CHAPTER ONE

1.0. INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence [AI ] is the Simulation of human intelligences process by computer systems .It
involves designing machines that can perform task that typically require human intelligence such as
learning ,reasoning and problem solving .AI aims to create systems that can analyze data make
predictions and adapt to new situations ,often through machine learning algorithms . Artificial
Intelligence (AI) is a broad field encompassing various technologies that have been developed over the
past 50 years to enable machines to perform tasks traditionally requiring human intelligence, such as
perceiving, reasoning, learning, and interacting (Ergen, 2019). However, recent advancements in
generative AI (GenAI), particularly models like ChatGPT, have brought unprecedented attention to AI’s
transformative potential across multiple industries (Hong et al., 2022; Lucci et al., 2022).

The rapid advancement of Artificial intelligence [AI] is transforming various sectors ,and education in no
expectation, AI plays a vital role in both general and higher education ,influencing students academic
achievements by offering a mix opportunities and challenges (Ali et al., 2024) .In semi-urban academic
region such as kontagora ,It is not yet clear how students and lectures perceive and use these
[Link] is growing needs to understand whether the generative AI is enhancing learning or
eroding traditional academic values in [Link] application of AI in students assignments or teaching
and learning is becoming more popular, even as interest in AI’s effects on general education is growing
(Chiu et al., 2023; Gonzalez et al., 2017). More specifically, machine learning, a specific artificial
intelligence technology, has been applied to automatically evaluate scientific models used in the
education sector. Zhai et al. (2022) employed machine learning techniques to assess the quality of these
models after gathering student responses to activities. Their research demonstrates how artificial
intelligence can be used to automate assessment procedures and provide students with timely and
detailed feedback on their work in the area of science education (Zhai,C Haudek, Zhai et al., 2020a, b,
2022). Similarly, Popenici and Kerr (2017) conducted a study to investigate the impact of AI on the
teaching-learning process in higher education settings. Their study focused on how generative AI are
affecting student learning and traditional teaching approaches in education. Their research presents
valuable insights into the incorporation of AI within science education contexts

AI impact on students assignments in tertiary institution can negatively affect critical thinking ,problem-
solving skills and motivation .potentially leading to over reliance in technology and academic dis-
honesty ,students may bypass essential learning process and develop a superficial understanding of
subjects if they rely heavily on AI for completing assignments . Higher education institutions must
clearly define the role and extent of AI in education to address this challenge effectively (Vieriu &
Petrea, 2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) has numerous benefits in science education, profoundly
affecting teaching and learning for science subjects. AI programs can study how students learn and
change the material to fit each student’s needs, skills, and the way they learn. This way of creating
educational material helps students learn better and faster. It lets them go at their own speed and in a
way that matches how they like to learn (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).Also, AI-powered data analysis
can help science teachers understand how well their studentsare doing in specific scientific subjects and
where they might need extra [Link] significant advantage is the improvement of exploratory
learning through virtual labs and reenactments. AI-powered instruments have the potential to recreate
complex logical tests, which may be illogical or hazardous to conduct in a conventional classroom
setting. These virtual situations offer hands-on learning encounters and permit understudies to try
distinctive scenarios, improving their understanding of scientific concepts (Ibáñez etal., 2018). This
approach was not as supportive of extending understudy engagement but too valuable to democratize
access to high-quality science instruction. AI devices can interface understudies and teachers over
diverse geographies, empowering the trade of logical thoughts and cultivating a worldwide point of view
on logical issues. This interconnecting also permits integrating differing datasets into the educational
modules, uncovering understudies to real-world logical challenges and datasets (Holmes et al., 2023).

The use of AI in students assignments is not without its challenges .The effective integration of artificial
intelligence in education required a though understanding of both the technology and the learning
process (Qadir j Talks on the Effective Integration of AI Tools in Education - Google Search,
n.d.). Highlight the risks of students misusing AI tools in dishonest or unauthorized ways, such as using
AI generated content to complete assignments without proper attributions.(Vieriu & Petrea, 2025) .One
of the most significant benefits of AI in higher education is its ability to tailor educational experience to
individual students .AI powered learning platforms data –driven algorithms to asses students
performance and adapt content to meet specific learning needs [zawacki-Richtrial,2019].on the
contrary research studies " (. . [Biggs and Tang 2011],Well –Structured Assignments Foster Constructive
Alignment Where Learning Outcomes ,Teaching Methods, and Assessments Are Interlinked - Google
Search, n.d.) Rodway and schepman ,2023; Zhai ;el,al.2024] show that one of the key drawbacks in
academic on AI tools. (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2025) cambra fierro et,al. [2024].stated that over reliance
on for communications especially in recreational contents, may reduce face to face social interactions,
negatively impacting interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence .students may become more
isolated and less adapt at real world, social interaction and team work, which are critical to their overall
social well-being and development.

Over-reliance on AI tools by the students for the achievement of their academic goals can be result
decline in critical thinking skills, disappearance of the traditional skills such as handwriting skills,
memorization and math solving skills which are still important for academic settings. Moreover, the
over-reliance of AI tools may lead to concern about ethical issues such as privacy of the students, these
AI tools may collect the data of the students without their consent and knowledge which can be possible
to misuse their sensitive information, therefore addressing ethical concerns should not be ignore in the
view of to establish safeguards to students well-being and rights. Furthermore, AI tools may contain
inaccuracy and biases in the readily available data which can affect the academic work of the students
that may lead to get wrong conclusion and false information from AI powered platforms. AI tools
provides vast amount of informiation to students which can't lead to success.

1;2 STATEMENTS OF THE STUDY

Generative Al plays vital role in the teaching and learning Assignments process by reinforcing concepts
developing critical thinking and fostering essential skills. [Anderson and krathwohl 2001]. They act as a
brigde between classroom learning and practical Application allowing students to demonstrate their
understanding and build confidence . [Biggs and Tang 2011],well –structured assignments foster
constructive alignment where learning outcomes ,teaching methods, and assessments are interlinked to
promote deep understanding .

In the history of teaching and learning activities, the Assignments was applied since 1990s (Pyari,
2019). In the period before 1990s Assignments has been explored as positive aspect of learning but after
the time of 1940s many critical thoughts has been raised regarding Assignments (Chouinard, et al, 2006).
In the earlier period Assessments is been defined as a fruitful tool for academic achievement in school
level education. Although after 1950s the concept of homework was being advanced and educators
claimed that the Assignment have important role in gainingor enhancinglearning. Teacher can give the
different work as homework. Such as reading, writing and project work. Homework is the way to engage
students in learning activities. Assignment is more relevant in lower class then higher class. In the
present time homework or Assignment become a hotly debatable issue in education sector. Some
scholars have defined the role of Assignment positively they believed The Role of assignment is
important to enhance students learning by engage in teaching learning activities outside of the
classroom (Durmuş & Ergen, 2021). In other hand some Scholars haven't believe in positive role of
homework or assignment for academic achievement. Over load of homework or assignment can
negatively effects on mental development of children. Additionally, homework can encourage bad
habits like plagiarism, when students copy projects from other students or pay someone else to finish
their assignments for them (Kralovec and Buell ,2001). So, it is necessary to formulate effective policy to
reduce homework and choose different alternate against assignment in academic achievement. But we
cannot totally ignore the role of homework for enhancing academic achievements in the school level
many educators have been advocate about the positive role of homework in strengthening students'
skills The advantages fall into four categories increased parental participation and enthusiasm for
education, long-term academic benefits, non-academic benefits, and instant accomplishment and
learning (Cooper et al., 2006).

Generative AI can support learning by helping students to solve mathematical problem, refine grammer
s , explore deals .unguided and excessive dependence on such tools poses several risks to the
educational value of assignments .the generative AI provides quick ,already or direct answers ,if
students rely on AI Answers without engaging with the material themselves ,they lose creative
faculties [susjak,2022;cotton el al.2023].Also another unguided use of AI toward students assignments
is when AI is used to solve an assignments ,the students work may longer represent the student
authentic capability. This lead to the misaligned assessments ,where the grades reflect AI outputs not
students learning . [lung and wang 2023 ]

However the unguided and unchecked use of generative AI threatens to hallow out these
purpose .while AI can be an aid ,it must be used consciously, ethically and with pedagogical guidance to
ensure that education retain it human centered goals .The absence of clear regulation has resulted in
varied perceptions, practices and expectations between students and lecturers .this research seeks to
address these gaps by exploring how both students and lectures in kontagora perceives the influence of
generative AI on academic assignments.

