhatsApp and Facebook. The students agreed
effect on SSA positive effect on SSA to participate in the survey online before filling it out.
H0 : USE has no significant H10 : USE has a significant and The data-gathering process was completed over 30 days (between
effect on SSA positive effect on SSA
February 2 and March 3, 2023). Over this period, 319 valid responses
H0 : PUS has no significant H11 : PUS has a significant and
effect on IMP positive effect on IMP were received from students of Moroccan HEIs. The sample included
H0 : USE has no significant H12 : USE has a significant and more female (52.98%) than male (47.02%), belonging to the 18–21 age
effect on IMP positive effect on IMP group (65.20%), attending studies at BAC + 1 level (40.13%), in
H0 : SSA has no significant H13 : SSA has a significant and different fields such as nursing (18.81%), logistics (18.18%), computer
effect on IMP positive effect on IMP
science (13.79%), and entrepreneurship (10.97%). The majority of

5
O. Boubker
Fig. 4. Research model.
responses were collected among students from university institutions
(71.79%), including higher school of technology (31.35%), faculty
Polydisciplinary (20.38%), national school of applied sciences (5.64%),
faculty of law, economic and social sciences (4.39%), faculty of medi­
cine and pharmacy (4.39%), national school of business and manage­
ment (3.76%), faculty of sciences (1.25%), and faculty of sciences and
technologies (0.63%). While 28.21% of responses were from students of
non-university HEIs, including the higher institute of nursing pro­
fessions and technical health (21.94%) falling under the Morocco’s
ministry of health, and the office of vocational training and work pro­
motion (6.27%) falling under the Morocco’s ministry of national edu­
cation and vocational training (Table 2).
According to collected data, the students involved in this study
frequently use AI, more specifically ChatGPT, to perform different tasks
i.e., exam preparation, question answering, research work, preparing a
presentation, write a graduation project report, doing a homework
assignment, language translation, text generation, coding, text summa­
rization, and text classification (Fig. 5).
3.3. Data analysis technique
The dataset was processed in accordance with the partial least
squares structural equation modeling approach (Hair et al., 2019; Ringle
et al., 2023), by employing the SmartPLS 4 software. At this point,
analysis was carried out following assessment of two different models, i.
e., the measurement models “outer models” and the structural model
“inner model”. The measurement model verification was performed
following the assessment of reliability and convergent validity (Cron­
bach’s alpha, reliability, composite reliability, and average variance
extracted) and discriminant validity checking through the verification of
cross loading, Fornell-Larcker criterion, and HTMT ratio. Subsequently,
inner model assessment was conducted through the coefficient of
determination (R2), effect size (f2), predictive relevance (Q2), goodness
of fit (GoF), and hypothesis testing (β-value, T-statistics, and p-value).
4. Empirical findings
4.1. Measurement model evaluation
The current subsection relates the outer model validation outcomes
6
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
by checking outer model reliability and validity. As displayed in Table 3,
all loading scores are deemed appropriate, since the values for all 21
elements are above 0.7 and ranged from 0.798 to 0.928, which indicate
a good indicator reliability (Ringle et al., 2023). Furthermore, the values
of average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbach’s alpha, and composite
reliability were all above 0.5 [from 0.712 to 0.846], 0.7 [from 0.797 to
0.909], and 0.7 [from 0.797 to 0.909], respectively. These findings
provided support for outer models’ reliability and convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was verified following the Fornell-Larcker and
HTMT criteria (Table 4). The PLS analysis showed that the squared roots
of the AVEs for each construct were larger than the highest quadratic
correlation of the variable with any other latent construct. Additionally,
following HTMT ratio, it was found that the largest HTMT value of 0.882
was well under the 0.9 recommended threshold (Henseler et al., 2015;
Ringle et al., 2023).
The discriminant validity of the outer model was as well tested ac­
cording to the cross loading of the items. As displayed in Table 5, the
items loading values of the constructs are above loading on any other
construct, supporting discriminant validity in terms of cross-loading.
4.2. Inner model assessment
The estimation of the structural model included the verification of
the coefficient of determination, the predictive relevance and the model
goodness of fit. R-squared values for all the 4 endogenous constructs
(Fig. 6), which include perceived usefulness, AI use, students’ satisfac­
tion, and individual impact, were 0.647, 0.43, 0.684, and 0.692,
respectively, demonstrating an acceptable level of determination (Chin,
1998). These endogenous latent variables have a predictive relevance of
0.463, 0.299, 0.558, and 0.580, respectively, proving an acceptable
degree of predictive relevance (Table 6). Moreover, the calculated GoF is
above 0.7, indicating a strong level of model fit (Henseler et al., 2009).
The PLS analysis showed that all of the hypotheses were supported,
excluding H12, linking ChatGPT use to individual impact, which was
non-significant and therefore was rejected. The findings showed that
output quality positively and significantly influence on perceived use­
fulness (H1. β = 0.295, t = 4.861, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.11), and ChatGPT use
(H2. β = 0.133, t = 1.978, p = 0.048, f2 = 0.015), and student satis­
faction (H3. β = 0.264, t = 4.641, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.089). Moreover, the
positive impact of social influence on perceived usefulness and ChatGPT
O. Boubker Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820

