Jason V. Chavez
Director of department of Gastroenterology, Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University
Jhordan T. Cuilan
Department of English, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet 2601, Philippines
Sali S. Mannan
College of Computer Studies, Mindanao State University-Sulu, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines
Narrin U. Ibrahim
College of Business Administration, Mindanao State University-Sulu, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines
Aisha A. Carolino
Senior High School Department, Mindanao State University-Sulu, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines
Abubakar Radjuni
College of Education, Mindanao State University-Sulu, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines
Salman E. Albani
College of Education, Mindanao State University-Sulu, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines
Benigno A. Garil
College of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Communication, Basilan State College, Isabela City 7300, Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines
Artificial intelligence (AI) in education has the potential to revolutionize learning by addressing significant challenges and accelerating progress. Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, has demonstrated the ability to produce high-quality text and other content, potentially transforming academic tasks like essay writing. Despite these advantages, educators are concerned about the ethical implications of AI use. Risks such as misinformation, academic dishonesty, and overreliance on AI must be thoroughly assessed. This discourse analysis explored the perceptions of teachers on AI use in academic settings, highlighting concepts leading to ethical issues involved in its use. Convenience sampling (n=30) was used to select the participants for a one-on-one interview. Findings indicated that overreliance, dishonesty, cheating, are plagiarism were some ethical issues that emerged from the discourse. Convenience, driven by ease and accessibility, can lead students to excessively use AI, which may inadvertently hamper their learning processes. Overreliance, fueled by trust in generated outputs, can result in students depending heavily on AI-generated information, which may not always be accurate or critically analyzed. Students who feel incapable of producing quality work on their own may resort to AI, believing they lack the necessary skills. This reliance on AI can erode their confidence and critical thinking abilities, further entrenching their dependence on technology. While AI can enhance learning and efficiency, it also poses risks of academic dishonesty, overreliance, and diminished student engagement with the learning process. Teachers perceive AI use as unethical, primarily due to how students interact with and depend on AI, ultimately affecting their academic integrity and genuine intellectual development.
[1] Smyrnaiou, Z., Liapakis, A., Bougia, A., 2023. Ethical use of artificial intelligence and new technologies in education 5.0. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Science. 1(4), 119–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51219/JAIMLD/Anastasios-Liapakis/15
[2] Chaudhry, M.A., Kazim, E., 2022. Artificial intelligence in education (AIEd): A high-level academic and industry note 2021. AI and Ethics. 2(1), 157–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00074-z
[3] Zaman, B.U.I., 2024. Transforming education through AI benefits risks and ethical considerations. Preprints. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.0859.v1
[4] Weidener, L., Fischer, M., 2024. Artificial intelligence in medicine: Cross-sectional study among medical students on application, education, and ethical aspects. JMIR Medical Education. 10, 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/51247
[5] Doshi, R.H., Bajaj, S.S., Krumholz, H.M., 2023. ChatGPT: Temptations of progress. The American Journal of Bioethics. 23(4), 6–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2180110
[6] Haenlein, M., Kaplan, A., 2019. A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management Review. 61(4), 5–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619864925
[7] Inoferio, H.V., Espartero, M., Asiri, M., et al., 2024. Coping with math anxiety and lack of confidence through AI-assisted Learning. Environment and Social Psychology. 9(5), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i5.2228
[8] Kung, T.H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., et al., 2023. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLoS Digital Health. 2(2), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198
[9] Dave, T., Athaluri, S.A., Singh, S., 2023. ChatGPT in medicine: An overview of its applications, advantages, limitations, future prospects, and ethical considerations. Frontiers In Artificial Intelligence. 6, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1169595
[10] Iannantuono, G.M., Bracken-Clarke, D., Floudas, C.S., et al., 2023. Applications of large language models in cancer care: current evidence and future perspectives. Frontiers In Oncology. 13, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1268915
[11] Lecler, A., Duron, L., Soyer, P., 2023. Revolutionizing radiology with GPT-based models: current applications, future possibilities and limitations of ChatGPT. Diagnostic And Interventional Imaging. 104(6), 269–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2023.02.003
[12] Qadir, J., 2023. Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference; Kuwait; 1–4 May 2023. pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121
[13] Gašević, D., Siemens, G., Sadiq, S., 2023. Empowering learners for the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 4, 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100130
[14] Bu, Q., 2022. Ethical risks in integrating artificial intelligence into education and potential countermeasures. Science Insights. 41(1), 561–566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15354/si.22.re067
[15] Hagendorff, T., 2020. The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines. 30(1), 99–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
[16] Marcelo, E., 2023. Address challenges in AI, technology in education. Available from: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/09/24/2298601/address-challenges-ai-technology-education (cited 7 March 2024).