The perception of students on the influence of generative AI on students academic achievements says
base on the Previous studies have found that most students consider ChatGPT an innovative and
friendly learning resource, have a positive attitude, and are willing to use it in the future, replacing
traditional search engines (Elkhodr et al., 2023). Lozano and Blanco Fontao (2023) studied students'
perceptions - from the perspective of both students and future teachers - revealing that they envision
the potential use of ChatGPT to improve the learning and teaching process, thanks to its potential for a
variety of applications for students and teachers. Additionally, the perceived value and cost are found to
be essential factors in adopting generative AI, with students recognising the potential benefits of using
ChatGPT in learning and achieving optimal results (Chan & Hu, 2023).

1;3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main objectives of the study is to examine students and lecturers perceptions on the influence of
generative AI on students Assignments in tertiary institution in Kontagora Niger state .

The specific objectives are

i . Determine the level of awareness and usage of generative AI tools among students and lecturers in
kontagora tertiary Institute .

ii . Explore concerns about the ethical and the academic implication of generative AI in solving students
Assignments .

iii. Compare the perception of students and lecturers regarding the influence of generative AI on
academic quality and integrity.

1:4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

In order to achieve the stated objectives and address the identified gaps in existing literature, the
following research questions were formulated to guide the study. These questions are designed to
examine the awareness, usage, and perceptions of both students and lecturers regarding the influence
of generative AI on academic activities in tertiary institutions within Kontagora.

i : What will be the level of awareness and usage of generative AI tools among students and
lecturers in Kontagora tertiary institutions.

ii: Is there significant differences in the level of usage of generative Al's among students of
tertiary institutions in Kontagora.

iii ; will there be a difference in perception of students and lecturers about the effect of using
generative Al's for assignments on critical thinking.
 iv : will there be any difference in lecturers and students perceptions differ regarding the impact
of generative AI on academic performance and integrity in the institutions?

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Based on the above research questions, the following null hypotheses were developed and will
be tested in the course of the study.

i: There will be no significant differences in the level of awareness and usage of generative AI
tools among students and lecturers in Kontagora tertiary institutions.

ii .There will be no any difference in perception of students and lecturers about the effect of
using generative Al's for assignments on critical thinking.

iii :There will be no significant difference in the perceptions of students and lecturers on the
impact of generative AI on the academic performance and integrity in the institutions.

Iv. There is no significant difference in the level of usage of Generative AI's among students in
tertiary institutions in Kontagora.

1:5 .SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .

This study deals with some tertiary institutions within kontagora Niger state .The participants
includes students and lectures across the departments .

This research focuses on the influence of generative AI on students Assignments in some

Tertiary Institutions in kontagora . The research will also provide insight to educators and
stakeholders on the influence of generative AI in the teaching learning process and will suggest
alternative ways to approach students Assignments.

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Overview of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving field within artificial intelligence that focuses on
the creation of new and original content rather than simply analyzing or classifying existing data. Unlike
traditional AI systems that are primarily designed for recognition, prediction, or decision-making tasks,
generative AI emphasizes the ability of machines to produce human-like outputs such as text, images,
audio, video, and computer code (Tornede et al., 2023). This capability is made possible by training
models on large datasets from which they learn the underlying patterns, structures, and probability
distributions, enabling them to generate novel content that resembles human creativity (Goodfellow et
al., 2014; Brown et al., 2020).
At the technical level, generative AI systems rely heavily on deep learning architectures. Three of the
most prominent frameworks that have advanced the development of generative AI include:

i. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): Introduced by Goodfellow et al. (2014), GANs are made up
of two networks—a generator that creates synthetic data and a discriminator that evaluates its
authenticity. Through this adversarial training, the generator improves its ability to produce highly
realistic outputs, making GANs widely used for generating images, videos, and other creative content.

ii. Variational Autoencoders (VAEs): VAEs function by encoding input data into a compressed latent
space and then decoding it to generate new variations. They are particularly effective in producing
diverse outputs while maintaining structural similarity to the training data, making them suitable for
applications such as image synthesis and representation learning (Kingma & Welling, 2014).

iii. Transformers: More recently, transformer-based architectures such as GPT (Generative Pre-trained
Transformer), BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), and LLaMA have
significantly advanced generative AI. Transformers employ a self-attention mechanism to process
sequential data, enabling them to generate coherent, contextually relevant text, code, and even
multimodal content. Models like GPT-3 and GPT-4 demonstrate the scalability of these architectures in
producing human-like responses across diverse domains (Vaswani et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2020).

Generative AI is not limited to technical novelty; it also represents a paradigm shift in creativity and
automation. For example, ChatGPT simulates human-like conversation, while DALL·E and Stable
Diffusion generate artistic images from textual prompts. GitHub Copilot assists developers by generating
computer code, while generative tools in healthcare support drug discovery and diagnostic imaging. This
breadth of application underscores the versatility of generative AI in augmenting human intelligence and
transforming multiple industries (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023).Moreover, generative AI is
increasingly being recognized as a general-purpose technology (GPT) because of its wide-ranging
applicability and transformative impact across sectors such as education, healthcare, business, research,
and entertainment. Its capacity to automate tasks that traditionally required human ingenuity has
positioned it as one of the most disruptive innovations of the 21st century (Khan et al., 2023).

Despite these benefits, scholars caution that the use of generative AI must be accompanied by ethical
considerations and responsible practices. Since generative models are trained on large datasets, they
may inherit biases and stereotypes embedded within the data, leading to fairness concerns.
Additionally, issues of authorship, intellectual property, and the risk of misuse through misinformation
or deepfakes remain unresolved (Floridi & Chiriatti, 2020). Thus, understanding generative AI requires
not only an appreciation of its technical foundations and capabilities but also a critical reflection on its
societal implications.

2.1.1 : COMMON GENERATIVE AI TOOLS USED IN ACADEMIA (CHATGPT BARD AND CLAUDE)
The introduction of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academia has significantly transformed the
way students and lecturers approach teaching, learning, and research. Generative AI tools are designed
to process large datasets, predict patterns, and generate human-like responses in text, images, or code
(Dwivedi et al., 2023). Among the most common generative AI tools currently applied in academic
contexts are ChatGPT, Bard/Gemini, and Claude. These tools are increasingly adopted in higher
education to support writing, problem-solving, summarization of academic texts, literature reviews, and
teaching innovation (Kasneci et al., 2023; Zhai, 2023).

CHATGPT.

ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is arguably the most widely used generative AI tool in education. It has
been integrated into both teaching and learning processes due to its versatility and accessibility
(Dwivedi et al., 2023). Students often use ChatGPT for drafting essays, explaining difficult concepts,
generating practice tests, and providing coding assistance (Susnjak, 2022). Lecturers, on the other hand,
utilize the tool for preparing lecture materials, enhancing classroom engagement, and automating
routine academic tasks (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023).

However, despite its usefulness, ChatGPT presents some challenges. Studies highlight its tendency to
generate inaccurate or fabricated references (known as “hallucinations”), which raises concerns about
academic integrity and reliability (King & Chatzi, 2023). Furthermore, ethical debates surround its
potential misuse for plagiarism and over-dependence among students (Kasneci et al., 2023).
Nevertheless, when critically and responsibly used, ChatGPT remains a valuable academic support
system.

BARD.

Bard, recently rebranded as Gemini, is Google’s generative AI model that distinguishes itself from other
tools through its integration with Google Search and productivity applications. Unlike ChatGPT, Bard has
direct access to up-to-date web information, making it particularly suitable for academic literature
searches, summarization of scholarly articles, and translation tasks (Dwivedi et al., 2023). Its seamless
integration with Google Docs, Gmail, and Google Drive also enhances collaboration in academic projects
(Kasneci et al., 2023).

In academia, Bard is employed by students for research assistance, brainstorming ideas, and
summarizing learning materials, while lecturers apply it for course content development and student
support (Zhai, 2023). However, researchers caution that Bard’s reasoning ability sometimes lacks depth
compared to ChatGPT, and inconsistencies in citation formats limit its reliability for academic
referencing (Dwivedi et al., 2023).

CLAUDE.