Table 2 use were shown to be both direct and significant, hence H4. (β = 0.299, t
Respondents’ demographics (N = 319). = 5.950, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.145), and H5. (β = 0.342, t = 5.341, p =
Demographic Profile Frequency Percentage 0.000, f2 = 0.105) were accepted. The positive influence of perceived
variable ease of use on perceived usefulness (β = 0.327, t = 5.589, p = 0.000, f2
Gender Female 169 52.98% = 0.132), and student satisfaction (β = 0.210, t = 3.432, p = 0.001, f2 =
Male 150 47.02% 0.055) was found to be direct and significant, allowing H6 and H7 to be
accepted. Likewise, perceived usefulness was found to a direct influence
Age 19–21 years 208 65.20% on ChatGPT use (H8 β = 0.263, t = 3.205, p = 0.001, f2 = 0.049), and
22–25 years 87 27.27% students satisfaction (H9 β = 0.324, t = 5.304, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.123).
26–29 years 9 2.82% Student satisfaction was directly and significantly related to ChatGPT
Over 29 years 15 4.70%
use (β = 0.160, t = 4.055, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.050), supporting H10.
Whereas, H12 which supposed the positive influence of ChatGPT use on
Marital status Single 295 92.48% individual impact, was rejected since it was not significant (t = 1.611, p
Married 21 6.58%
= 0.107). Lastly, the findings demonstrate a direct and significant
Divorced 3 0.94%
impact of perceived usefulness (β = 0.328, t = 4.962, p = 0.000, f2 =
0.139), and student satisfaction (β = 0.500, t = 6.929, p = 0.000, f2 =
Academic Level BAC + 1 128 40.13%
BAC + 2 58 18.18%
0.318), on individual impact, indicating that H11 and H13 are accepted
BAC + 3 53 16.61% (Table 7).
BAC + 4 31 9.72%
BAC + 5 41 12.85% 5. Discussions and implications
PhD student 8 2.51%