[17] Dela Rosa, A.C., Dacuma, A.K., Ang, C.A., et al., 2024. Assessing AI adoption: Investigating variances in AI utilization across student year levels in far Eastern University-Manila, Philippines. International Journal of Current Science Research And Review. 7(5), 1–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V7-i5-31
[18] Eslit, E., 2023. Thriving beyond the crisis: Teachers’ reflections on literature and language education in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and globalization. Preprints 2023. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202307.2151.v1
[19] Green, T.D., Donovan, L.C., 2018. Learning anytime, anywhere through technology: In: Hall. G.E., Quinn, L.F., Gollnick, D.M., (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning. Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 225–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955901.ch9
[20] Gligorea, I., Cioca, M., Oancea, R., et al., 2023. Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: A literature review. Education Sciences. 13(12), 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121216
[21] Hesham, A., Dempere, J., Akre, V., et al., 2023. Artificial intelligence in education (AIED): Implications and challenges. In: Johnston. A. (Ed.). Proceedings of the HCT International General Education Conference (HCT-IGEC 2023), Atlantis Highlights in Social Sciences, Education and Humanities 13. Atlantis Press: Netherlands. pp. 126–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-286-6_10
[22] Li, H., Xu, T., Zhang, C., et al., 2024. Bringing generative AI to adaptive learning in education. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.14601
[23] Dwivedi, Y.K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., et al., 2021. Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management. 57, 1–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
[24] Su, J., Yang, W., 2022. Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 3, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049
[25] Sharifuddin, N.S., Hashim, H., 2024. Benefits and challenges in implementing artificial intelligence in education (AIED) in ESL classroom: A systematic review (2019-2022). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 14(1), 146–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i1/20422
[26] Fitria, T.N., 2023. The use of artificial intelligence in education (AIED): Can ai replace the teacher's role? Epigram. 20(2), 165–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32722/epi.v20i2.5711
[27] Hwang, G.J., Xie, H., Wah, B.W., et al., 2020. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 1, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
[28] Hwang, G.J., Chang, P.Y., Tseng, W.Y., et al., 2022. Research trends in artificial intelligence-associated nursing activities based on a review of academic studies published from 2001 to 2020. Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 40(12), 814–824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000897
[29] Meskó, B., 2019. The real era of the art of medicine begins with artificial intelligence. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 21(11), 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/16295
[30] Rios-Campos, C., Cánova, E.S.M., Zaquinaula, I.R.A., et al., 2023. Artificial intelligence and education. South Florida Journal of Development. 4(2), 641–655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv4n2-001
[31] Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., et al., 2023. Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research. 25(3), 277–304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814
[32] Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., et al., 2024. Generative ai. Business and Information Systems Engineering. 66, 111–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
[33] Köbis, N., Mossink, L.D., 2021. Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Computers In Human Behavior. 114, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106553
[34] Bullock, J., Luengo-Oroz, M., 2019. Automated speech generation from UN general assembly statements: Mapping risks in AI generated texts. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.01946
[35] Hu, G., 2023. Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers. Accountability in Research. 38(7), 978–980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2184262
[36] Meunier, F., Pikhart, M., Klimova, B., 2022. New perspectives of L2 acquisition related to human-computer interaction (HCI). Frontiers in Psychology. 13, 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1098208
[37] Zhai, X., 2022. ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418
[38] Stokel-Walker, C., 2023. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00107-z (cited 7 March 2024).