Claude, developed by Anthropic, represents another innovative generative AI tool designed with a
strong emphasis on safety and ethical considerations. One of Claude’s unique strengths is its capacity to
process very large textual inputs (over 100,000 tokens), enabling it to handle entire research papers,
textbooks, or large datasets in a single prompt (Anthropic, 2023). This capability makes it particularly
relevant for academic activities such as literature reviews, long document analysis, and report writing.

Claude has been positively received in educational contexts for its clear, structured responses and safety
alignment, which helps mitigate risks of biased or harmful content (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023).
Nonetheless, limitations exist in terms of its availability across different regions and slightly lower
creativity compared to ChatGPT (King & Chatzi, 2023). Despite this, Claude is gaining recognition as a
powerful academic assistant, particularly for postgraduate research and comprehensive textual analysis

2.1:2 USAGE OF GENERATIVE AI IN TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS IN NIGERIA

Artificial intelligence (AI) has numerous benefits in , profoundly affecting teaching and learning for
science subjects. AI programs can study how students learn and change the material to fit each
student’s needs, skills, and the way they learn. This way of creating educational material helps students
learn better and faster. It lets them go at their own speed and in a way that matches how they like to
learn (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). Also, AI-powered data analysis can help science teachers understand
how well their students are doing in specific scientific subjects and where they might need extra help.
Another significant advantage is the improvement of exploratory learning through virtual labs and
reenactments. AI-powered instruments have the potential to recreate complex logical tests, which may
be illogical or hazardous to conduct in a conventional classroom setting. These virtual situations offer
hands-on learning encounters and permit understudies to try distinctive scenarios, improving their
understanding of scientific concepts (Ibáñez et al.,2018). This approach was not as supportive of
extending understudy engagement but too valuable to democratize access to high-quality science
instruction. AI devices can interface understudies and teachers over diverse geographies, empowering
the trade of logical thoughts and cultivating a worldwide point of view on logical issues. This
interconnecting also permits integrating differing datasets into the educational modules, uncovering
understudies to real-world logical challenges and datasets (Holmes et al., 2023).

2.1.3 EFFECTS OF GENERATIVE AI TOOLS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING.

The emergence of generative AI has produced a significant impact on educational practices globally. Its
effects on teaching and learning can be classified into positive and negative dimensions.

POSITIVE EFFECTS

Generative AI enhances teaching efficiency by enabling lecturers to prepare lesson plans, generate
instructional materials, and design assessments in less time. This allows teachers to dedicate more effort
to interactive discussions and student engagement rather than routine administrative tasks (Kasneci et
al., 2023).
Another positive effect is the promotion of personalized learning. AI-powered systems can adapt
explanations and exercises to the learning pace of individual students, thereby supporting both
advanced learners and those who require additional help (Luckin et al., 2022). This contributes to a
more inclusive and student-centered pedagogy.

Generative AI also promotes creativity and innovation in the learning process. Students use AI tools to
brainstorm ideas, generate project outlines, and explore multiple approaches to problem-solving. This
fosters critical thinking and broadens their intellectual capacity (Zhai, 2022). Similarly, tools like ChatGPT
provide 24/7 academic support, enabling students to revise concepts outside the classroom and
reducing their dependence on traditional learning schedules (Dwivedi et al., 2023).Additionally, AI
improves educational accessibility. Learners with language barriers or disabilities benefit from AI’s
translation features, text-to-speech systems, and simplified explanations. This ensures that education
becomes more inclusive and equitable (Holmes et al., 2021).

NEGATIVE EFFECTS

Despite these benefits, generative AI presents serious challenges. One of the major concerns is
academic dishonesty. Students may rely on AI to complete assignments, leading to plagiarism and loss of
originality (Susnjak, 2022). This compromises academic integrity and reduces the authenticity of student
output. Another effect is overdependence on technology, where students lean excessively on AI-
generated answers instead of developing independent reasoning and problem-solving skills (Kasneci et
al., 2023). Such reliance may limit their intellectual growth in the long term. Generative AI may also
widen the equity gap in education. While some students have constant access to internet and smart
devices, others—especially in developing contexts—may lack these resources, thereby experiencing
disadvantages in learning (Cotton et al., 2023). Concerns also exist regarding the role of teachers. Some
educators fear that AI could reduce their relevance by taking over core teaching responsibilities such as
content delivery and assessment (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). Furthermore, the issue of data privacy
arises since most AI tools collect user information, raising ethical questions about the security of
students’ data (Dwivedi et al., 2023).

2.2 CONTINUES ASSESSMENT IN TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS

The continuous assessment grading system requires the assessment of the change in behaviours, in
terms of cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The students are evaluated from one stage to
the other through tests, assignments, projects and other school activities. At the end of the term or
session, the tests are used for determining the performance of the students in a particular subject.
( Race 2007) stated that continuous assessment is more useful to the students, as it provides them with
on-going feedback on their performance, helps them to become more self-critical, and encourages them
to attempt mastering material as they actually work through a course, thus, achieving success in their
academic goals. According to (Adegbeye 2003), CA is more relevant as it allows students to demonstrate
their ability and development on a periodical basis, so that students who have studied hard but is not
very good at sitting for examinations is not placed at a disadvantage compared with lazy students who
engage in minimum amount of work needed to pass such examinations.

In the past, the educational systems of many African nations were dominated by the one-short
summative type of assessment (Alausa, 2005). Students were trained to pass examinations so as to
move up the education ladder; in order to stop this, suggestions for a broader approach to assessment,
which would be flexible and also provide valid and reliable results were made (Federal Government of
Nigeria, 2004). In the light of this, CA was introduced to find ways in which academic evaluation impacts
on the way teaching occurred and learners learnt; hence, the significance of teachers’ understanding of
relevance of continuous assessment to students’ academic success. It is when people know about
innovation they are to adopt that they are motivated to embrace its practices.

Through the National Policy on Education (NPE), the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN, 2004) stated
that educational assessment at all levels of education would be liberalized by basing them in whole or
part on continuous assessment.

2.2.1 STUDENTS ASSIGNMENT IN TERTIARY EDUCATION, PURPOSES AND EXPECTATIONS.

Assignments constitute on of the central components of teaching and learning in higher education. In
tertiary institutions, assignments are designed not merely as routine academic exercises but as
structured opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding, apply knowledge, and
develop critical academic skills.

Purposes of Assignments

Assignments in tertiary education serve several purposes. First, they act as a means of assessment,
providing lecturers with insights into students’ comprehension of course materials (Biggs & Tang, 2011).
By evaluating assignments, lecturers can measure learning outcomes and identify areas where students
may require further support.

Second, assignments function as a tool for skill development. They encourage students to practice
independent research, critical analysis, problem-solving, and academic writing skills (Ramsden, 2003).
Through this process, learners cultivate competencies that go beyond classroom memorization and
extend to lifelong learning.

Third, assignments are intended to promote engagement with course content. They compel students to
explore materials more deeply than they would through passive listening in lectures, thereby
encouraging active learning (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004). Additionally, assignments prepare students for
professional and real-world applications. By tackling case studies, project work, and problem-based
tasks, students develop practical abilities relevant to their chosen disciplines (Brown, Bull, & Pendlebury,
2013).
EXPECTATIONS FROM ASSIGNMENTS.

From the perspective of lecturers and institutions, assignments are expected to reflect academic
integrity. Students are required to demonstrate originality in their work, properly reference sources, and
avoid plagiarism (Carroll, 2007). With the rise of generative AI, however, meeting this expectation has
become more challenging, as students may be tempted to rely on AI tools for producing entire
assignments rather than using them as supportive aids. Assignments are also expected to enhance
critical thinking and creativity. Tertiary education emphasizes higher-order thinking skills such as
evaluation, synthesis, and application of knowledge, and assignments provide the platform for students
to practice and demonstrate these skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Furthermore, assignments are
expected to foster independent learning. Unlike secondary education, higher education encourages
autonomy, and assignments are designed to push students toward self-directed study, exploration of
multiple sources, and taking responsibility for their own learning outcomes (Knowles, 1980).

2.2.2. EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT ON STUDENTS CRITICAL THINKING AND RETENTION.

The effects of assignment are contingent on various factors. The quality and nature of the
assignments play a crucial role in determining their effectiveness. Assignments that are meaningful,
engaging, and appropriately challenging tend to yield better results. Additionally, the amount of
homework assigned must be reasonable and aligned with the developmental needs and capacities of
students. Overwhelming students with excessive homework can lead to diminishing returns and
negative consequences. It is essential to recognize that not all students have equal access to resources
and support outside the classroom. Socioeconomic disparities, varying home environments, and
access to technology can significantly impact a student's ability to complete homework effectively.
Students from disadvantaged backgrounds may face challenges in completing assignments due to lack of
resources, limited parental involvement, or competing responsibilities. Therefore, educators must
consider these factors while assigning homework and provide additional support to students who may
need it.