5.1. Findings discussions

Field of study Nursing 60 18.81%
Logistics 58 18.18%
Computer science 44 13.79%
The present research is the first empirical study to explore the in­
Entrepreneurship 35 10.97% fluence of ChatGPT on students’ learning outcomes in the Moroccan
Economics 24 7.52% context. The principal goal was to investigate factors that enhance
Management 23 7.21% ChatGPT usage and user satisfaction, which can influence students’
Medical Studies 24 7.52%
learning outcomes (Fig. 7). The findings found that output quality in­
Finance 19 5.96%
Civil engineering 10 3.13% fluence on perceived usefulness, ChatGPT use, and student satisfaction
Quality management 8 2.51% (H1, H2, H3). In other words, the more ChatGPT produces high-quality
Mathematics & Computer 6 1.88% output, the more students perceive its usefulness and tend to be inter­
Science
ested in using it, and the more satisfied they are. These findings are
Marketing 4 1.25%
Industrial Engineering 2 0.63%
similar to previous studies that have indicated that output quality con­
HRM 2 0.63% tributes to the enhanced technology perceived usefulness (Chen, 2010;
Wang & Wang, 2009). As well, the findings of our study corroborate the
Institutions Higher School of Technology 100 31.35% outcomes of previous studies (Cidral et al., 2018; Lin & Lee, 2006;
Faculty Polydisciplinary 65 20.38% Machado-Da-Silva et al., 2014), that confirmed the central role played
National School of Applied 18 5.64% by perceived usefulness in improving technology use and user
Sciences satisfaction.
Faculty of Law, Economic and 14 4.39%
Social Sciences
As well, social influence has been recognized as a key driver of
Faculty of Medicine and 14 4.39% perceived usefulness and ChatGPT use (H4, H5). These results imply that
Pharmacy people who are important to students can enhance the perceived use­
National School of Business and 12 3.76% fulness of AI tools, and encourage students to use ChatGPT. The above
Management
findings are in line with conclusions of Wang and Wang (2009), who
Faculty of Sciences 4 1.25%
Faculty of Sciences and 2 0.63% confirmed that subjective norms have a significant impact on perceived
Technologies usefulness and intention to use the technology. In addition, Ouajdouni
Higher Institute of Nursing 70 21.94% et al. (2021) empirically confirmed the positive influence of the
Professions and Technical perceived usefulness of e learning on its use among students.
Health
Office of Vocational Training 20 6.27%
Regarding the role of student perception of ChatGPT ease of use, it
and Work Promotion has been shown to be a significant predictor of ChatGPT perceived
usefulness (H6), and student satisfaction (H7). This means that when
City Laayoune 178 55.80% students perceive ChatGPT as being easy to use, their perceived level of
Larache 61 19.12% ChatGPT usefulness, as well as their level of satisfaction, will improve.
Agadir 31 9.72% Earlier studies have found similar results, confirming that perceived ease
Taounate 16 5.02% of use influence technology perceived usefulness (Al-Emran & Teo,
Tangier 6 1.88%
2020; Iancu & Iancu, 2023; Khlaisang et al., 2021), and user satisfaction
Dakhla 5 1.57%
El-Ksar el-Kebir 5 1.57% (Isaac et al., 2019; Kashive et al., 2020).
Fez 5 1.57% The results have shown that the perceived usefulness of ChatGPT has
Oujda 4 1.25% a significant influence on use of this tool (H8), and student’s satisfaction
Kenitra 3 0.94%
(H9). Specifically, a positive perception of ChatGPT’s usefulness is likely
Casablanca 3 0.94%
Ait Melloul 2 0.63%
to encourage students to use the tool more and be more satisfied with it.
This finding aligns with previous studies, which suggests that users are
more likely to use technology, and be satisfied with technology, when
they perceive it to be useful (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020).
Furthermore, using ChatGPT by students was found to be an
important factor in shaping their level satisfaction (H10), meaning that

7
O. Boubker Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820

Fig. 5. Most frequent reasons for students’ use of ChatGPT.

Table 3
Results of reliability and convergent validity.
Construct & Item Loading α ρa ρc AVE VIF

Output quality (Davis et al., 1992; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) 0.813 0.818 0.914 0.842
OQU1 The quality of the output I get from ChatGPT is high. 0.926 1.881
OQU2 I have no problem with the quality of the ChatGPT output. 0.909 1.881

Social influence (Queiroz et al., 2021) 0.895 0.898 0.935 0.826

SIN1 People who are important to me think that I should use ChatGPT. 3.013
SIN2 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use ChatGPT. 0.899 2.641
SIN3 People whose opinions I value prefer that I use ChatGPT. 0.908 2.555

Perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989) 0.874 0.875 0.914 0.727

PUS1 Using ChatGPT will improve my learning. 0.864 2.373
PUS2 Using ChatGPT will enhance my effectiveness. 0.860 2.382
PUS3 I find ChatGPT a useful tool in my learning. 0.885 2.584
PUS4 Using ChatGPT will save my time. 0.798 1.801

Perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989) 0.897 0.897 0.936 0.830

PEU1 I find ChatGPT easy to use. 2.879
PEU2 My interaction with ChatGPT is clear and understandable. 0.922 3.062
PEU3 I find it easy to get ChatGPT to do what I want it to do. 0.897 2.460

ChatGPT use (DeLone & McLean, 2003) 0.797 0.797 0.881 0.712
USE1 I use ChatGPT on daily basis. 1.762
USE2 I use ChatGPT frequently. 0.858 1.835
USE3 I visit ChatGPT often. 0.826 1.572

Student satisfaction (Mohammadi, 2015) 0.897 0.897 0.936 0.830

SSA1 I am pleased enough with ChatGPT. 0.895 2.418
SSA2 ChatGPT satisfies my educational needs. 0.923 3.150
SSA3 I am satisfied with performance of ChatGPT. 0.914 2.923

