I.

INTRODUCTION

I.1 Background of the Study

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed

various sectors, including education. The integration of AI-powered tools—such
as chatbots, virtual tutors, plagiarism checkers, and content generators—has
significantly influenced how students learn, access information, and accomplish
academic tasks (Al-Zahrani, 2024, Brasca et al., 2022, and Freeman, 2025 as cited
in Cordia, 2025).

In this field, artificial intelligence (AI) has taken the lead thanks to its
many capabilities for intelligent feedback, learning personalization, and student-
specific adaptation (Al-sa'di and Ahmad, 2024). These resources cannot only
produce texts but also conduct information searches, including using search
engines. They can also teach students how to plan writing assignments and think
creatively (Ng and Ho, 2025).

AI has the capability to customize learning experiences, deliver

intelligent tutoring, support collaborative learning, and automate assessment
processes. It introduces computationally efficient approaches that can adjust to
students’ evolving needs, enabling them to control the pace of their learning based
on their individual abilities (Al-kumaim et al., 2025).

In higher education, the use of AI has led to the creation of more

adaptive, efficient, and effective instructional models (Iryna, 2023; Chander et al.,
& Helen, 2021, as cited in Kenchakkanavar, 2023). Understanding these usage
patterns is essential for educational institutions to design programs that promote
responsible and effective AI integration. By examining how education students
use AI, educators and policymakers can gain insights into their readiness for
technology-enhanced teaching and learning.

The widespread use of AI in education has raised concerns about its

negative impact on students' academic and real-life performance, leading to
increased dependence on AI, hindering decision-making, critical thinking, and
problem-solving abilities. Additionally, there are concerns about the privacy and
security of the students' data that are used in training the models of artificial
intelligence (Ukah and Ngozi, 2025).

This study aims to provide a quantitative analysis of AI usage patterns

among education students, highlighting the various ways in which students utilize
Artificial Intelligence tools, such as grammar checking, paraphrasing, essay
writing, solving mathematical problems, summarizing, and among others.

I.2 Importance of the Study

The study primarily aims to provide a quantitative analysis of AI usage

patterns among education students. The result of the study would provide relevant
and informative data to the following stakeholder:

For Education Students – This study helps students understand their AI

usage patterns in tasks like research, writing, and learning. It encourages more
responsible and effective use of AI tools.

For Teachers and Instructors – Findings can help teachers design

lessons that integrate AI effectively while addressing gaps in students’ digital
literacy and promoting ethical use.

For Educational Institutions – Results can guide schools in developing

AI literacy programs and policies, ensuring future educators are equipped with
essential technological skills.

For Future Researchers – This study serves as a reference for future

research on AI adoption and its impact on learning behaviors across disciplines.

I.3 Scope and Delimitations

This study focuses on examining how Education students at Zamboanga

Peninsula Polytechnic State University (ZPPSU) utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI)
applications in their academic activities during the school year 2025–2026. It
 covers students enrolled in the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) major in
Mathematics and English, Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED), Bachelor
of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education (BTVTED), and Bachelor of
Technology and Livelihood Education (BTLED) programs. Data gathered are
confined to student responses within the specified academic year and institution.

II. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES

This study primarily aims to analyze the usage patterns of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Tools among Educations students.
Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, Mathway, QuillBot, and others) are
commonly used by Education students in performing their academic tasks?
2. How do Education students utilize AI tools in writing and communication,
particularly in grammar checking, essay writing, paraphrasing, summarizing, and
creating formal academic outputs?
3. To what extent do Education students use AI tools for problem-solving, academic
tasks, and learning enhancement, such as solving problems, exploring difficult
concepts, and improving study habits?

III. METHODOLOGY

III.1 Respondents
The respondents of this study were composed of 150 Education
students from Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University (ZPPSU)
during the school year 2025–2026. The participants came from different
Education programs to ensure a diverse and representative sample. Specifically,
32 students were from the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) program,
29 from the Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education (BTLEd)
program, 13 from the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) major in
Mathematics, 14 from the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) major in
English, and 61 from the Bachelor of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education
(BTVTEd) program.
 This distribution highlights the inclusion of Education students
from both elementary and secondary levels, as well as technical-
vocational specializations, providing a comprehensive overview of AI
usage patterns among future educators with varying academic
backgrounds.

3.2 Sampling Technique

The respondents of this study were selected using the stratified

proportionate sampling technique. This method was employed to ensure that all
Education programs at Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University
(ZPPSU) were fairly represented according to their population size. The total
population of Education students during the school year 2025–2026 was 1,967,
from which a sample size of 150 students was determined using proportionate

Program Population (N) Percentage (%) Sample Size (n)

BEED 420 21 32
BTLED 385 29 29
BSED MATH 174 9 13
BSED ENGLISH 183 9 14
BTVTED 805 41 61
TOTAL 1967 100 150
allocation.