[39] Chrysafiadi, K., Troussas, C., Virvou, M., 2022. Personalised instructional feedback in a mobile-assisted language learning application using fuzzy reasoning. International Journal of Learning Technology. 17(1), 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2022.123676
[40] Troussas, C., Krouska, A., Sgouropoulou, C., 2022. Enriching mobile learning software with interactive activities and motivational feedback for advancing users’ high-level cognitive skills. Computers. 11(2), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020018
[41] Wong, K., Gallant, F., Szumacher, E., 2021. Perceptions of Canadian radiation oncologists, radiation physicists, radiation therapists and radiation trainees about the impact of artificial intelligence in radiation oncology–national survey. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. 52(1), 44–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2020.11.013
[42] Klimova, B., Pikhart, M., Kacetl, J., 2023. Ethical issues of the use of AI-driven mobile apps for education. Frontiers in Public Health. 10, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1118116
[43] Sidiropoulos, D., Anagnostopoulos, C.N., 2024. Applications, challenges and ethical issues of AI and ChatGPT in education. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.07907
[44] Kay, J., Kummerfeld, B., 2019. From data to personal user models for life‐long, life‐wide learners. British Journal of Educational Technology. 50(6), 2871–2884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12878
[45] Borenstein, J., Howard, A., 2021. Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics. 1, 61–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7
[46] Rudolph, J., Tan, S., Tan, S., 2023. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 6(1), 342–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
[47] Azaria, A., 2022. ChatGPT usage and limitations. Preprints. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/5ue7n
[48] Zhang, B., 2023. Preparing educators and students for chatgpt and ai technology in higher education. University of Hartford: West Hartford, CT. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32105.98404
[49] Huallpa, J.J., 2023. Exploring the ethical considerations of using Chat GPT in university education. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences. 11(4), 105–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v11i4.3770
[50] Zhou, C., Li, Q., Li, C., et al., 2023. A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: A history from bert to chatgpt. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.09419
[51] Yadava, O.P., 2023. ChatGPT—a foe or an ally? Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 39(3), 217–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-023-01507-6
[52] Chan, C.K.Y., Hu, W., 2023. Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 20, 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
[53] Yu, H., 2023. Reflection on whether Chat GPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 14, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712
[54] Wang, X., Lu, Z., Yin, M., 2022. Will you accept the ai recommendation? predicting human behavior in ai-assisted decision making. In: Laforest, F., Troncy, R., (Eds.). In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA. pp. 1697–1708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512240
[55] Lai, V., Tan, C., 2019. On human predictions with explanations and predictions of machine learning models: A case study on deception detection. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA. pp. 29–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287590
[56] Rechkemmer, A., Yin, M., 2022. When confidence meets accuracy: Exploring the effects of multiple performance indicators on trust in machine learning models. In: Barbosa, S., Lampe, C., Appert, C., et al. (Eds.). In Proceedings of the 2022 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501967
[57] Zhang, Y., Liao, Q.V., Bellamy, R.K., 2020. Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency; 27–30 January 2020; Barcelona, Spain, pp. 295–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372852
[58] Liu, H., Lai, V., Tan, C., 2021. Understanding the effect of out-of-distribution examples and interactive explanations on human-ai decision making. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2). pp. 1–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3479552
[59] Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D.G., Hofman, J.M., et al., 2021. Manipulating and measuring model interpretability. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 8–13 May 2021; Yokohama, Japan. pp. 1–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445315
[60] Agarwal, R., Prasad, J., 1997. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences. 28(3), 557–582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
[61] Dietvorst, B.J., Simmons, J.P., Massey, C., 2015. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 144(1), 114–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
[62] Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., 2022. Teachers' trust in AI‐powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology. 53(4), 914–931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232
[63] Tsai, Y.S., Gasevic, D., 2017. Learning analytics in higher education---challenges and policies: A review of eight learning analytics policies. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference; 13–17 March 2017; Vancouver British Columbia, Canada. pp. 233–242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027400
[64] Wolff, A., Moore, J., Zdrahal, Z., et al., 2016. Data literacy for learning analytics. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge; 25–29 April 2016; Edinburgh, UK. pp. 500–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883864
[65] Ahmad, S.F., Han, H., Alam, M.M., et al., 2023. Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 10(1), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01787-8
[66] Gocen, A., Aydemir, F., 2020. Artificial intelligence in education and schools. Research on Education and Media. 12(1), 13–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2020-0003
[67] Chavez, J., 2022. Narratives of bilingual parents on the real-life use of English language: Materials for English language teaching curriculum. Arab World English Journals. 13(3), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/mgce3
[68] Chavez, J.V., Libre, J.M., Gregorio, M.W., et al., 2023. Human resource profiling for post-pandemic curriculum reconfiguration in higher education. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development. 7(2), 19–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v7i2.1975
[69] Chavez, J.V., Anuddin, F.O., Mansul, H.H., et al., 2024. Analyzing impacts of campus journalism on student’s grammar consciousness and confidence in writing engagements. Environment and Social Psychology. 9(7), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i7.6106
[70] Ponjuán, L., Hernández, S., 2021. Different yet similar: The educational experiences of Latinx male students at Texas PWI, HSI, and HBCU institutions. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 20(4), 453–465, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192719896330
[71] Jager, J., Putnick, D.L., Bornstein, M.H., 2017. II. More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 82(2), 13–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296
[72] Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.M., Johnson, M., et al., 2016. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 72(12), 2954–2965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
[73] Naz, N., Gulab, F., Aslam, M., 2022. Development of qualitative semi-structured interview guide for case study research. Competitive Social Science Research Journal. 3(2), 42–52. Available from: https://cssrjournal.com/index.php/cssrjournal/article/view/170
[74] Chavez, J.V., Ceneciro, C.C., 2023. Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious and social belief systems. Environment and Social Psychology. 9(1), 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i1.1912
[75] Burck, C., 2005. Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: The use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy. 27(3), 237–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00314.x
[76] Chavez, J.V., Del Prado, R.T., 2023. Discourse analysis on online gender-based humor: Markers of normalization, tolerance, and lens of inequality. Forum for Linguistic Studies. 5(1), 55–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/fls.v5i1.1530
[77] Goodman, S., 2017. How to conduct a psychological discourse analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines. 9(2), 142–153. Available from https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/journals/cadaad/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/09-Goodman.pdf
[78] Stahl, B.C., Eke, D., 2024. The ethics of ChatGPT–Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management. 74, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700
[79] Eke, D.O., 2023. ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? Journal of Responsible Technology. 13, 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060.