Individual impact (Damnjanovic et al., 2015; Hsieh & Cho, 2011) 0.909 0.909 0.943 0.846
IMP1 ChatGPT tools improves my grade for the subject. 0.928 3.287
IMP2 ChatGPT use has improved my overall learning performance. 0.922 3.100
IMP3 ChatGPT encourages me to continue learning by myself. 0.909 2.768

the more students use ChatGPT, the more they are likely to feel satisfied.
The validation of this assumption is in accordance with past literature,
which found that technology use constitutes a significant predictor of
user satisfaction (Banafo Akrong et al., 2022; DeLone & McLean, 2003;
Isaac et al., 2019; Tam & Oliveira, 2016; Urbach et al., 2010).
In accordance to previous studies having emphasized the influence of
IT use and perceived usefulness on individual impact (Al-Fraihat et al.,
2020), the results of our research shown that perceived usefulness (H11),
and student satisfaction within ChatGPT (H13) positively enhance the
individual impact.
As opposed to prior literature regarding the involvement of tech­
nology use (H12) in predicting individual impact directly (Banafo

8
O. Boubker Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820

Table 4
Fornell-Larcker and HTMT criteria.
IMP OQU PEU PUS SIN SSA USE

Fornell-Larcker IMP 0.920

OQU 0.646 0.918
PEU 0.618 0.715 0.911
PUS 0.754 0.709 0.721 0.852
SIN 0.643 0.602 0.612 0.677 0.909
SSA 0.797 0.728 0.716 0.757 0.668 0.911
USE 0.574 0.525 0.520 0.589 0.600 0.599 0.844

HTMT Criterion IMP

OQU 0.749
PEU 0.684 0.835
PUS 0.846 0.841 0.815
SIN 0.712 0.703 0.684 0.764
SSA 0.882 0.851 0.798 0.855 0.745
USE 0.674 0.650 0.614 0.705 0.708 0.707

education, thereby providing a valuable framework for evaluating the

Table 5
outcomes and implications of AI integration in the academic environ­
Cross-loadings outputs.
ment. In addition, this study makes an important and relevant contri­
IMP OQU PEU PUS SIN SSA USE bution to the literature by expanding the DeLone and McLean (1992)
IMP1 0.928 0.618 0.587 0.711 0.599 0.733 0.541 model via adding variables derived from the TAM model, including
IMP2 0.922 0.608 0.573 0.707 0.615 0.740 0.529 perceived usefulness, social norms, and ease of use. In this way, we
IMP3 0.909 0.556 0.544 0.663 0.560 0.726 0.513
contribute to the development of the theory and serve as a starting point
OQU1 0.634 0.926 0.696 0.664 0.579 0.705 0.522
OQU2 0.548 0.909 0.613 0.636 0.523 0.628 0.438
for future research. The study of the use of AI tools in education has been
PEU1 0.567 0.649 0.913 0.637 0.542 0.665 0.451 widely explored in the literature (L. Chen et al., 2020; Huang et al.,
PEU2 0.555 0.661 0.922 0.675 0.556 0.646 0.463 2023; Zhai et al., 2021); yet, investigating ChatGPT’s impact on student
PEU3 0.566 0.646 0.897 0.658 0.576 0.645 0.507 learning outcomes has remained unexplored. As such, our research
PUS1 0.662 0.634 0.596 0.864 0.547 0.641 0.498
provides empirical proof of previous works, focusing on evaluating the
PUS2 0.652 0.621 0.574 0.860 0.588 0.647 0.523
PUS3 0.661 0.588 0.656 0.885 0.611 0.652 0.515 impact of a new technology.
PUS4 0.596 0.574 0.635 0.798 0.561 0.641 0.470
SIN1 0.596 0.589 0.596 0.639 0.920 0.609 0.513 5.3. Recommendations for AI developers, HEIs students and HEIs policy
SIN2 0.563 0.497 0.553 0.570 0.899 0.588 0.527
makers
SIN3 0.594 0.553 0.522 0.633 0.908 0.624 0.593
SSA1 0.717 0.687 0.650 0.692 0.632 0.895 0.560
SSA2 0.732 0.642 0.632 0.692 0.600 0.923 0.548 The study findings shown that the more ChatGPT produces high-
SSA3 0.729 0.661 0.674 0.684 0.593 0.914 0.528 quality output, the more students perceive its usefulness and tend to
USE1 0.484 0.467 0.418 0.466 0.494 0.499 0.846 be interested in using it, and the more satisfied they are. It is important
USE2 0.491 0.419 0.437 0.490 0.496 0.508 0.858
USE3 0.476 0.443 0.460 0.533 0.527 0.508 0.826
for developers and providers of AI technology to ensure that users un­
derstand the benefits and potential uses of the technology that they are
using. In this respect, we strongly suggest that AI tools developers
Akrong et al., 2022; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Ouajdouni et al., 2021), consider output quality and ease of use as a starting point to enhance the
we unexpectedly found this hypothesis was rejected. This may be AI tool perceived usefulness, use and user satisfaction. Additionally,
explained by the fact that technology use is not sufficient to affect users, providers should strive to continually improve the functionality and
but their level of satisfaction is what really makes a difference and helps features of the tool to ensure that it remains useful and relevant to users
enhance ChatGPT’s impact on students, thereby increasing students’ over time. Furthermore, our results encourage HEIs managers to
overall learning performance and motivating them to continue to learn emphasize the usefulness and potential benefits of AI tools to users. This
on their own using AI resources. can be achieved through clear communication and training on how to
Our research unveils novel insights by extending the ISSM and TAM use these tools effectively. Moroccan HEIs are urged to implement
in a manner that allows us to analyze the effects of personal, and social training on academic integrity for their students and to provide
beliefs on the perceived usefulness and ease of use of ChatGPT in instructor training on AI instruments and tools like ChatGPT, by
educational settings. By doing so, we contribute to a deeper under­ providing them with the necessary tools for detecting and preventing
standing of the multifaceted factors influencing the adoption and impact academic plagiarism when using AI tools in exams and assignments.
of AI tools in higher education. While Moroccan higher education institutions have not implemented
policies prohibiting students from using AI tools such as ChatGPT,
5.2. Implications for theory managers of these institutions need to adjust policies to provide
appropriate guidelines for their students to use such technology.
Regarding to theoretical implications, this study brings a number of The outcomes of this study demonstrated the benefits of AI tools
insights into MIS and AI tools use in the HEIs context. Following the (exp. ChatGPT) in improving students’ learning outcomes. Hence, in
original model of Information System Success Model (ISSM), this paper order to ensure that the potential impact of AI will be positive for all
brings an original scientific contribution towards understanding how the learners, HEIs should consider closely the ethical implications of using
AI technology (ChatGPT) influences on students. Hence, the current AI and address any potentially negative effects.
study considered well-established models, namely ISSM and TAM As long as students are frequently digital natives and use technology
model, and applied them in a novel context, in order to assess the in­ more readily and intuitively than their instructors use, HEI decision-
fluence of ChatGPT on student achievement. Our research involves makers are invited to support instructors in the process of adapting to
adapting these models to suit the unique dynamics of AI-driven change in order to appropriate AI tools and renovate pedagogical