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents per Program

Each program, namely BEEd, BTLEd, BSEd Math, BSEd English, and
BTVTEd, was treated as a distinct stratum, and respondents were chosen
proportionally from each group based on their total enrollment. This sampling
method ensured that the data collected accurately reflected the AI usage patterns
of the entire Education student population while maintaining fairness and
representativeness across different specializations.

3.3 Survey Questionnaire

 The primary data-gathering instrument used in this study was a survey
questionnaire specifically developed to obtain quantitative data on the usage
patterns of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools among Education students at
Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University. The questionnaire consisted
of 13 statements measured using a five-point Likert scale with the following
descriptions: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree, and 5 –
Strongly Agree. These items were organized into three main categories: Writing
and Communication (5 items), Problem-Solving and Academic Task (3 items),
and Learning and Knowledge Enhancement (5 items).

Additionally, the instrument included a multiple-choice question that

asked respondents to identify the AI tools they commonly use, such as ChatGPT,
Grammarly, Mathway, QuillBot, Photomath, Meta AI, and others. The
questionnaire was designed to gather comprehensive data on students’ familiarity,
frequency, and purpose of using AI tools in various academic contexts. The
simplicity and structured format of the instrument ensured clarity, reliability, and
ease of response among participants.

3.4 Procedure

The researchers personally distributed printed survey questionnaires to

150 Education students of Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State
University (ZPPSU). Before answering, respondents were informed about the
purpose of the study and assured of their voluntary participation, anonymity,
and the confidentiality of their responses. After completion, the questionnaires
were collected manually, organized, and analyzed to determine the AI usage
patterns among Education students.
 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1. Extent of AI Usage in Academic Writing and Communication Activities

The results show that students widely use AI tools for writing and communication
tasks. The use of AI for grammar checking ranks highest, with 20% strongly agreeing and
59.3% agreeing, indicating that most students rely on AI to refine their grammar and
sentence structure. In terms of essay writing, 18.7% strongly agree and 56.7% agree,
showing that AI is also a valuable aid for generating ideas and improving written outputs.
Similarly, the use of AI for paraphrasing academic texts is common, with 18% strongly
agreeing and 56% agreeing, highlighting students’ preference for tools that help rephrase
content effectively while maintaining originality. For summarizing content, 20.7% strongly
agree and 48% agree, though 25.3% disagree, suggesting that while many students
appreciate AI’s ability to condense information, others may prefer manual summarization for
better understanding. Lastly, the use of AI in formal and academic writing records 10.7%
strongly agreeing and 60% agreeing, showing that students find AI useful for improving
clarity and structure in research and academic papers.
 Figure 2. Extent of AI Utilization in Problem-Solving and Academic Tasks

The results show that students use AI tools differently when it comes to solving and
checking academic problems. For the use of AI in solving mathematical problems, 4.7%
strongly agree and 29.3% agree, while 36% remain neutral and 20.7% disagree,
indicating that only a few students rely heavily on AI for solving math-related tasks. On the
other hand, 19.3% strongly agree and 38.7% agree in another item related to using AI for
solving mathematical problems, showing a slightly higher acceptance level—suggesting
that students may use AI selectively depending on the complexity of the task. Lastly, 7.3%
strongly agree and 43.3% agree that they use AI for checking the accuracy of solutions,
while 30.7% are neutral and 15.3% disagree. This implies that while not all students
depend on AI to do the solving itself, many utilize it as a verification tool to ensure accuracy
in their answers.
 Figure 3. Extent of AI Utilization for Learning and Knowledge Enhancement

The results show that students actively use AI tools to enhance their learning and
understanding. The use of AI for reviewing and understanding concepts ranks highest,
with 22% strongly agreeing and 45.3% agreeing, indicating that AI serves as a valuable
aid in clarifying lessons and complex topics. Similarly, 23.3% strongly agree and 42.7%
agree that they use AI as a source of academic ideas, showing its importance in
brainstorming and developing insights for schoolwork. However, only 8% strongly agree
and 32.7% agree regarding regular dependence on AI for academic support, while
40.7% remain neutral, suggesting that some students still balance AI use with traditional
study methods. In terms of study habits and time management, 8% strongly agree and
29.3% agree, while 36% are neutral and 23.3% disagree, implying that AI is less often
relied on for personal productivity. Lastly, the use of AI in creating mock exams for study
improvement shows lower engagement, with only 6% strongly agreeing and 19.3%
agreeing, while 34.7% disagree, suggesting limited use of AI for self-assessment purposes.
Figure 4. Frequency of AI Tool Usage Among Students for Academic Purposes
 The results show that ChatGPT is the most used AI tool among students for learning
and knowledge enhancement. A large majority, 28.7% strongly agreeing and 53.3%

