Pedagogical university students’ ethical attitudes and competences regarding artificial intelligence: An empirical study
Abstract
Research objectives and problems: The aim of the research was to examine the self-assessment and views of students from a pedagogical university on the ethical and moral aspects of using AI and their relationship with general attitudes toward AI, as well as competences and knowledge in this area.
Research methods: The diagnostic survey method was used, including an original questionnaire and the General Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS). The study sample consisted of 226 participants.
Process of argumentation: The article begins with an introductory section, followed by a presentation of the research methodology and the results obtained. It concludes with a discussion of the main findings.
Research findings and their impact on the development of educational sciences: Analysis of the responses showed that 65.04% of respondents always follow ethical principles when using AI, and 67.70% are mindful of privacy and information security issues. 50.45% believe that using AI for assignments and exams constitutes cheating or plagiarism, while only 45.13% consider it morally wrong. Respondents support regulations for the use of AI (72.12%) and favor preparing students for the ethical use of AI in their future work (85.84%). They are largely opposed to banning AI in educational institutions (69.47%). Students expressed more positive attitudes towards the benefits of AI (M = 3.22) than levels of understanding of its disadvantages (M = 2.72). Respondents rated their competences (M = 2.65) and knowledge (M = 2.85) regarding AI as below average.
Correlation analysis revealed that students who had more positive attitudes towards the benefits of AI, a better understanding of its disadvantages, and a higher self-assessment of AI competence were less willing to agree that:
- using AI for assignments and exams constitutes cheating or plagiarism and is morally wrong;
• regulations should be developed to define the extent of AI use in education;
• the use of AI in educational institutions should be banned.
Furthermore, students with more positive attitudes towards the benefits of AI were:
- more likely to support the idea that students should be prepared for the ethical use of AI in their future professional work.
Conclusions and recommendations: The research conducted constitutes an important starting point for a more in-depth analysis of students’ knowledge and behavioural patterns in the context of AI use. The findings indicate that students generally exhibit a positive attitude towards the implementation of AI tools in educational settings and recognize their potential in both teaching and learning processes.
However, a concerning trend emerges: individuals who have higher levels of competence in using AI and who display a favorable attitude towards the technology often do not perceive a need for introducing regulations governing its use in educational institutions. Furthermore, they frequently do not view the use of AI in completing assignments or exams as a form of unethical conduct, such as cheating or plagiarism.
In light of these findings, the issue of properly preparing future teachers and specialists for working in environments where AI may become an integral element of children’s and adolescents’ education becomes particularly important. Accordingly, it is essential to incorporate topics related to the use of artificial intelligence into higher education curricula, with particular attention to ethical and moral considerations.
References
Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7
Álvarez-Álvarez, C., & Falcon, S. (2023). Students’ preferences with university teaching practices: Analysis of testimonials with artificial intelligence. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10239-8
Baum, A., & Trzcińska-Król, M. (2024). Students' attitudes towards artificial intelligence and their digital competence – in press.
Cabała, P., Kwiatkowska, K., Woźniak, K., & Zakrzewska, M. (2023). Opinie studentów wobec możliwości i ograniczeń wykorzystania systemu ChatGPT [Students' opinions on the possibilities and limitations of using the ChatGPT system]. E-mentor, 5(102), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.15219/em102.1638
Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharjee, K. K. (2020). Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: A quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3443–3463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10159-7
Choi, J., Jang, E., & Goo, E. (2024). The effects of an ethics education program on artificial intelligence among middle school students: Analysis of perception and attitude changes. Applied Sciences, 14(4), 1588. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041588
Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Exploring factors influencing students’ intention to use intelligent personal assistants for learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2194927
Chounta, I. A., Bardone, E., Raudsep, A., & Pedaste, M. (2022). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence as a tool to support their practice in Estonian K-12 education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 725–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00243-5
Cuéllar, M. F., Larsen, B., Lee, Y. S., & Webb, M. (2022). Does information about AI regulation change manager evaluation of ethical concerns and intent to adopt AI? The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 40(1), 34–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewac004
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Fyfe, P. (2023). How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & Society, 38, 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.17613/0h18-5p41
Galindo-Domínguez, H., Sainz de la Maza, M., Campo, L., & Losada, D. (in press). Design and validation of a multidimensional scale for assessing teachers' perceptions towards artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2023.10062094
Grimaldi, G., & Ehrler, B. (2023). AI et al.: Machines are about to change scientific publishing forever. ACS Energy Letters, 8(1), 878–880. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c02828
Hamilton, I. (2024, June 6). Artificial intelligence in education: Teachers’ opinions on AI in the classroom. Forbes Advisor. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/it-and-tech/artificial-intelligence-in-school/
Herane, M. (2024, January 16). AI in education: Balancing innovation with ethics. Higher Education Digest. https://www.highereducationdigest.com/ai-in-education-balancing-innovation-with-ethics/
Hong, J. W. (2022). I was born to love AI: The influence of social status on AI self-efficacy and intentions to use AI. International Journal of Communication, 16, 172–191. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17728
Kaya, F., Aydin, F., Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Yetişensoy, O., & Kaya, M. D. (2022). The roles of personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographic factors in attitudes toward artificial intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(2), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730
Lucas, M., Zhang, Y., Bem-haja, P., & Vicente, P. N. (2024). The interplay between teachers’ trust in artificial intelligence and digital competence. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12772-2
Lv, X., Yang, Y., Qin, D., Cao, X., & Xu, H. (2022). Artificial intelligence service recovery: The role of empathic response in hospitality customers’ continuous usage intention. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106993
Ma, Y., Liu, J., & Yi, F. (2023). Is this abstract generated by AI? A research for the gap between AI-generated scientific text and human-written scientific text. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.10416
Malmström, H., Stöhr, C., & Ou, A. W. (2023). Chatbots and other AI for learning: A survey of use and views among university students in Sweden. Chalmers Studies in Communication and Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.17196/cls.csclhe/2023/01
McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Hey Alexa… examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009
Nam, J. (2023, November 22). 56% of college students have used AI on assignments or exams. BestColleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/most-college-students-have-used-ai-survey/
Polak, S., Schiavo, G., & Zancanaro, M. (2022). Teachers’ perspective on artificial intelligence education: An initial investigation. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519866
Pourhoseingholi, M. A., Hatamnejad, M. R., & Solhpour, A. (2023). Does ChatGPT (or any other artificial intelligence language tools) deserve to be included in authorship list? ChatGPT and authorship. Gastroenterology and Hepatology from Bed to Bench, 16(1), 435–437.
Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020). Initial validation of the General Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence Scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014
Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2023). The General Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(13), 2724–2741. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400
Shao, C., Nah, S., Makady, H., & McNealy, J. (2024). Understanding user attitudes towards AI-enabled technologies: An integrated model of self-efficacy, TAM, and AI ethics. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2331858
Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019). Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 277–284.
Sztuczna inteligencja zdała egzaminy prawnicze i biznesowe na uczelniach. Popełniła też “zaskakujące błędy” [Artificial intelligence has passed law and business exams at universities. It also made “surprising mistakes”]. (2023, January 27). TVN24 Biznes/Tech. https://tvn24.pl/biznes/tech/usa-sztuczna-inteligencja-zdala-egzaminy-prawnicze-i-biznesowe-na-uczelniach-st6683939
Sysło, M. (2022). Sztuczna inteligencja wkracza do szkół: jak uczyć się o AI i z pomocą AI [Artificial intelligence enters schools: How to learn about AI and with AI]. In J. Fazlagić (Ed.), Sztuczna inteligencja (AI) jako megatrend kształtujący edukację. Jak przygotowywać się na szanse i wyzwania społeczno-gospodarcze związane ze sztuczną inteligencją? [Artificial intelligence (AI) as a megatrend shaping education. How to prepare for socio-economic opportunities and challenges associated with artificial intelligence?] (pp. 74–98). Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.
UNESCO. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Opportunities, challenges and risks. UNESCO.
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379, 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Welding, L. (2023, March 17). Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. BestColleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/
Wieretilo, N. (2023). Shifting horizons – Transformative trends reshaping the landscape of higher education. Coopernicus. https://coopernicus.pl/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Raport-Edukacyjny-PL.pdf
Xiao, Y. (2023). Decoding authorship: Is there really no place for an algorithmic author under copyright law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01269-5
Copyright (c) 2025 Alicja Baum, Maria Trzcińska-Król
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
-
The Author/Authors declares/declare that their publication is original has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere and does not include borrowings from other works which might cause Publisher's responsibility, does not infringe the rights of the third party and that their copyright on this publication is not limited. The Author/Authors will incur all the costs and will pay compensations which might result from the mendacity of the following statement.
-
The Author/Authors declares/declare that issues about publication ethics, have been appropriately considered.
-
The Author/Authors agrees/agree to publish the article free of charge in Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education in English or Spanish. The Editorial Board reserves the right to shorten the texts and change the titles.
-
As part of free publication mentioned in § 1, the Author/Authors agrees/agree to make the full electronic version of their article available in the Internet.
- The Author/Authors agrees/agree to index their article in databases at home and abroad, including abstracts and keywords as well as Authors’ affiliation in English and in other languages. The Author/Authors agrees/agree to pass on the information mentioned above to the owners of these databases.
-
The Author/Authors declares/declare that the article is free of plagiarism.
-
The Author/Authors declares/declare that funding and conflict of interest information has been included in the article.
-
The Author/Authors accepts/accept that the author is aware of the consequences of scientific dishonesty, which, once detected, will be documented and disclosed to the public, and information about it will be communicated to the relevant institutions (universities employing the authors, scientific societies, publishing houses, etc.).
-
The Author/Authors declares/declare to publish the text in the Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-ND 4.0).
- For one Author. Please complete the Author Statement and send it to the editorial office. Please download, complete, scan and attach the file in the system during the submission process.
Download: Author Statement -
For more than one Author. The Authors declare to bear complete responsibility for the scientific reliability of the article submitted. The detailed contribution of all co-authors is defined. Please complete the Authors Statement-Authorship Contributions and send it to the editorial office. Please indicate the specific contributions made by each author (list the authors’ initials, e.g., JKH). Please download, complete, scan and attach the file in the system during the submission process.
Download: Authors Statement - Authorship Contributions
