Gaurav Naik, Ronit Pednekar, Masoom Shaikh, Usman Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20683366

This study empirically examines the prevalence, purposes, and ethical perceptions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool utilization among higher education students. Design/Methodology: A quantitative, cross-sectional descriptive survey was administered to 120 students spanning undergraduate and postgraduate levels across multiple academic disciplines. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and three Chi-Square Tests of Independence at a significance level of α = 0.05. Findings: The study found that ChatGPT (80.0%), Google Gemini (68.3%), and Claude (56.7%) are the dominant platforms. A significant relationship was confirmed between a student’s field of study and their dependency level (χ 2 = 18.42, p = 0.0306), between usage frequency and perception of reduced creativity (χ 2 = 21.55, p = 0.0003), and between daily time spent and verification behavior (χ 2 = 13.21, p = 0.0398). A critical verification gap was identified: only 27.5% of students consistently verify AI-generated content, while 60.8% have submitted AI-generated text with minimal editing.

Artificial Intelligence, AI literacy, student dependency, ChatGPT, academic integrity, verification gap, higher education

References
[1] Aguilar-Guggembul et al., “Use of Artificial Intelligence
Tools at a Technological University in the east of the
State of Mexico,” International Journal of Professional
Business Review, Vol.10, No.7, pp.01–09, 2025.
[2] Baah-Peprah et al., “Student reliance on AI for academic
purposes,” 2025.
[3] Baidoo-Anu and Ansah, “Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and
learning,” Journal of AI, Vol.7, No.1, pp.52–62, 2023.
[4] Chan, C.K.Y. and Hu, W., “Students’ voices on generative
AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education,” International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, Vol.20, No.43, 2023.
[5] Cotton, D.R.E., Cotton, P.A., and Shipway, J.R., “Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the
era of ChatGPT,” Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, Vol.61, No.2, pp.228–239, 2023.
[6] Dahri, N.A., et al., “Factors influencing the adoption of
AI-based chatbots for distance learning in higher education,” Education and Information Technologies, 2024.
[7] Dwivedi, Y.K., et al., “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, Vol.71, pp.102642, 2023.
[8] Harris, L., et al., “AI in academic libraries: Student perceptions and use cases,” Library Hi Tech, 2025.
[9] Kannaujia, P. and Patel, S., “Critical evaluation deficits
in AI-using students,” Computers & Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 2025.
[10] Kasneci, E., et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities
and challenges of large language models for education,”
Learning and Individual Differences, Vol.103, pp.102274,
2023.
[11] Lo, C.K., “What is the impact of ChatGPT on education?
A rapid review of the literature,” Education Sciences,
Vol.13, No.4, pp.410, 2023.
[12] Mondal, S., et al., “Generative AI in higher education: A
systematic review,” Computers & Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 2025

Gaurav Naik, Ronit Pednekar, Masoom Shaikh, Usman Khan (2026). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in Higher Education: An Empirical Study of Student Usage Patterns, Dependency and Ethical Perceptions. International Journal of Computer Science Engineering Techniques, 10(3), 141–148. ISSN: 2455-135X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20683366