9
O. Boubker Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820

Fig. 6. Endogenous construct coefficient of determination values.

5.4. Limitations and perspectives

Table 6
Inner model assessment using the coefficient of determination, Q-square, and
While the current research provides insights for theory and practice,
GoF.
there exist some limits. Firstly, the study’s sample size was only enrolled
2 2
Construct R- R-square Q Q GoF
from Moroccan HEIs; therefore, the outcomes may not be applicable to
square adjusted predict
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
other countries. As such, there is potential to expand this study to
IMP 0.692 0.690 0.580 0.519 GoF = R2 × AVE = include additional institutions in different contexts in order to determine
PUS 0.647 0.644 0.463 0.641 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
0.61 × 0.80 = whether these results may be generalizable to other countries. Secondly,
SSA 0.684 0.680 0.558 0.637
0.701240966 the current study ignores teachers’ attitudes, which may also influence
USE 0.430 0.424 0.299 0.400
students’ use of ChatGPT. Therefore, future investigations may examine
factors that shape ChatGPT use in learning, such as instructor attitudes,
practices for teaching (using novel classroom experiences) and assessing curriculum practices, and institutional support. In light of the rapid
students. As such, it is crucial for educators as well as educational in­ advances in AI tools and their application in the university context,
stitutions to be conscious of the ability for this tool from facilitating considering their impact across longitudinal approach may provide
online cheating to take measures to address it. Despite the benefits of valuable insights regarding how these tools may affect students’
ChatGPT in education, this new revolutionary technology entails several learning outcomes. Finally, future studies are encouraged to consider
threats and risks that must be considered. For this reason, policy-makers ethical questions associated with AI use in education.
involved in HE should set up strict and ethical guidelines regarding
plagiarism and usage transparency to guarantee an ethical and respon­ 6. Conclusion
sible use.
The current study further expands the understanding of how
ChatGPT affects the learning process among students by exploring

