International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 7 (July 2025), Pages: 76-86

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Factors influencing the use of ChatGPT in student learning in Vietnam

 Author(s): 

 Truong Tuan Linh *

 Affiliation(s):

 Faculty of Business and Economics, Phenikaa University, Hanoi, Vietnam

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1798-7406

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.07.007

 Abstract

This study explores the factors affecting students’ use of ChatGPT in educational settings, with a specific focus on higher education in Vietnam. It applies an extended version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which includes mobility and convenience in addition to the traditional concepts of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The goal is to better understand what encourages students to adopt ChatGPT. A total of 3,550 students participated in a survey, and the data were analyzed using structural equation modeling to examine the relationships between the key factors. The results show that perceived usefulness, mobility, and convenience have strong positive effects on students’ intention to use ChatGPT, while perceived ease of use has a small negative effect. Demographic factors, such as the students’ academic year, also influence adoption patterns. The study highlights the importance of promoting ChatGPT’s practical benefits and ease of access to encourage wider use. It ends with theoretical and practical insights and offers suggestions for future research on the use of AI tools in education.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 ChatGPT adoption, Higher education, Technology acceptance, Perceived usefulness, Student behavior

 Article history

 Received 20 February 2025, Received in revised form 7 May 2025, Accepted 8 June 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of Phenikaa University and international guidelines for research integrity. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, responses were anonymous, and no personal identifying information was collected. All data were treated with strict confidentiality and used solely for academic purposes.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Linh TT (2025). Factors influencing the use of ChatGPT in student learning in Vietnam. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(7): 76-86

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1  Fig. 2 

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  

----------------------------------------------   

 References (48)