Along with teachers, it is most effective when students care about the result, develop a desire for
concrete results, and understand the necessity of new information to complete complex Assignment
faster. According to (Deysolong 2023), It is essential to recognize that not all students have equal access
to resources and support outside classrooms. Socioeconomic circumstances, different home
environments, and access to technology can significantly influence a student's ability to complete
homework

Immediate achievement and learning Better retention of factual knowledge , Increased understanding ,
Better critical thinking, concept formation, and information processing. Curriculum Enrichment Long-
term academic Encourage learning during leisure time Improved attitude toward school Better study
habits and skills .Nonacademic Great self-direction ,Great self-discipline Better time organization .
Additionally, the quantity of homework assigned has to be affordable and aligned with the
developmental desires and capacities of students. Overwhelming students with excessive homework
can lead to diminishing returns and negative consequences Deysolong (2023)

2 2.3 .ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND ORIGINALITY IN STUDENTS ASSIGNMENTS.

Academic integrity is a fundamental requirement that necessitates students to maintain honesty,

truthfulness, and responsibility while undertaking academic work. It involves showing respect for the
intellectual property, ideas, and thoughts of others and giving due credit where necessary (Morris, E. J.
2018).

Understanding the concept of academic integrity leads to a deeper appreciation of the importance of
originality and critical thinking in assignments( Peters, M. A. 2019). It motivates students to engage with
the material and conduct thorough research while presenting their unique perspectives. Upholding
academic integrity not only benefits individual students but also contributes to a culture of trust,
fairness, and intellectual severity within the educational community.

The consequences of academic dishonesty can be severe and far-reaching. Students caught engaging in
such practices may face severe penalties, including receiving a failing grade for the assignment or
course, suspension, or even expulsion from their institution. These penalties not only affect students’
academic records but can also have long-term implications for their future academic and professional
endeavors.( Kassil, A.,& Ball, M. 2021) .

2.2.4 EFFECTS OF AI TOOLS ON STUDENTS ASSIGNMENT.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has numerous Effects on students Assignments profoundly affecting teaching
and learning for science subjects. AI programs can study how students learn and change the material to
fit each student’s needs, skills, and the way they learn. This way of creating educational material helps
students learn better and faster. It lets them go at their own speed and in a way that matches how they
like to learn (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).Also, AI-powered data analysis can help science teachers
understand how well their students are doing in specific scientific subjects and where they might need
extra help. Another significant advantage is the improvement of exploratory learning through virtual
labs and reenactments. AI-powered instruments have the potential to recreate complex logical tests,
which may be illogical or hazardous to conduct in a conventional classroom setting. These virtual
situations offer hands-on learning encounters and permit understudies to try distinctive scenarios,
improving their understanding of scientific concepts (Ibáñez et .al., 2018).

Despite advancements, AI tools on students Assignments raises critical questions about its alignment
with established learning theories. While studies have explored challenges (Hwang et al., 2020),
obstacles (T. Baker et al., 2019), and future perspectives (Pinkwart, 2016), few explicitly analyze AI’ s
diverse functions and their relationship with pedagogical frameworks. For instance, how do AI tools
align with constructivist or socio-cultural theories emphasizing collaboration, context, and critical
thinking? (Luckin et al., 2016) Additionally, the long-term impact of AI on teaching, learning, and
educational equity remains underexplored (Selwyn, 2022).

A key challenge is ensuring AI complements, rather than replaces, human interaction. While AI
automates tasks and provides data-driven insights, it lacks the empathy, creativity, and nuanced
understanding of human educators (Holmes & Tuomi, 2022). Over-reliance on AI for assessment and
feedback may reduce opportunities for meaningful dialogue and reflection, essential for higher-order
thinking (Facione, 2020). Ethical concerns, such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide,
must also be addressed to ensure equitable and inclusive learning environments (O’Neil, 2016).

2 .3.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .

The theoretical framework provides the foundation for understanding how generative AI influences
teaching, learning, and student assignments in tertiary institutions. Several educational and
technological theories are relevant to this study.

I. Constructivist Learning Theory

The Constructivist theory, advanced by scholars such as Piaget (1976) and Vygotsky (1978), emphasizes
that learners actively construct knowledge through interaction, exploration, and engagement with their
environment. Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, align with this theory by offering students
opportunities to ask questions, seek clarifications, and receive instant feedback. Instead of being passive
recipients of knowledge, students can actively engage in dialogue with AI, which supports deeper
understanding. However, constructivism also highlights the need for learners to think critically, and
excessive reliance on AI risks reducing authentic knowledge construction.

ii. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Bloom’s taxonomy, revised by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), categorizes learning outcomes into
levels such as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Generative AI
influences student assignments by making lower level tasks like remembering and summarizing easier,
while raising concerns about whether students still engage meaningfully with higher order skills such as
analysis and evaluation. Thus, AI reshapes how assignments fulfill the goals of Bloom’s hierarchy in
tertiary education.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework

The TPACK framework by Mishra and Koehler (2006) argues that effective teaching requires a balance of
technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge. Generative AI is a
technological tool that demands lecturers understand how to integrate it into teaching and assessment
without undermining learning integrity. For instance, lecturers need to design assignments that
encourage students to use AI responsibly, aligning technology with sound pedagogy.

iii. Andragogy Theory of Adult Learning

Knowles’ (1980) theory of andragogy emphasizes that adult learners (such as tertiary students) are self
directed, goal oriented, and motivated by relevance. Generative AI supports this theory by giving
students control over their learning pace and resources, especially in completing assignments. At the
same time, overreliance on AI could undermine the development of self-directed learning skills that
andragogy seeks to promote.

2.3.3 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM)

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), originally developed by Davis (1989), is one of the most
widely used theoretical frameworks for explaining and predicting users’ acceptance of new
technologies. The model have that two key factors perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use
determine an individual’s intention to adopt and use a technology. Perceived usefulness refers to the
degree to which a person believes that using a particular system will enhance their performance, while
perceived ease of use refers to the extent to which a person believes that the system will be free from
effort. These two constructs influence users’ attitudes toward the technology, which in turn shape their
behavioral intention to use it. In the context of higher education, TAM has been extensively applied to
understand the adoption of digital technologies such as e-learning platforms, learning management
systems, and online collaboration tools (Teo, 2011; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). With the rise of generative
AI, the model provides a useful lens for exploring how students and lecturers perceive the integration of
AI into teaching and learning. For instance, if students perceive generative AI tools such ChatGPT as
useful for enhancing assignment quality, saving time, or improving research skills, and if they find these
tools easy to operate, their likelihood of adopting consistently using them increases.

Similarly, lecturers’ acceptance of generative AI depends on whether they perceive it as beneficial for
facilitating instructional delivery, supporting assessment, and reducing workload, as well as on the ease
with which they can integrate such tools into pedagogical practices. Conversely, if Generative AI is
perceived as difficult to use, unreliable, or threatening to academic integrity, its adoption is likely to face
[Link], TAM is highly relevant to this study as it provides a theoretical foundation for
understanding students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of generative AI in tertiary education. By applying
TAM, the study can examine how perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use shape acceptance or
resistance toward Generative AI in student assignments, and how these perceptions influence teaching
and learning outcomes in Nigerian tertiary institutions.
2.4 PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS ON AI IN EDUCATION

Teachers' perspectives on the application of AI tools in education have also been researched. In a poll of
500 teachers in the US, researchers discovered that 77% of teachers were in favor of using AI tools in the
classroom. The teachers said that AI tools could help them give individualized training to their pupils
while saving time on grading and lesson planning (Kou et al, 2020).

In addition, Hosseinzadeh, A., & Hughes, J. (2021) showed in their study that most teachers, in a sample
of 1,200 in the United Kingdom had a favorable assessment of AI tools in education. According to the
study, teachers believed that AI tools may help them run their classrooms more effectively and give their
pupils greater feedback. The survey also discovered that teachers believed AI tools could free up their
time for tedious duties like grading and lesson [Link] contrast, in a study conducted by Rana, et al.
(2019), the authors found that teachers had a more mixed perception of AI tools, with some viewing
them as an effective way to improve student engagement, while others viewed them as too expensive
and difficult to use.