[80] Stokel-Walker, C., 2022. AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays-should academics worry? Nature. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04397-7 (cited 28 March 2024).
[81] Fyfe, P., 2023. How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & SOCIETY. 38(4), 1395–1405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z
[82] Sweeney, S., 2023. Who wrote this? Essay mills and assessment–Considerations regarding contract cheating and AI in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education. 21(2), 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100818
[83] Nguyen, H.M., Goto, D., 2024. Unmasking academic cheating behavior in the artificial intelligence era: Evidence from Vietnamese undergraduates. Education and Information Technologies. 29, 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12495-4
[84] Bakar-Corez, A., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., 2024. E-dishonesty among postgraduate students and its relation to self-esteem. Education and Information Technologies. 29(7), 8275–8300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12105-9
[85] Li, L., Ma, Z., Fan, L., et al., 2023. ChatGPT in education: A discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media. Education and Information Technologies. 29, 10729–10762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12256-9
[86] Vyt, D., Jara, M., Mevel, O., et al., 2022. The impact of convenience in a click and collect retail setting: A consumer-based approach. International Journal of Production Economics. 248, 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108491
[87] Zeqiri, J., Ramadani, V., Aloulou, W.J., 2023. The effect of perceived convenience and perceived value on intention to repurchase in online shopping: the mediating effect of e-WOM and trust. Economic research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. 36(3), 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2153721
[88] Ivanova, A., Noh, G., 2022. Mobile banking service in Mongolia: The role of online convenience on the acceptance and use behavior. Asia Marketing Journal. 24(2), 51–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53728/2765-6500.1588
[89] Song, G., Zhang, C., Xiao, L., et al., 2022. Influence of varied ambient population distribution on spatial pattern of theft from the person: the perspective from activity space. International Journal of Geo-Information. 11(12), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11120615
[90] Brown, S., Hammond, K., 2022. Plagiarism in higher education: Navigating a perfect storm. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy. 3(5), 100–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.5.452
[91] Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., Gipp, B., 2019. Academic plagiarism detection: a systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 52(6), 1–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3345317
[92] Klingbeil, A., Grützner, C., Schreck, P., 2024. Trust and reliance on AI—An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI. Computers in Human Behavior. 160, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352
[93] Lee, J.D., See, K.A., 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors. 46(1), 50–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
[94] Kohn, S.C., De Visser, E.J., Wiese, E., et al., 2021. Measurement of trust in automation: A narrative review and reference guide. Frontiers in psychology. 12, 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977
[95] Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., Li, L.D., 2024. The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments. 11(1), 1–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
[96] Kolber, M., 2022. Learned helplessness of young people during the COVID-19 Distance Learning. A Research Report. Lubelski Rocznik Pedagogiczny. 41(1), 41–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/lrp.2022.41.1.41-52 (in Polish)
[97] Boddez, Y., Van Dessel, P., De Houwer, J., 2022. Learned helplessness and its relevance for psychological suffering: A new perspective illustrated with attachment problems, burn-out, and fatigue complaints. Cognition and Emotion. 36(6), 1027–1036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2022.2118239
[98] Niknam, M., Karimi, G. Z., Amiri, F., 2023. Effectiveness of training to overcome the learned helplessness on academic procrastination and self-efficacy of adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent and Youth Psychological Studies. 4(4), 71–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.jayps.4.4.8
Copyright © 2024 Jason V. Chavez, Jhordan T. Cuilan, Sali S. Mannan, Narrin U. Ibrahim, Aisha A. Carolino, Abubakar Radjuni, Salman E. Albani, Benigno A. Garil
This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