  1. Alalwan AA, Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Lal B, and Williams MD (2015). Consumer adoption of Internet banking in Jordan: Examining the role of hedonic motivation, habit, self-efficacy and trust. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 20: 145–157.  https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2015.5    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alam A and Mohanty A (2023). Educational technology: Exploring the convergence of technology and pedagogy through mobility, interactivity, AI, and learning tools. Cogent Engineering, 10(2): 2283282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2283282    [Google Scholar]
  3. Almulla MA (2024). Investigating influencing factors of learning satisfaction in AI ChatGPT for research: University students perspective. Heliyon, 10(11): e32220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32220    [Google Scholar] PMid:38933954 PMCid:PMC11200296
  4. An Y, Yu JH, and James S (2025). Investigating the higher education institutions’ guidelines and policies regarding the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, research, and administration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1): 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3    [Google Scholar]
  5. Annepaka Y and Pakray P (2024). Large language models: A survey of their development, capabilities, and applications. Knowledge and Information Systems, 67: 2967–3022.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-024-02310-4    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayanwale MA and Ndlovu M (2024). Investigating factors of students’ behavioral intentions to adopt chatbot technologies in higher education: Perspective from expanded diffusion theory of innovation. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 14: 100396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100396    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16: 74-94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009207038801600107    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baidoo-Anu D, Asamoah D, Amoako I, and Mahama I (2024). Exploring student perspectives on generative artificial intelligence in higher education learning. Discover Education, 3(1): 98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00173-z    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnes M, Vargas C, Rueda F, Garoby J, Pacione M, and Huppertz A (2001). Combination of straight hole drilling device, team philosophy and novel commercial arrangement improves drilling performance in tectonically active region. In the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, SPE, Amsterdam, Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.2118/67695-MS    [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319–339.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008    [Google Scholar]
  11. Diamantopoulos A and Siguaw JA (2000). Introducing LISREL. SAGE, London, UK.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209359    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellikkal A and Rajamohan S (2024). AI-enabled personalized learning: empowering management students for improving engagement and academic performance. Vilakshan-XIMB Journal of Management, 22(1): 28-44.  https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-02-2024-0023    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gefen D, Karahanna E, and Straub D (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1): 51–90.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghalia N, Isami E, Bsoul M, Aabed S, Haeb RS, and Mustafa M (2024). Impact of artificial intelligence in education: Insights from students and faculty members at Yarmouk University. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(8): 1278–1289.  https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i8.4807    [Google Scholar]
  16. Guettala M, Bourekkache S, Kazar O, and Harous S (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in education: Advancing adaptive and personalized learning. Acta Informatica Pragensia, 13(3): 460–489.  https://doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.235    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hadi Mogavi R, Deng C, Juho Kim J, Zhou P, Kwon Y, Hosny Saleh Metwally A, Tlili A, Bassanelli S, Bucchiarone A, Gujar S, Nacke LE, and Hui P (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1): 100027.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hair JF (2011). Multivariate data analysis: An overview. In: Lovric M (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science. Springer, Berlin, Germany.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_395    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jin Y, Yan L, Echeverria V, Gašević D, and Martinez-Maldonado R (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8: 100348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim H-W and Kankanhalli A (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3): 567–582.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20650309    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lai CL and Hwang GJ (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem-solving, meta-cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3): 276–291.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2014.067029    [Google Scholar]
  22. Liew YZ, Tan AH, Yap EH, Lim CS, Majeed AP, Zhu Y, Chen W, Chen SH, and Lo JY (2024). Systems thinking on artificial intelligence integration into higher education: Causal loops. IntechOpen.  https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1008246    [Google Scholar]
  23. Linh TT (2025). Adoption of digital payment methods in Vietnam: Key determinants and distribution analysis. Journal of Distribution Science, 23(2): 39-49.    [Google Scholar]
  24. Linh TT and Huyen NTT (2025). An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the adoption of digital payment: An empirical study in Vietnam. F1000Research, 14: 127.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157763.2    [Google Scholar] PMid:40191151 PMCid:PMC11969139
  25. Maheshwari G (2024). Factors influencing students’ intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context. Education and Information Technologies, 29(10): 12167–12195.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12333-z    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mercan G, Selçuk ZV, and Kaya E (2024). Research on mobile learning (m-learning) in higher education: A systematic review (2016 to 2023). Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 7(2): 286-307.  https://doi.org/10.53048/johass.1565945    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pellas N (2023). The influence of sociodemographic factors on students' attitudes toward AI-generated video content creation. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1): 57.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00276-4    [Google Scholar]
  28. Quang Doan H, Truong Tuan L, and Khanh Doanh N (2024). The influence of neighborhood dynamics on farmers’ intention to adopt e-commerce platforms for organic tea sales: A study in Thai Nguyen province of Northern Vietnam. Organic Agriculture, 14(2): 213-230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-024-00459-4    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rahiman HU and Kodikal R (2024). Revolutionizing education: Artificial intelligence empowered learning in higher education. Cogent Education, 11(1): 2293431.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2293431    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rawas S and AlSaeed D (2024). ChatGPT: Innovating lifelong learning in higher education through artificial intelligence and digital transformation. In: Lytras MD, Serban AC, Alkhaldi A, Malik S, and Aldosemani T (Eds.), Digital transformation in higher education, Part B: 13-28. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK.  https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83608-424-220241002    [Google Scholar]
  31. Shahzad MF, Xu S, and Javed I (2024). ChatGPT awareness, acceptance, and adoption in higher education: The role of trust as a cornerstone. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1): 46.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00478-x    [Google Scholar]
  32. Shuhaiber A, Kuhail MA, and Salman S (2025). ChatGPT in higher education - A student’s perspective. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17: 100565.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100565    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sinuraya RK, Nuwarda RF, Postma MJ, and Suwantika AA (2024). Vaccine hesitancy and equity: Lessons learned from the past and how they affect the COVID-19 countermeasure in Indonesia. Globalization and Health, 20(1): 11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00987-w    [Google Scholar] PMid:38321478 PMCid:PMC10845639
  34. Sinuraya RK, Wulandari C, Amalia R, and Puspitasari IM (2023). Public knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the use of over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics in Indonesia: A cross-sectional study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 17: 2569-2578.  https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S426290    [Google Scholar] PMid:37869729 PMCid:PMC10590111
  35. Sisouvong V and Pasanchay K (2024). Mobile learning: Enhancing self-directed education through technology, wireless networks, and the Internet anytime, anywhere. Journal of Education and Learning Reviews, 1(2): 39-50.  https://doi.org/10.60027/jelr.2024.752    [Google Scholar]
  36. Songkram N, Chootongchai S, Osuwan H, Chuppunnarat Y, and Songkram N (2023). Students’ adoption towards behavioral intention of digital learning platform. Education and Information Technologies, 28(9): 11655–11677.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11637-4    [Google Scholar] PMid:36846495 PMCid:PMC9944426
  37. Topping KJ (2022). Peer education and peer counselling for health and well-being: A review of reviews. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10): 6064.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106064    [Google Scholar] PMid:35627601 PMCid:PMC9140904
  38. Tri PM, Thi C, and Tu X (2025). The practice of ChatGPT in English teaching and learning in Vietnam: A systematic review. International Journal of TESOL and Education, 5(1): 50–70.  https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.25513    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tsourela M and Roumeliotis M (2015). The moderating role of technology readiness, gender, and sex in consumer acceptance and actual use of technology-based services. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 26(2): 124–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2015.09.003    [Google Scholar]
  40. Valle NN, Kilat RV, Lim J, General E, Dela Cruz J, Colina SJ, Batican I, and Valle L (2024). Modeling learners’ behavioral intention toward using artificial intelligence in education. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 10: 101167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101167    [Google Scholar]
  41. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, and Davis FD (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425–478.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540    [Google Scholar]
  42. Vieira AL (2011). Interactive LISREL in practice. Springer, Berlin, Germany.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18044-6    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang S, Wang F, Zhu Z, Wang J, Tran T, and Du Z (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252: 124167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167    [Google Scholar]
  44. Widodo YB and Akbar KF (2024). Effectiveness of technology use in Indonesian high schools: Student engagement, school capacity, teacher performance. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 5(1): 615–627.  https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v5i1.442    [Google Scholar]
  45. Yam MF, Loh YC, Tan CS, Khadijah Adam S, Abdul Manan N, and Basir R (2018). General pathways of pain sensation and the major neurotransmitters involved in pain regulation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 19(8): 2164.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19082164    [Google Scholar] PMid:30042373 PMCid:PMC6121522
  46. Yu H (2024). The application and challenges of ChatGPT in educational transformation: New demands for teachers roles. Heliyon, 10(2): e24289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24289    [Google Scholar] PMid:38298626 PMCid:PMC10828640
  47. Yu Z, Yu L, Xu Q, Xu W, and Wu P (2022). Effects of mobile learning technologies and social media tools on student engagement and learning outcomes of English learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(3): 381–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2045215    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zare S, Shirdeli M, Rezaee R, Niknam F, Mobarak S, and Jelvay S (2022). Mobile learning among university students: Adoption and application of m-learning. Acta Medica Iranica, 60(11): 699–706.  https://doi.org/10.18502/acta.v60i11.11655    [Google Scholar]