Overall, the research indicates that students generally have a favorable attitude toward the use of AI
tools in education and see them as useful tool for enhancing student comprehension. Teachers, on the
other hand, typically have a more unfavorable opinion of AI tools, considering them to be excessively
expensive and challenging to use. It is crucial to make sure that both students and teachers are properly
taught in utilizing these tools and that the advantages of using AI tools exceed the expenses to
successfully integrate AI technologies in education.

2.5 STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS ON AI IN EDUCATION .

Numerous studies have examined how students feel about using AI in the classroom. Seventy percent of
college students in the United States who participated in an Education Research Center poll of 1,200
college students said they had a favorable opinion of AI tools in the classroom. Students believed that AI
tools may make learning more efficient for them as well as improve their comprehension and retention
of material, according to the study (Education Research Center., 2021).

Ranganathan and Dutta (2021) discovered that students usually had favorable sentiments toward AI
tools in education after reviewing studies on the topic. For instance, students said that AI tools could
speed up research, reduce mistakes, and deliver individualized education. The study also discovered that
several students expressed worries about using AI technologies, including privacy issues, lack of control,
and worry about being replaced by computers.

Furthermore, in a study by Akbulut, Akbulut, and Akbulut (2020), students usually had a good attitude
toward the use of AI tools in the classroom and saw them as useful tools for enhancing their
comprehension of the subject matter.

2.5 COMPARISON OF THE GLOBAL AND NIGERIAN PERSPECTIVES ON GENERATIVE AI IN TERTIARY

INSTITUTIONS.
 The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into tertiary education has attracted
significant scholarly and policy interest globally and within Nigeria. However, the perspectives across
these contexts reflect both convergences and divergences, shaped by resource availability, policy
maturity, pedagogical practices, and socio-technical realities.

Globally, universities and international bodies such as the OECD and UNESCO view GenAI as a
transformative technology with the potential to enhance teaching, learning, and research (UNESCO,
2023; OECD, 2023). Higher education institutions in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia have
begun integrating AI tools into academic workflows, including personalised tutoring, automated grading
support, and research assistance (Dwivedi et al., 2023). Many institutions have responded by developing
institutional policies, conducting pilot projects, and revising curricula to incorporate AI literacy (Zawacki-
Richter et al., 2023). Emphasis is placed on ethical use, assessment redesign, and preparing students
with critical skills to navigate AI-supported learning environments (Cotton et al., 2023). Nonetheless,
global debates remain centred on academic integrity, bias in AI models, and the risk of exacerbating
inequities between technologically advanced and resource-constrained institutions.

In contrast, the Nigerian perspective highlights similar opportunities but is strongly shaped by
infrastructural, policy, and pedagogical challenges. Studies reveal that Nigerian students and lecturers
are increasingly aware of and experiment with GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, yet adoption remains
uneven due to limited internet access, inadequate digital infrastructure, and financial constraints (Edeh,
2024; Nwaoduh & Nwankwo, 2023). Nigerian tertiary institutions are yet to establish comprehensive
policies on GenAI use, and regulatory bodies such as the National Universities Commission (NUC) have
not issued consolidated frameworks to guide responsible adoption (Okonkwo, 2024). Concerns in the
Nigerian context focus heavily on academic integrity, plagiarism, and the potential erosion of students’
critical thinking skills, although there is also recognition of GenAI’s potential for supporting research
productivity and overcoming language barriers (Adebayo & Abdulrahman, 2024).

The comparison between the global and Nigerian perspectives thus reveals important similarities and
differences. Both contexts recognise Generative AI as a double edged innovation, balancing opportunity
with risk. However, while global discourse focuses on governance, ethical frameworks, and assessment
redesign, the Nigerian discourse emphasizes foundational challenges, such as infrastructural deficits,
affordability, and lack of policy readiness. Globally, there is a move toward embedding Generative AI
literacy into curricula, where as in Nigeria, there is still a call for basic capacity building among lecturers
and students. This divergence suggests that while Nigerian institutions can learn from global models,
strategies must be contextualised to address local realities of limited resources and regulatory gaps.

2.6 RESEARCH GAPS IN PREVIOUS STUDIES.

Although existing scholarship on generative artificial intelligence (AI ) in tertiary education has expanded
rapidly, several research gaps remain evident at both the global and Nigerian levels. Globally, the
majority of studies focus on the technological affordances of GenAI and its implications for teaching,
learning, and assessment (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2023). While these studies
highlight opportunities and risks, they often adopt a general or policy-oriented lens, paying less
attention to the lived experiences of students and lecturers in everyday academic practice. Similarly,
most research is concentrated in high-income contexts such as Europe, North America, and East Asia,
creating a geographical imbalance in the knowledge base (UNESCO, 2023). This limits the applicability of
existing findings to resource-constrained environments such as Nigeria, where infrastructural and
institutional realities differ significantly.

Within Nigeria and other African contexts, the literature on GenAI in higher education is still nascent and
fragmented. A few studies have examined awareness, opportunities,and challenges of adoption (Edeh,
2024; Nwaoduh & Nwankwo, 2023), but these are largely conceptual or exploratory. Empirical evidence
on how students and lecturers perceive the influence of GenAI on assignments, academic integrity, and
learning outcomes remains limited. Furthermore, Nigerian studies rarely address institutional policy
frameworks, pedagogical redesign, or discipline-specific differences in AI adoption (Okonkwo, 2024). The
absence of comprehensive, data-driven research makes it difficult to develop contextualised strategies
for responsible and effective integration of GenAI into Nigerian tertiary institutions.

Another gap concerns comparative perspectives. While global literature discusses broad ethical,
pedagogical, and equity concerns (Cotton et al., 2023; OECD, 2023), Nigerian studies have yet to
systematically compare local experiences with international trends. Such comparative analyses are
important for identifying transferable practices while also highlighting areas where unique local
solutions are needed.

Finally, there is limited focus on the long-term implications of GenAI use in higher education, particularly
regarding skill development, employability, and the transformation of teaching and assessment cultures.
Most available studies focus on immediate challenges such as plagiarism or misuse, without addressing
the broader question of how GenAI might reshape the academic ecosystem in the coming years.

2.5 SUMMARY OF REVIEWED LITERATURE .

This chapter has reviewed existing scholarship on generative artificial intelligence (AI) and its influence
on tertiary education, with a particular focus on student assignments. The review began by examining
the purposes and expectations of assignments in higher education. Assignments are central to student
learning as they promote critical thinking, creativity, independent research, and assessment of
knowledge. They also provide lecturers with opportunities to evaluate learning outcomes and foster
academic development (Cotton et al., 2023).

The chapter then explored the emergence of Generative AI, situating it within the broader field of
artificial intelligence and highlighting its applications in higher education. Globally, Generative AI tools
such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude are increasingly employed to support academic writing, problem
solving, personalised tutoring, and research synthesis (Dwivedi et al., 2023). While these tools hold
promise for enhancing efficiency and productivity, scholars have raised concerns regarding ethical use,
plagiarism, academic dishonesty, and the potential erosion of students’ originality and critical thinking
(Zawacki-Richter et al., 2023).

A comparison of the global and Nigerian perspectives revealed important similarities and differences.
Internationally, institutions and policymakers are already moving towards structured adoption through
governance frameworks, ethics guidelines, and assessment redesign (UNESCO, 2023; OECD, 2023). In
Nigeria, however, the conversation is still at an early stage. Studies highlight infrastructural constraints,
affordability issues, limited AI literacy, and absence of institutional policies as barriers to effective
adoption (Edeh, 2024; Nwaoduh & Nwankwo, 2023). Nonetheless, both contexts recognise GenAI as a
double-edged innovation with the capacity to either enrich or undermine academic practice depending
on how it is integrated.

The review also identified research gaps in the existing literature. Most global studies adopt policy or
technological perspectives, while Nigerian scholarship remains largely conceptual and exploratory.
There is limited empirical evidence on students’ and lecturers’ actual perceptions of GenAI, particularly
regarding its influence on assignments, academic integrity, and learning outcomes. Furthermore, few
studies provide comparative insights between global and Nigerian contexts, or examine the long-term
implications of GenAI for pedagogy, employability, and assessment practices (Okonkwo, 2024).