agreeing, indicate active use for academic purposes, reflecting strong reliance and familiarity
with the platform. CiCi, on the other hand, is less utilized, with only 5.3% strongly agreeing
and 26% agreeing, while many remain neutral (32.7%) or disagree (23.3%), suggesting
low awareness or limited effectiveness for learning. Grammarly shows moderate usage,
with 8% strongly agreeing and 30.7% agreeing, while 40.7% disagree, indicating that it is
mainly valued for grammar correction rather than deeper academic support. Mathway ranks
among the least used, as 76% of respondents disagree, showing it is primarily seen as a tool
for solving math problems rather than for general academic improvement. Meta AI has high
acceptance, with 37.3% strongly agreeing and 35.3% agreeing, reflecting positive
perceptions of its usefulness for information gathering and study support. Photomath shows
low usage, with only 10.7% strongly agreeing and 17.4% agreeing, while 56.4% disagree,
implying it is mostly used for specific mathematical tasks. Lastly, Quillbot is one of the most
preferred tools, with 24.7% strongly agreeing and 39.3% agreeing, showing students’ trust
in it as an effective writing and paraphrasing assistant.
 Figure 5. Statistical Analysis of Students’ Use of AI Tools for
Learning and Academic Tasks

For Item A, “I use AI tools to check grammar in written outputs,” the mean value of
3.87 indicates that respondents generally agree that they use AI tools for checking grammar
in their written outputs. Both the median and mode of 4.00 confirm that “Agree” was the
most frequent and typical response among participants. The standard deviation of 0.917
shows a moderate variability in responses, suggesting that while most students use AI for
grammar checking, a few may use it less frequently. The variance (0.841) supports this
moderate spread, while the range of 4 (from 1 to 5) shows that responses vary across all
levels of the Likert scale. This implies that grammar checking is a widely used but not
universally practiced AI function among students.

For Item B, “I use AI tools to generate or to assist in writing essays,” the mean
score of 3.86 suggests that students also agree that they use AI tools to generate or assist in
writing essays. The median and mode values of 4.00 indicate that most respondents share this
view. The standard deviation of 0.811, being the lowest among the four items, indicates that
students’ responses were consistent. The variance (0.658) supports this consistency, showing
limited dispersion in responses. The range of 3 shows that responses were somewhat more
clustered, meaning most students fell between “Agree” and “Strongly Agree.”

For Item C, “I use AI tools to paraphrase or rephrase academic texts,” the mean
value of 3.81 signifies that student agree that they use AI tools for paraphrasing or rephrasing
academic texts. The median and mode of 4.00 reinforce that “Agree” is the dominant
response. The standard deviation (0.862) and variance (0.743) imply moderate variability,
suggesting that while many students rely on AI for this purpose, others use it less frequently
or selectively. The range of 4 demonstrates that responses covered nearly all levels of
agreement, indicating diverse habits in AI paraphrasing usage.

For Item D, “I use AI tools to summarize lessons, articles, or readings,” the mean
of 3.83 shows that students generally agree that they use AI tools to summarize lessons,
articles, or readings. The median and mode of 4.00 again reveal that “Agree” was the most
common response. The standard deviation of 0.841 indicates moderate variability, suggesting
that while summarizing with AI is a common practice, the frequency of use differs slightly
among students. The variance (0.708) supports this observation, while the range of 4
indicates a broad spread of responses across different levels of agreement.

For Item E, “I use AI tools to create formal letters, emails, or academic

documents,” the mean of 3.64, median of 4.00, and mode of 4.00 indicate that respondents
generally agree that they use AI tools for formal writing tasks. This shows that most
participants often rely on AI for creating structured and professional documents. The standard
deviation of 0.914 and variance of 0.836 suggest a moderate spread of responses, meaning
some respondents use AI tools more frequently than others. The range of 4 implies that while
most participants agreed, a few provided lower ratings.

For Item F, “I use AI tools to help solve mathematical problems,” the computed
mean of 3.36, median of 3.00, and mode of 3.00 indicate a generally neutral perception
among respondents. This suggests that while some participants rely on AI to assist in solving
mathematical tasks, others prefer to work independently without such tools. The standard
deviation of 1.033 and variance of 1.067 reveal a moderate to high level of variability,
implying differing views and usage patterns among students. Moreover, the range of 4
signifies those responses covered the full spectrum of options, from strong disagreement to
strong agreement.