Table 7
Outcomes of hypotheses verification.
Association β-value T-value P-value f2 Decision

H1 Output Quality → Perceived Usefulness 0.295 4.861 0.000 0.110 Accepted

H2 Output Quality → ChatGPT Use 0.133 1.978 0.048 0.015 Accepted
H3 Output Quality → Student Satisfaction 0.264 4.641 0.000 0.089 Accepted
H4 Social Influence → Perceived Usefulness 0.299 5.950 0.000 0.145 Accepted
H5 Social Influence → ChatGPT Use 0.342 5.341 0.000 0.105 Accepted
H6 Perceived Ease of use → Perceived Usefulness 0.327 5.589 0.000 0.132 Accepted
H7 Perceived Ease of use → Student Satisfaction 0.210 3.432 0.001 0.055 Accepted
H8 Perceived Usefulness → ChatGPT Use 0.263 3.205 0.001 0.049 Accepted
H9 Perceived Usefulness → Student Satisfaction 0.324 5.304 0.000 0.123 Accepted
H10 ChatGPT Use → Student Satisfaction 0.160 4.055 0.000 0.050 Accepted
H11 Perceived Usefulness → Individual Impact 0.328 4.962 0.000 0.139 Accepted
H12 ChatGPT Use → Individual Impact 0.082 1.611 0.107 0.013 Rejected
H13 Student Satisfaction → Individual Impact 0.500 6.929 0.000 0.318 Accepted