In conclusion, the literature reviewed underscores that while GenAI offers immense opportunities for
transforming higher education, it also presents ethical, infrastructural, and pedagogical challenges.
Addressing these issues requires context-specific strategies. The gaps identified form the basis of this
study, which seeks to investigate the perceptions of students and lecturers on the influence of
generative AI on assignments in tertiary institutions in Kontagora, Nigeria.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This study adopts a descriptive survey design. The design is appropriate for obtaining data that describes
existing phenomena, such as lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of the influence of generative Artificial
Intelligence (AI) on student assignments in tertiary institutions in Kontagora. It allows for the collection
of data from a large population and helps to describe the current perceptions, attitudes, and practices of
both students and lecturers regarding the use of generative AI in academic work.

3.2 Population of the Study

The population of this study comprises all science students and lecturers in,Federal University of
Education, Kontagora,School of Nursing, Kontagora, and Five Star School of Health Technology,
Kontagora, Niger State.

3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques

A total sample of 100 students and 30 lecturers will be drawn from the three tertiary institutions. The
selection will be carried out using stratified random sampling to ensure proper representation of each
group within the population.

3.4 Research Instrument

The primary instrument for data collection will be a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire will be
validated by experts in the field to ensure its content validity, and it will also be subjected to a reliability
test before administration.

3.5 Method of Data Collection

The questionnaires will be distributed physically to lecturers and students. Respondents will be given
adequate time to complete the instruments. Efforts will be made to ensure confidentiality, anonymity,
and voluntary participation in order to encourage honest responses.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

The collected data will be analyzed using both descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and mean
scores) and inferential statistics (t-test and ANOVA) to compare responses between groups. Data
analysis will be carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Reliability and validity test

Validity of the Instrument.

The questionnaire was subjected to face and content
validity. Experts in Educational Technology and from
Measurement & Evaluation assessed the items to ensure they
aligned with the study’s objectives and research questions.
Their suggestions and corrections were incorporated before
administering the pilot study.

Reliability of the Instrument.

The reliability of the instrument was established using

Cronbach’s Alpha. The pilot test involved 15 respondents,
and the result produced a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of
0.841 and 0.854 . Since the generally accepted threshold
for reliability is 0.70 and above , the value obtained
indicates that the instrument is internally consistent and
reliable for use in the main study.

Notes

Output Created 15-SEP-2025 14:23:50

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\USER\Documents\Spss

Analysis\Hamisu\Pilot_Survey.sav

Active Dataset DataSet3

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data

15
File

Matrix Input

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated
as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with

valid data for all variables in the
procedure.
 Notes

Syntax RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7
V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
CORR

/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS.

Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.01

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 15 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 15 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Cronbach's Alpha Items N of Items

.841 .854 25
Interpretation:

The Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.841 indicates high internal consistency. Since
values above 0.70 are considered acceptable, the instrument is reliable for
the main study.

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Minimum Variance N of Items

Item Means 4.083 2.933 4.667 1.733 1.591 .154 25

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted

I am aware of generative
AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT,
97.4000 128.829 .632 . .833
Bard, Claude) used for
academic purposes.

I know how to access

and use at least one
97.6000 132.686 .262 . .839
generative AI tool for
assignments.

My awareness of
generative AI has
97.6000 125.114 .550 . .831
improved over the past
year .

I frequently use
generative AI tools for 97.6667 129.952 .332 . .837
academic work

Generative AI tools are

not useful for academic 98.4667 108.552 .704 . .819
assignments.

I use generative AI tools

to get ideas and outlines 98.0667 124.067 .424 . .834
for assignments.

I use generative AI to
improve grammar and 98.6000 133.257 .044 . .850
clarity in my writing
 Item-Total Statistics

I often rely on generative

AI to write complete
98.2000 125.029 .288 . .841
sections of assignments
without major edits

I verify and edit outputs

from generative AI before
97.8667 123.981 .591 . .829
including them in my
work.

I rarely use generative AI

98.4667 125.838 .333 . .838
for academic purposes.

Generative AI tools help

me develop new
97.7333 125.067 .460 . .833
perspectives on
academic topics

Using generative AI
reduces the need for
97.6000 134.829 .081 . .843
students to think critically
about assignments.

Heavy reliance on
generative AI in
assignments reduces 97.6667 129.095 .457 . .835
originality in student
work.

Students over reliance

on AI tools may weaken 98.0000 126.143 .518 . .832
their analytical skills

I can distinguish between

AI-generated ideas and 97.7333 134.210 .063 . .845
my/their own analysis

Responsible use of
generative AI improves
97.9333 123.781 .440 . .833
the quality of
assignments

Generative AI increases
the likelihood of
97.9333 121.352 .509 . .830
plagiarism and academic
dishonesty

Students who use

generative AI responsibly
achieve better academic 99.1333 124.124 .257 . .845
results than those who do
not.
 Item-Total Statistics

It is difficult for lecturers

to detect AI-generated 98.3333 114.524 .811 . .817
content in assignments

Current assessment
methods can effectively
97.9333 122.352 .706 . .826
capture original student
thinking despite AI use.

Institutions should
develop clear policies on
the acceptable use of 97.8000 134.171 .054 . .846
generative AI should be
developed

Training on the ethical

use of generative AI
98.2000 133.029 .090 . .846
should be mandatory for
students and lecturers

AI-detection or
plagiarism-checking tools
97.8667 131.981 .234 . .840
should be adopted to
monitor assignments

Assessment strategies
should be redesigned (for
example use of oral
97.6667 125.095 .633 . .829
exams, in-class work) to
reduce over-reliance on
AI be encouraged

Students and lecturers

should be encouraged to
disclose when generative 98.1333 118.695 .564 . .827
AI has been used in
assignments.

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

102.0667 136.067 11.66476 25

Factor Analysis
Notes

Output Created 15-SEP-2025 14:28:37

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\USER\Documents\Spss

Analysis\Hamisu\Pilot_Survey.sav

Active Dataset DataSet3

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data

15
File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing MISSING=EXCLUDE: User-defined

missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used LISTWISE: Statistics are based on

cases with no missing values for any
variable used.

Syntax FACTOR

/VARIABLES V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7
V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17
V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/PRINT INITIAL KMO EXTRACTION

ROTATION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1)
ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX

/METHOD=CORRELATION.
 Notes

Resources Processor Time 00:00:01.94

Elapsed Time 00:00:28.94

Maximum Memory Required 74020 (72.285K) bytes

Correlation
Matrixa

a. This
matrix is not
positive
definite.

Communalities

Initial Extraction

I am aware of generative AI
tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard,
1.000 .942
Claude) used for academic
purposes.

I know how to access and

use at least one generative AI 1.000 .919
tool for assignments.

My awareness of generative
AI has improved over the 1.000 .900
past year .

I frequently use generative AI

1.000 .794
tools for academic work

Generative AI tools are not

useful for academic 1.000 .977
assignments.

I use generative AI tools to

get ideas and outlines for 1.000 .922
assignments.

I use generative AI to
improve grammar and clarity 1.000 .793
in my writing
 Communalities

I often rely on generative AI

to write complete sections of
1.000 .952
assignments without major
edits

I verify and edit outputs from

generative AI before including 1.000 .971
them in my work.

I rarely use generative AI for

1.000 .890
academic purposes.

Generative AI tools help me

develop new perspectives on 1.000 .977
academic topics

Using generative AI reduces

the need for students to think 1.000 .950
critically about assignments.

Heavy reliance on generative

AI in assignments reduces 1.000 .981
originality in student work.

Students over reliance on AI

tools may weaken their 1.000 .946
analytical skills

I can distinguish between AI-

generated ideas and my/their 1.000 .961
own analysis

Responsible use of
generative AI improves the 1.000 .959
quality of assignments

Generative AI increases the

likelihood of plagiarism and 1.000 .853
academic dishonesty

Students who use generative

AI responsibly achieve better
1.000 .864
academic results than those
who do not.

It is difficult for lecturers to

detect AI-generated content 1.000 .920
in assignments

Current assessment methods

can effectively capture
1.000 .948
original student thinking
despite AI use.

