Perceived AI literacy and learning-related outcomes among higher education students using generative AI

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi41.1931

Keywords:

higher education, generative artificial intelligence, AI literacy, learning behaviours, academic integrity, educational technology

Abstract

This study examined how perceived AI literacy and GenAI-use frequency relate to learning confidence, learning behaviours, academic integrity perceptions, and perceived fairness in assessment among higher education students. A cross-sectional survey of 131 students assessed GenAI use, perceived AI literacy, and related learning variables. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, MANOVA, and multiple regression analyses were conducted. GenAI use was common, with most students reporting moderate to frequent use. Perceived AI literacy significantly predicted confidence when using GenAI tools, learning behaviours, academic integrity concerns, and perceived fairness of assessment. GenAI-use frequency also predicted learning behaviours. Findings suggest that perceived AI literacy plays an important role in how students engage with GenAI tools and highlight the need for clear institutional guidance and curriculum-based AI literacy development.

Author Biography

Paula Abola, European International University, France; University of Jamestown, USA

Paula Abola is a researcher and educator specializing in higher education, clinical research, and research methodology. Her research focuses on evidence-based practice, Parkinson’s Disease, research methodology, and innovative approaches to teaching and learning. She serves as Associate Dean for Academic & Student Affairs and Director of DBA Studies at European International University (EIU-Paris), where she oversees academic quality, doctoral supervision, research governance, and accreditation alignment. She has extensive international teaching and research experience and is committed to advancing excellence in higher education and doctoral scholarship.

References

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Dai, K., Liu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2026). Generative AI in higher education: A bibliometric review of emerging trends, power dynamics, and global research landscapes. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 10, Article 100544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100544

Dong, Y. (2026). Generative AI technologies and educational outcomes: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and AI-driven approaches. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 13, Article 559. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06903-y

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., Medaglia, R. (2023). 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, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Han, F. (2026). Generative AI literacy: Reframing educational knowledge in the algorithmic age. The Innovation Informatics, 2(2), Article 100041. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-inform.2026.100041

Higher Education Authority. (2025). Generative AI in higher education teaching and learning: Policy framework. https://doi.org/10.82110/px37-mp48

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, USA, Article 598, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727

Maher, J. M., Markey, J. C., & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: Effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-04-0082

Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/PCSP7350

Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students, with prompts. SSRN Electronic Journal, 4–44. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4475995

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. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9

Stephenson, R., & Armstrong, C. (2026). Student generative AI survey 2026 (HEPI Report No. 199). Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/HEPI-Report-199-Gen-AI-Survey-2026.pdf

UNESCO. (2024, August 8). AI competency framework for students. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-competency-framework-students

von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), Article e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296

Downloads

Published

30-09-2026

How to Cite

Abola, P. (2026). Perceived AI literacy and learning-related outcomes among higher education students using generative AI. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (41). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi41.1931

Issue

No. 41 (2026)

Section

Papers

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).