10
O. Boubker
Fig. 7. Outcomes of hypotheses testing.
factors that facilitate the use of this technology. In particular, this
empirical study confirmed the positive influence of output quality on
perceived usefulness, ChatGPT use, and student satisfaction. Similarly,
social influence was recognized as being a significant contributor to
ChatGPT perceived usefulness and use. The student perception of
ChatGPT ease of use significantly influence on perceived usefulness and
student satisfaction. In addition, the ChatGPT perceived usefulness
positively influence ChatGPT use and students’ satisfaction. Likewise,
using ChatGPT by students was found to be an important factor in
shaping their level of satisfaction. Lastly, ChatGPT use and perceived
usefulness directly and positively influence individual impact. At this
level, considering the challenge and risks of ChatGPT using in higher
education context, HEIs managers and instructors may better guide
students through raising awareness of the challenges of using AI tools by
aiding them in their learning progress. Also, instructors might consider
directing their students towards using other less disruptive tools, such as
Microsoft’s Spell Checker, Grammarly, Smodin, Tome and Hemingway,
during the learning process.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Abduljabbar, R., Dia, H., Liyanage, S., & Bagloee, S. A. (2019). Applications of artificial
intelligence in transport: An overview. Sustainability, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su11010189.
11
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020). Chatbots: History, technology, and
applications. Machine Learning with Applications, 2, Article 100006. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mlwa.2020.100006
Al-Emran, M., & Teo, T. (2020). Do knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing really
affect e-learning adoption? An empirical study. Education and Information
Technologies, 25(3), 1983–1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10062-w
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems
success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
Alshurideh, M., Al Kurdi, B., Salloum, S. A., Arpaci, I., & Al-Emran, M. (2020). Predicting
the actual use of m-learning systems: A comparative approach using PLS-SEM and
machine learning algorithms. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1826982
Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Cultural impacts on e-learning systems’
success. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2016.06.003
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022). OpenAI ChatGPT generated literature review: Digital
twin in healthcare (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4308687). https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.4308687.
Banafo Akrong, G., Yunfei, S., & Owusu, E. (2022). Development and validation of an
improved DeLone-McLean IS success model—Application to the evaluation of a tax
administration ERP. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 47,
Article 100579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100579
Bhukya, R., & Paul, J. (2023). Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we
learned and what we need to learn? – A hybrid systematic literature review. Journal
of Business Research, 162, Article 113870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2023.113870
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. 3rd. New York.
Cai, S., & Cui, W. (2023). Evade ChatGPT Detectors via A Single Space (arXiv:
2307.02599). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.02599.
Cao, L. (2022). AI in finance: Challenges, techniques, and opportunities. ACM Computing
Surveys, 55(3), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502289
Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharjee, K. K. (2020). Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher
education: A quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Education
and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3443–3463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
020-10159-7
Chen, H.-J. (2010). Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job
outcomes: An empirical study based on the IS success model. Computers & Education,
55(4), 1628–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.005
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
Chen, Y., Jensen, S., Albert, L. J., Gupta, S., & Lee, T. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI)
student assistants in the classroom: Designing Chatbots to support student success.
Information Systems Frontiers, 25(1), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-
10291-4
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., Chai, C.-S., King, I., Wong, S., & Yam, Y. (2022). Creation and
evaluation of a pretertiary artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum. IEEE Transactions
on Education, 65(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3085878
O. Boubker
Chiu, T. K. F., Moorhouse, B. L., Chai, C. S., & Ismailov, M. (2023). Teacher support and
student motivation to learn with Artificial Intelligence (AI) based chatbot. Interactive
Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2172044
Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature
review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of
artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4,
Article 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
Choi, E. P. H., Lee, J. J., Ho, M.-H., Kwok, J. Y. Y., & Lok, K. Y. W. (2023). Chatting or
cheating? The impacts of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence language models
on nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 125, Article 105796. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105796
Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success
determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001
Cidral, W., Aparicio, M., & Oliveira, T. (2020). Students’ long-term orientation role in e-
learning success: A Brazilian study. Heliyon, 6(12), Article e05735. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05735
Damnjanovic, V., Jednak, S., & Mijatovic, I. (2015). Factors affecting the effectiveness
and use of Moodle: Students’ perception. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4),
496–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.789062
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to
use computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14),
1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. https://doi.org/
10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2002). Information systems success revisited. System
Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference
On, 2966–2976.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19
(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
Gill, S. S., Xu, M., Patros, P., Wu, H., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., … Buyya, R. (2024).
Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging Era of AI
Chatbots. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 19–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.06.002
Hair, 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
He, Q., Zheng, H., Ma, X., Wang, L., Kong, H., & Zhu, Z. (2022). Artificial intelligence
application in a renewable energy-driven desalination system: A critical review.
Energy and AI, 7, Article 100123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyai.2021.100123
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
014-0403-8
Hermann, E. (2022). Artificial intelligence and mass personalization of communication
content—An ethical and literacy perspective. New Media & Society, 24(5),
1258–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211022702
Hsieh, P.-A.-J., & Cho, V. (2011). Comparing e-Learning tools’ success: The case of
instructor–student interactive vs. self-paced tools. Computers & Education, 57(3),
2025–2038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.002
Huang, A. Y. Q., Lu, O. H. T., & Yang, S. J. H. (2023). Effects of artificial Intelligence-
Enabled personalized recommendations on learners’ learning engagement,
motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education, 194,
Article 104684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684
Hwang, G.-J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and
research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education:
Artificial Intelligence, 1, Article 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
caeai.2020.100001
Iancu, I., & Iancu, B. (2023). Interacting with chatbots later in life: A technology