For Item G, “I use AI tools to prepare presentations, reports, or other projects,”

the results show a mean of 3.47, median of 3.00, and mode of 4.00, which suggest a slightly
positive perception of using AI for academic outputs. This indicates that most respondents
occasionally utilize AI tools to assist in preparing presentations or written reports. The
standard deviation of 1.010 and variance of 1.020 demonstrate a moderate spread of
responses, showing variation in how frequently students depend on AI for these tasks. With a
range of 4, it is evident that while a majority expressed agreement, others remain uncertain or
seldom use AI for academic preparation.

In Item H, “I use AI tools to check or verify the accuracy of my solutions,” the

obtained mean of 3.51, median of 4.00, and mode of 4.00 indicate general agreement among
respondents. This reflects a tendency to use AI as a means of verifying and ensuring the
correctness of academic work. The standard deviation of 0.929 and variance of 0.863 indicate
moderate consistency, suggesting that most participants share similar views, though a few
differ in their level of reliance on AI for verification. The range of 4 shows that responses
varied across the entire scale.

For Item I, “I use AI tools as a source of new ideas or perspectives,” the mean
of 3.81, median of 4.00, and mode of 4.00 indicate that respondents generally agree that they
use AI tools to gain fresh insights or viewpoints. This shows that most participants often rely
on AI to broaden their understanding or inspire creativity. The standard deviation of 0.888
and variance of 0.788 suggest a moderate spread of responses, meaning that while many
respondents agree, some vary in how frequently they use AI for this purpose. The range of 4
implies that although most participants agreed, a few provided lower ratings.

For Item J, “I depend on AI tools regularly to support my academic

requirements,” the mean of 3.81, median of 4.00, and mode of 4.00 indicate that respondents
generally agree that they frequently use AI tools for academic purposes. This suggests that
most participants rely on AI to assist them with school-related tasks, such as studying,
writing, or completing assignments. The standard deviation of 0.910 and variance of 0.828
indicate a moderate spread of responses, meaning that while many respondents consistently
use AI tools, others do so less frequently. The range of 4 shows that although most
participants agreed, a few expressed lower levels of dependence.

For Item K, “I use AI tools to enhance my study habits and time management,”
the computed mean of 3.26, median of 3.00, and mode of 3.00 indicate a generally neutral
perception among respondents. This suggests that while some participants find AI tools
helpful in improving their study routines and managing their time, others may not use them
for this purpose or are uncertain about their effectiveness. The standard deviation of 0.944
and variance of 0.892 show a moderate level of variability, meaning that students differ in
how they utilize AI for study and time management. Furthermore, the range of 4 signifies
those responses span the full range of opinions, from strong disagreement to strong
agreement.

For Item L, “I use AI tools to explore or review concepts I find difficult,” the
computed mean of 3.15, median of 3.00, and mode of 3.00 indicate a generally neutral
perception among respondents. This suggests that while some participants use AI tools to
better understand or revisit challenging topics, others may seldom rely on them for this
purpose. The standard deviation of 0.981 and variance of 0.963 indicate a moderate level of
variability, showing that respondents differ in how frequently they use AI to aid their learning
of difficult concepts. Furthermore, the range of 4 signifies that responses span from strong
disagreement to strong agreement.

For Item M, “I use AI tools to make mock exams to improve my study,” the mean
score of 2.81, median of 3.00, and mode of 2.00 indicate that respondents were generally
neutral to slightly disagreeing. The standard deviation (1.034) and variance (1.070) suggest a
high level of variability, meaning participants had diverse opinions about using AI for mock
exams. The range of 4 further supports this variability, showing that responses were spread
across almost the entire scale.

For Item N, “ChatGPT,” the mean of 4.11, median of 4.00, and mode of 4.00
reveal a strong agreement among respondents. The standard deviation (0.677) and variance
(0.458) are relatively low, indicating that responses were consistent and tightly clustered
around the mean. With a range of 2, most participants agreed or strongly agreed, showing a
generally positive perception toward ChatGPT as an AI tool.

In Item O, “CiCi,” the mean score of 2.88, median of 3.00, and mode of 3.00
imply a neutral overall stance among respondents. The standard deviation (1.099) and
variance (1.207), however, suggest substantial variation, meaning that opinions about this AI
tool were divided. The range of 4 confirms that responses spanned widely across the scale,
from disagreement to agreement.

For Item P, “Grammarly,” has a mean of 2.26, median of 2.00, and mode of
2.00, which indicates a general disagreement with the statement. The standard deviation
(0.878) and variance (0.771) show moderate consistency in responses, while the range of 3
suggests that most participants’ answers fell within a narrower segment of the scale compared
to other items.