Institutions should develop

clear policies on the
1.000 .963
acceptable use of generative
AI should be developed
 Communalities

Training on the ethical use of

generative AI should be
1.000 .893
mandatory for students and
lecturers

AI-detection or plagiarism-
checking tools should be
1.000 .771
adopted to monitor
assignments

Assessment strategies
should be redesigned (for
example use of oral exams, 1.000 .849
in-class work) to reduce over-
reliance on AI be encouraged

Students and lecturers should

be encouraged to disclose
1.000 .953
when generative AI has been
used in assignments.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

INTERPRETATION.

All items have high communalities (≥ 0.77), meaning they contribute strongly
to the factors being measured. This shows good construct validity of the
instrument.

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

% of % of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %

1 7.016 28.062 28.062 7.016 28.062 28.062

2 4.673 18.691 46.753 4.673 18.691 46.753

3 2.953 11.811 58.564 2.953 11.811 58.564

4 2.472 9.887 68.451 2.472 9.887 68.451

5 1.859 7.436 75.887 1.859 7.436 75.887

6 1.538 6.152 82.039 1.538 6.152 82.039

 Total Variance Explained

7 1.263 5.053 87.091 1.263 5.053 87.091

8 1.074 4.298 91.389 1.074 4.298 91.389

9 .907 3.630 95.019

10 .660 2.640 97.659

11 .234 .934 98.593

12 .193 .771 99.364

13 .109 .434 99.799

14 .050 .201 100.000

15 3.286E-16 1.314E-15 100.000

16 2.150E-16 8.600E-16 100.000

17 1.972E-16 7.888E-16 100.000

18 1.549E-16 6.195E-16 100.000

19 1.582E-17 6.326E-17 100.000

20 -7.038E-17 -2.815E-16 100.000

21 -1.210E-16 -4.839E-16 100.000

22 -1.921E-16 -7.685E-16 100.000

23 -2.556E-16 -1.022E-15 100.000

24 -2.923E-16 -1.169E-15 100.000

25 -5.037E-16 -2.015E-15 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 Rotated
Component
Matrixa

a. Rotation
failed to
converge in
25 iterations.
(Convergenc
e = .000).

FACTOR
 /VARIABLES V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18
V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19
V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION ROTATION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

Factor Analysis
Notes

Output Created 15-SEP-2025 14:29:23

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\USER\Documents\Spss

Analysis\Hamisu\Pilot_Survey.sav

Active Dataset DataSet3

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data

15
File
 Notes

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing MISSING=EXCLUDE: User-defined

missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used LISTWISE: Statistics are based on

cases with no missing values for any
variable used.

Syntax FACTOR

/VARIABLES V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7
V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17
V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24

V25

/PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION

ROTATION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1)
ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.45

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.32

Maximum Memory Required 74020 (72.285K) bytes

Communalities

Initial Extraction

I am aware of generative AI
tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard,
1.000 .942
Claude) used for academic
purposes.
 Communalities

I know how to access and

use at least one generative AI 1.000 .919
tool for assignments.

My awareness of generative
AI has improved over the 1.000 .900
past year .

I frequently use generative AI

1.000 .794
tools for academic work

Generative AI tools are not

useful for academic 1.000 .977
assignments.

I use generative AI tools to

get ideas and outlines for 1.000 .922
assignments.

I use generative AI to
improve grammar and clarity 1.000 .793
in my writing

I often rely on generative AI

to write complete sections of
1.000 .952
assignments without major
edits

I verify and edit outputs from

generative AI before including 1.000 .971
them in my work.

I rarely use generative AI for

1.000 .890
academic purposes.

Generative AI tools help me

develop new perspectives on 1.000 .977
academic topics

Using generative AI reduces

the need for students to think 1.000 .950
critically about assignments.

Heavy reliance on generative

AI in assignments reduces 1.000 .981
originality in student work.

Students over reliance on AI

tools may weaken their 1.000 .946
analytical skills

I can distinguish between AI-

generated ideas and my/their 1.000 .961
own analysis

Responsible use of
generative AI improves the 1.000 .959
quality of assignments
 Communalities

Generative AI increases the

likelihood of plagiarism and 1.000 .853
academic dishonesty

Students who use generative

AI responsibly achieve better
1.000 .864
academic results than those
who do not.

It is difficult for lecturers to

detect AI-generated content 1.000 .920
in assignments

Current assessment methods

can effectively capture
1.000 .948
original student thinking
despite AI use.

Institutions should develop

clear policies on the
1.000 .963
acceptable use of generative
AI should be developed

Training on the ethical use of

generative AI should be
1.000 .893
mandatory for students and
lecturers

AI-detection or plagiarism-
checking tools should be
1.000 .771
adopted to monitor
assignments

Assessment strategies
should be redesigned (for
example use of oral exams, 1.000 .849
in-class work) to reduce over-
reliance on AI be encouraged

Students and lecturers should

be encouraged to disclose
1.000 .953
when generative AI has been
used in assignments.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

% of % of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
 Total Variance Explained

1 7.016 28.062 28.062 7.016 28.062 28.062

2 4.673 18.691 46.753 4.673 18.691 46.753

3 2.953 11.811 58.564 2.953 11.811 58.564

4 2.472 9.887 68.451 2.472 9.887 68.451

5 1.859 7.436 75.887 1.859 7.436 75.887

6 1.538 6.152 82.039 1.538 6.152 82.039

7 1.263 5.053 87.091 1.263 5.053 87.091

8 1.074 4.298 91.389 1.074 4.298 91.389

9 .907 3.630 95.019

10 .660 2.640 97.659

11 .234 .934 98.593

12 .193 .771 99.364

13 .109 .434 99.799

14 .050 .201 100.000

15 3.286E-16 1.314E-15 100.000

16 2.150E-16 8.600E-16 100.000

17 1.972E-16 7.888E-16 100.000

18 1.549E-16 6.195E-16 100.000

19 1.582E-17 6.326E-17 100.000

20 -7.038E-17 -2.815E-16 100.000

21 -1.210E-16 -4.839E-16 100.000

22 -1.921E-16 -7.685E-16 100.000

23 -2.556E-16 -1.022E-15 100.000

24 -2.923E-16 -1.169E-15 100.000

25 -5.037E-16 -2.015E-15 100.000

 Total Variance Explained

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

INTERPRETATION:

Eight components with eigenvalues greater than 1 explained a total of 91.39%

of the variance, which confirms that the instrument measures multiple
underlying dimensions of perceptions regarding generative AI.
 Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I am aware of generative
AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT,
.731 .269 -.242 -.456 -.038 .066 -.120 -.221
Bard, Claude) used for
academic purposes.

I know how to access and

use at least one
.458 -.588 -.043 .049 .470 -.114 .124 .333
generative AI tool for
assignments.

My awareness of
generative AI has
.721 -.163 .048 -.493 .028 -.034 .108 .307
improved over the past
year .

I frequently use
generative AI tools for .488 -.374 -.161 .384 .404 .266 .088 .037
academic work

Generative AI tools are

not useful for academic .885 -.271 .007 .092 .014 .032 .088 -.321
assignments.

I use generative AI tools

to get ideas and outlines .599 -.531 .266 .184 -.037 .419 -.006 .012
for assignments.

I use generative AI to
improve grammar and .072 -.258 .705 -.221 -.272 -.283 .023 .141
clarity in my writing

I often rely on generative

AI to write complete
.145 .645 .486 .084 .191 -.300 .101 -.367
sections of assignments
without major edits

I verify and edit outputs

from generative AI before
.466 .189 .584 .507 -.149 .190 .063 .240
including them in my
work.

I rarely use generative AI

.264 .810 -.112 -.213 -.116 .205 -.149 .167
for academic purposes.

Generative AI tools help

me develop new
.393 .452 .483 .122 .524 .022 -.308 -.015
perspectives on academic
topics
 Component Matrixa

Using generative AI
reduces the need for
.182 -.138 -.355 .523 -.331 -.565 .164 .205
students to think critically
about assignments.

Heavy reliance on
generative AI in
.621 -.042 -.220 -.097 .538 -.467 .053 .160
assignments reduces
originality in student work.

Students over reliance on

AI tools may weaken their .716 -.163 -.174 -.388 -.403 -.088 -.025 .235
analytical skills

I can distinguish between

AI-generated ideas and .041 .659 -.531 .083 .061 .402 -.060 .260
my/their own analysis

Responsible use of
generative AI improves .304 .659 .408 .417 .234 -.113 -.079 .136
the quality of assignments

Generative AI increases
the likelihood of
.683 -.408 .078 .193 -.283 -.017 -.049 -.306
plagiarism and academic
dishonesty

Students who use

generative AI responsibly
achieve better academic .208 .224 .026 .538 -.275 .187 .607 .043
results than those who do
not.