acceptance perspective in COVID-19 pandemic situation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1111003.
Isaac, O., Aldholay, A., Abdullah, Z., & Ramayah, T. (2019). Online learning usage within
Yemeni higher education: The role of compatibility and task-technology fit as
mediating variables in the IS success model. Computers & Education, 136, 113–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.012
Islam, A. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university
context. Computers & Education, 69, 387–399.
Joiner, I. A. (2018). Chapter 1 - Artificial Intelligence: AI is Nearby. In I. A. Joiner (Ed.),
Emerging library technologies (pp. 1–22). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-102253-5.00002-2.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land?
On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence.
Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
Kashive, N., Powale, L., & Kashive, K. (2020). Understanding user perception toward
artificial intelligence (AI) enabled e-learning. The International Journal of Information
and Learning Technology, 38(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-05-2020-0090
Khlaisang, J., Teo, T., & Huang, F. (2021). Acceptance of a flipped smart application for
learning: A study among Thai university students. Interactive Learning Environments,
29(5), 772–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612447
Kuo, R.-Z. (2018). EMRS Adoption: Exploring the effects of information security
management awareness and perceived service quality. Health Policy and Technology,
7(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.10.012
12
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
Lin, H.-F., & Lee, G.-G. (2006). Determinants of success for online communities: An
empirical study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(6), 479–488.
Liu, Z., Yao, Z., Li, F., & Luo, B. (2023). Check Me If You Can: Detecting ChatGPT-
generated academic writing using CheckGPT (arXiv:2306.05524). arXiv. https://doi.
org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.05524.
Loh, X.-M., Lee, V.-H., & Leong, L.-Y. (2022). Mobile-lizing continuance intention with
the mobile expectation-confirmation model: An SEM-ANN-NCA approach. Expert
Systems with Applications, 205, Article 117659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2022.117659
Machado-Da-Silva, F. N., Meirelles, F. D. S., Filenga, D., & Filho, M. B. (2014). Student
satisfaction process in virtual learning system: Considerations based in information
and service quality from Brazil’s experience. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.52605.
Martínez-Gómez, M., Bustamante, E., & Berna-Escriche, C. (2022). Development and
validation of an E-learning education model in the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study
in secondary education. Sustainability, 14(20), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142013261.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Social and individual antecedents of m-learning adoption in
Iran. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.03.006
Ouajdouni, A., Chafik, K., & Boubker, O. (2021). Measuring e-learning systems success:
Data from students of Higher Education Institutions in Morocco. Data in Brief. ,
Article 106807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.106807
Ouajdouni, A., Chafik, K., & Boubker, O. (2022). Evaluation of e-learning system during
the covid-19 pandemic in Morocco: A partial least squares modeling approach.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 12(6), 492–499.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.6.1646
Palal, D., Ghonge, S., Jadav, V., & Rathod, H. (2023). ChatGPT: A double-edged sword?
Health Services Insights, 16, 11786329231174338. https://doi.org/10.1177/
11786329231174338.
Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on
teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology
Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8
Qasem, F. (2023). ChatGPT in scientific and academic research: Future fears and
reassurances. Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-
03-2023-0043
Queiroz, M. M., Fosso Wamba, S., De Bourmont, M., & Telles, R. (2021). Blockchain
adoption in operations and supply chain management: Empirical evidence from an
emerging economy. International Journal of Production Research, 59(20), 6087–6103.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1803511
Quintans-Júnior, L. J., Gurgel, R. Q., de Araújo, A. A. S., Correia, D., & Martins-
Filho, P. R. (2023). ChatGPT: The new panacea of the academic world. Revista Da
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 56, e0060.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Sinkovics, N., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2023). A perspective on
using partial least squares structural equation modelling in data articles. Data in
Brief, 48, Article 109074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109074
Roose, K. (2022). The brilliance and weirdness of ChatGPT. The New York Times.
Sahoo, S., & Lo, C.-Y. (2022). Smart manufacturing powered by recent technological
advancements: A review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 64, 236–250. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.06.008
Sarstedt, M., Bengart, P., Shaltoni, A. M., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The use of sampling
methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International
Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02650487.2017.1348329
Schwalbe, N., & Wahl, B. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of global health.
The Lancet, 395(10236), 1579–1586. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)
30226-9
Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model
of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240–253.
Sokhranyaeva, T. V. (2021). Mass personalization strategy in modern education.
Chelovek, 32(2), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.31857/S023620070014857-9
Stokel-Walker, C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays—Should professors worry?
Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7
Sukendro, S., Habibi, A., Khaeruddin, K., Indrayana, B., Syahruddin, S., Makadada, F. A.,
& Hakim, H. (2020). Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand
students’ use of e-learning during Covid-19: Indonesian sport science education
context. Heliyon, 6(11), e05410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05410
Tam, C., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual
performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,
61, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.016
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., &
Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case
study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Urbach, N., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2010). An empirical investigation of employee
portal success. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 184–206. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.06.002
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186–204.
Vincent-Lancrin, S., & Van der Vlies, R. (2020). Trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) in
education: Promises and challenges.
Wang, W.-T., & Wang, C.-C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-
based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761–774.
O. Boubker
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future
directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
Wu, Z. F., Li, J., Cai, M. Y., Lin, Y., & Zhang, W. J. (2016). On membership of black-box
or white-box of artificial neural network models. In 2016 IEEE 11th conference on
industrial electronics and applications (ICIEA), 1400–1404. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICIEA.2016.7603804.
Xie, H. (2023). The promising future of cognitive science and artificial intelligence.
Nature Reviews Psychology, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00170-3
13
Expert Systems With Applications 238 (2024) 121820
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review
of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the
educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1),
39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., &
Li, Y. (2021). A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to
2020. Complexity, 2021, e8812542.
Zhao, Y. (2016). A step toward an intelligent and integrated computer-aided design of
apparel products [PhD dissertation, University of Saskatchewan]. https://harvest.usas
k.ca/handle/10388/ETD-2016-03-2471.