For Item Q, “Mathway,” the mean of 1.91, median of 2.00, and mode of 2.00,
with a standard deviation (0.483) and variance (0.233), indicate that respondents generally
disagreed or rated this item poorly. Since both the SD and variance are small, it shows that
responses were highly consistent and there was very little difference among participants’
answers.
 For Item R, “Meta AI,” the mean of 3.08, median of 3.00, and mode of 4.00,
with a standard deviation of 0.840 and variance of 0.705, suggest a neutral to slightly positive
response from the participants. The moderate SD and variance indicate that there was some
variation in the responses—some participants agreed, while others remained neutral.

For Item S, “Photomath,” the mean of 2.24, median of 2.00, and mode of
2.00, with a standard deviation of 0.841 and variance of 0.707, show that respondents tended
to disagree or gave low ratings for this item. The moderate variability (SD and variance)
suggests that while many rated it low, a few participants expressed different views, causing
slight differences in opinions.

For Item T, “Quillbot,” the mean of 3.81, median of 4.00, and mode of 4.00,
with a standard deviation of 0.903 and variance of 0.815, indicate that respondents generally
agreed or had positive perceptions of this item. The SD and variance show moderate
variability, meaning that while most participants rated it positively, a few responses varied
slightly.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

The study analyzed the usage patterns of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools
among Education students, focusing on their applications in academic writing,
problem-solving, and learning enhancement. The results revealed that AI tools are
widely used by Education students, particularly for writing and communication
tasks. Tools like ChatGPT and QuillBot were the most frequently utilized,
especially for essay writing, paraphrasing, grammar checking, and summarizing,
as students agreed that these tools help improve the clarity, accuracy, and structure
of their written outputs. In terms of problem-solving, students showed moderate
use of AI tools such as Mathway and Photomath, with many preferring to use AI
for checking or verifying answers rather than performing the actual computation,
indicating cautious and selective use. Regarding learning enhancement, students
used AI to understand difficult concepts, generate ideas, and support academic
research; however, the use of AI tools for study habits, time management, and
 self-assessment, such as creating mock exams, was found to be less frequent,
suggesting that AI has not yet been fully integrated into students’ independent
study routines. Overall, the objectives of the study were achieved, as it
successfully identified the commonly used AI tools, described how Education
students utilize them in academic tasks, and determined the extent of their use for
problem-solving and learning enhancement.

5.2 Recommendations:

1. Expand the scope of participants by including students from other disciplines

or universities to provide a broader perspective on AI tool usage across
different academic fields.
2. Conduct qualitative studies such as interviews or focus group discussions to
gain deeper insights into students’ experiences, motivations, and attitudes
toward using AI tools in their studies.
3. Examine the relationship between AI tool usage and academic performance to
determine whether frequent use of AI tools has a significant impact on
students’ learning outcomes and productivity.
4. Explore the ethical and academic integrity aspects of AI use, focusing on how
students balance AI assistance with originality, honesty, and critical thinking
in their academic work.
5. Investigate the long-term effects of AI integration in education, including how
continuous exposure to AI technologies influences students’ study habits,
creativity, and independent learning skills.

VI. References

Al-Kumaim, N. H., Hassan, S. H., Al-Shami, S. A., & Alhazmi, A. K. (2025).

Exploring

Generative AI Usage Patterns in Universities: Analysis and Guidelines for

Sustainable Practices. [Link]

Ciordia, J. R. (2025). AI usage patterns and educational outcomes in higher

education

[PDF]. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.

[Link]

c72a950100a3/download

R. Panjabi, A. AL-Sa’di and E. Ahmad (2024). Advantage of using AI in education to

enhance learning: Review and analysis. (2024, November 29). IEEE

Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore.

[Link]

Ng, S.-L., & Ho, C.-C. (2025). Generative AI in Education: Mapping the Research

Landscape Through Bibliometric Analysis. Information, 16(8), 657.

[Link]

Kenchakkanavar, A. Y., & Kokatanur, G. R. (2025). Exploring the Artificial Intelligence

Tools: Realizing the Advantages in Education and Research.

(2023.). [Link]. [Link]

Ukah, G., & Ngozi. (2025). A Comparative Study of The Advantages and

Disadvantages of Ai- Enhanced Learning in the 21st Century: The

Implications to Secondary School Students in Imo State. International Journal

of Educational and Scientific Research Findings, 7(1), 59.

[Link]

of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-ai-enhanced-learning-in-the-21st-

[Link]
 VII. ‌Appendix