The Sustainable Integration of AI in Higher Education: Analyzing ChatGPT Acceptance Factors Through an Extended UTAUT2 Framework in Peruvian Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that this paper is accepted with minor amendments.

General

The paper takes a firmly positive stance on the use of ChatGPT by higher education students, which is not necessarily backed up by the literature. This position does not seem necessary to justify the research, so, in my opinion, could be toned down.

On a few occasions, ChatGPT is referred to as 'the ChatGPT', which isn't standard usage.

Pages 1-4 would benefit from more headings to ensure that the reader can appreciate the progression of concepts presented.

Lines 40-42: first sentence could be clearer (e.g., what is 'the issue'?).

Lines 194-200 would benefit from more detailed explanation of the environmental issues raised by ChatGPT.

Lines 243, 270, 330, 718: 'On the other hand' usually indicates something that is contrary to the previous statement, which it doesn't seem to do in these cases.

Line 328: two full stops

Line 343: this probably wouldn't be considered as 'scientific' (perhaps 'quantitative').

Lines 452-3: Hypothesis 9 should be italicised.

Lines 476-480: If using ChatGPT has negative consequences (lines 476-7), why would educators want to increase its use? Should line 478 not read 'to increase effective and responsible use' or similar?

Lines 491-3: Hypothesis 12 should be italicised.

Table 2: it is unclear what the 'Media' heading refers to (is it the Mean or Median?)

Table 2: does VIF stand for 'inflated variance factor' (line 569) or 'variance inflation factor' (line 578)?

Author Response

All the observations were raised one by one and highlighted in yellow. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the factors affecting the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education in Peruvian universities, using an extended version of the UTAUT2 framework. The study aims to contribute to the understanding of AI integration into education systems by examining the perceptions and attitudes of students and faculty toward ChatGPT, which could potentially be integrated into educational processes. The approach is commendable, and the research has significant potential for practical application, particularly in the context of emerging AI technologies like ChatGPT. Here are suggestions for improvement:

 

1.The literature review would benefit from a deeper exploration of recent studies specifically focused on AI applications in higher education, particularly those that directly relate to the use of tools like ChatGPT. A more detailed discussion of how the UTAUT2 framework has been applied in similar contexts would also enhance the theoretical foundation of the study.

2. The research questions are somewhat broad. It would help to refine them to specify which particular factors most significantly influence ChatGPT acceptance in Peruvian universities. Clearer research objectives will help sharpen the focus of the study and make the findings more actionable.

3.The methodology section would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the survey design process. Specifically, how were the questionnaire items selected, and how were their reliability and validity tested? It is also crucial to clarify the sample size, composition, and demographic distribution to ensure the representativeness of the data.

4.The statistical analysis needs more detailed interpretation. For example, the paper could elaborate on the results of factor analysis or structural equation modeling, particularly how the loadings and fit indices support the conclusions. This would provide greater transparency and strengthen the validity of the findings.

5.The title of the paper suggests a focus on "sustainable integration," but the manuscript does not adequately address how the findings relate to the long-term, sustainable integration of AI in education. The authors should explore practical recommendations for policy-makers or educators regarding the long-term use of AI tools like ChatGPT in universities.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally understandable but requires revisions for improved clarity, grammar, and readability.

Author Response

All observations were lifted.

The yellow shaded paragraphs are the observations of reviewer 1 and the green shaded ones are your observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The aim of the article, as indicated by its title and abstract, is clear, and the topic is highly relevant and timely. The study’s objectives, the methodology employed, and the main findings are effectively outlined in the abstract. The topic of AI in education is widely explored nowadays, and the number of academic papers on the specific subject of ChatGPT in the educational context has grown exponentially. As the authors stated in lines 152–155, there is a “need for continuous evaluation of the adaptation and evolution of ChatGPT in response to changing educational needs and challenges.”. For this reason, the authors’ intention to provide a relevant literature review was a challenging task, as selecting from such a vast pool of articles is difficult. Perhaps some highly cited articles on this topic, which are currently missing, could be included. Here are some examples:

Perera, P., & Lankathilake, M. (2023). AI in higher education: A literature review of chatgpt and guidelines for responsible implementation.

Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), 692.

It is appreciated that the authors discussed both the positive and negative perspectives on using ChatGPT on teaching-learning process in the Introduction section. The mention of digital divide issue is also relevant.

The authors clearly explained the contribution of this study on the paragraph between lines 141-145.

The authors should provide a more detailed explanation and offer pertinent reasons for the exclusion of several constructs from the original UTAUT2 model, such as facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value, and habits.

The authors noted that some studies offer insights into the impact of PE and EE on students' intentions and actual use of ChatGPT; however, they did not provide references to support these claims.

Overall, the formulation of the hypotheses is very clear, and they are supported by references to previous studies from the academic literature.

Although the authors acknowledged the negative perspectives on using ChatGPT in the teaching-learning process and referred to academic references, it is suggested that they introduce an additional limitation: their study is somewhat based on the assumption that ChatGPT is a must-have tool for enhancing learning. The authors do not mentioned that some prestigious universities have restricted the use of this tool by students.

Author Response

The observations were raised (they are painted in light blue). The other colours are those of the other peer reviewers.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no more comments to the language.