It is difficult for lecturers to

detect AI-generated .909 .118 .000 -.205 -.063 -.182 .003 -.023
content in assignments

Current assessment
methods can effectively
.725 .414 -.145 .180 -.329 -.145 -.128 -.230
capture original student
thinking despite AI use.

Institutions should
develop clear policies on
the acceptable use of .025 .185 -.069 -.441 .336 .092 .737 -.253
generative AI should be
developed

Training on the ethical

use of generative AI
-.109 .621 .409 -.367 -.202 .113 .309 .212
should be mandatory for
students and lecturers

AI-detection or
plagiarism-checking tools
.332 .242 -.713 .276 .058 .093 -.007 -.069
should be adopted to
monitor assignments
 Component Matrixa

Assessment strategies
should be redesigned (for
example use of oral
.606 .648 -.198 .007 -.066 -.119 .022 .060
exams, in-class work) to
reduce over-reliance on
AI be encouraged

Students and lecturers

should be encouraged to
disclose when generative .727 -.370 .267 -.188 -.044 .413 -.090 -.019
AI has been used in
assignments.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 8 components extracted.

Rotated
Component
Matrixa

a. Rotation
failed to
converge in
25 iterations.
(Convergenc
e = .000).

REFFRENCES

Adebayo, R., & Abdulrahman, I. (2024). Artificial intelligence and the future of higher education in
Nigeria: Opportunities and challenges. African Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 44–59.

Akbulut, S., Akbulut, Y., & Akbulut, A. (2020). The perception of students and teachers on the use of
artificial intelligence tools in education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 13–
25.

Ali, A., Khan, R., & Hussain, F. (2024). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Opportunities and
challenges. Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 45–59.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Anthropic. (2023). Claude AI: An AI assistant for safe and responsible use. Anthropic.

Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative AI: Applications,
opportunities, and challenges of ChatGPT in higher education. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching,
6(1), 1–12.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge.

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., … & Amodei, D. (2020). Language
models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.

Cambra-Fierro, J., González, M., & López, A. (2025). Over-reliance on AI in student communication:
Implications for social skills. Computers & Education, 203, 104879.

Carroll, J. (2007). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford Centre for
Staff and Learning Development.

Chan, C. H., & Hu, X. (2023). Student adoption of generative AI in higher education: Perceived value and
cost. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 8453–8470. [Link]
11637-7

Chiu, T. K. F., Chai, C. S., & Chen, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Emerging research and
opportunities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(1), 67–83.
Chouinard, R., Karsenti, T., & Roy, N. (2006). Relations among competence beliefs, utility value,
achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 501–517.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A
synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62.

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023a). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic
integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(2), 148–159.
[Link]

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023b). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher
education: Quick disruption or long-term transformation? Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 60(2), 1–13.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. [Link]

Durmuş, A., & Ergen, B. (2021). The role of homework in students’ academic achievement: A review of
research. Journal of Educational Studies, 48(4), 587–601.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-Debei, M. M., … &
Wamba, S. F. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities,
challenges, and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy.
International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.
[Link]

Edeh, C. N. (2024). Generative AI and its implications for teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.
Journal of African Higher Education Studies, 12(2), 66–80.
Education Research Center. (2021). Student perception of artificial intelligence in education.
[Link]

Elkhodr, M., Mubin, O., & Iqbal, R. (2023). Students’ perceptions of ChatGPT as a learning resource.
Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16549–16570.

Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education:
Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of
Educational Research, 41(6), 407–428. [Link]

Ergen, B. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Applications and implications. International Journal
of Education Technology, 14(2), 33–47.

Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and
Machines, 30(4), 681–694. [Link]

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., … & Bengio, Y. (2014).
Generative adversarial nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27.

Gonzalez, C., Guzmán, E., & Zapata, J. (2017). Artificial intelligence in education: Enhancing teaching and
learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 596–604.

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications
for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.

Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Holstein, K. (2023). Artificial intelligence and education: A critical
view. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 1–20.

Hong, J., Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2022). Generative AI and its applications: Opportunities and risks. AI &
Society, 37(4), 127–139.
Hosseinzadeh, A., & Hughes, J. (2021). Teacher perceptions of artificial intelligence tools in the
classroom: A survey study. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 305–326.

Ibáñez, M.-B., Di-Serio, Á., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Gamification and artificial intelligence in science
education. Computers & Education, 123, 25–37.

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Kitchenham, A., Kasneci, S., & Naumann, J. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On
opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual
Differences, 103, 102274. [Link]

Kassil, A., & Ball, M. (2021, May). Active academic integrity. In SIGCSE (p. 1284).

Khan, Z., Baroto, M. B., & Kooli, C. (2023). Generative AI and its disruptive role in the future of work and
learning. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 53.
[Link]

King, M. R., & Chatzi, E. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The potential and pitfalls of
ChatGPT. Communications of the ACM, 66(7), 88–96.

Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2014). Auto-encoding variational Bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Prentice
Hall/Cambridge.

Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2001). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens
children, and limits learning. Beacon Press.
Kuo, Y. C., Chiu, Y. H., & Hsu, H. Y. (2020). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence tools in
the classroom. Computers & Education, 154, 104025.

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2022). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in
education. Pearson.

Lozano, R., & Blanco Fontao, B. (2023). Students’ perceptions of ChatGPT in teaching and learning.
Journal of Educational Research, 116(2), 121–136.

Lucci, A., Martinelli, C., & Russo, G. (2022). Generative AI: Emerging challenges for society and
education. AI Perspectives, 4(2), 11–19.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
[Link]

Morris, E. J. (2018). Academic integrity matters: Five considerations for addressing contract cheating.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 15.

Nwaoduh, C. I., & Nwankwo, O. (2023). Generative AI in Nigerian tertiary institutions: Awareness,
challenges and future prospects. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Development, 22(3),
101–115.

OECD. (2023). AI in education: Guidance for policy makers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.

Okonkwo, E. O. (2024). Academic integrity in the age of generative AI: The Nigerian perspective. African
Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(1), 25–41.
Peters, M. A. (2019). Academic integrity: An interview with Tracey Bretag. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 51(8), 751–756.

Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child. Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

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), 1–13.

Pyari, S. (2019). Assignments and academic achievement: A historical overview. International Journal of
Education Research, 13(4), 77–89.

Qadir, J. (n.d.). Talks on the effective integration of AI tools in education. Google Search.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.

Rana, A., Akhtar, A., & Iqbal, A. (2019). Perception of teachers and students about the use of artificial
intelligence in education: A survey. International Journal of Education and Psychological Sciences, 5(1),
1–7.

Ranganathan, S., & Dutta, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic review of studies.
International Journal of Technology in Education and Science.

Rodway, P., & Schepman, A. (2023). AI in student learning: Benefits and drawbacks. Journal of Higher
Education Research, 49(3), 211–229.

Susnjak, T. (2022). ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching,
5(3), 1–13. [Link]
Susjak, T. (2022). Generative AI in student assignments: Benefits and risks. Computers & Education, 180,
104450.

Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test.
Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. [Link]

Tornede, T., Herde, M., Eggensperger, K., Hutter, F., & Lindauer, M. (2023). Generative artificial
intelligence in science: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review. [Link]
10542-5

UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., … & Polosukhin, I. (2017).
Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. [Link]

Vieriu, A., & Petrea, R. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Benefits and risks for academic
integrity. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 21(2), 45–60.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (2023). Systematic review of
research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 2–20. [Link]
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. [Link]

Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. Education and Information
Technologies, 28, 401–414. [Link]

Zhai, X. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions from a literature
review. Journal of Computers in Education, 10(1), 1–31.

Zhai, X., Haudek, K. C., & Zhai, Y. (2020a). Applying machine learning in science education assessment.
Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 145–160.

Zhai, X., Haudek, K. C., & Zhai, Y. (2020b). Automated feedback in science education using AI.
International Journal of STEM Education, 7(15), 1–12.

Zhai, X., Haudek, K. C., & Zhai, Y. (2022). AI-based assessment in science classrooms: A large-scale study.
Science Education, 106(4), 921–945.

Zhai, X., Haudek, K. C., & Zhai, Y. (2024). Future directions of AI in science education. Journal of
Educational Technology, 17(1), 55–72.