Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education

Mestan Küçük; Hasan Çalışkan

doi:10.29333/ejmste/18934

Full Text (PDF)

Mestan Küçük ¹ ^* , Hasan Çalışkan ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Department of New Media and Communication, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, TURKEY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This research examines how Generation Z students at a single large public university in Turkey intend to incorporate generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into their studies. Drawing on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2), a survey of 346 participants tested the seven core predictors of behavioral intention through covariance-based structural equation modeling. Hedonic motivation emerged as the strongest predictor (β = 0.322, p < 0.001), followed by performance expectancy, habit, and facilitating conditions, whereas effort expectancy, social influence, and price value showed no significant effect. Within this institutional context, students appear motivated by enjoyment, perceived usefulness, established habit, and institutional support rather than by peer pressure, affordability, or ease of use. The simultaneous non-significance of effort expectancy, social influence, and price value points to a culturally and contextually distinct adoption profile that warrants replication across institutions and cultures.

Keywords

generative AI
UTAUT2
technology acceptance
behavioral intention
higher education
Generation Z

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 22, Issue 7, July 2026, Article No: em2869

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934

Publication date: 07 Jul 2026

Article Views: 23

Article Downloads: 8

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ain, N., Kaur, K., & Waheed, M. (2016). The influence of learning value on learning management system use: An extension of UTAUT2. Information Development, 32(5), 1306-1321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915597546
Alanazi, A., Elias, N. F., Mohamed, H., & Sahari, N. (2026). Exploring mobile learning adoption in higher education: A UTAUT2-based study with technostress and exhaustion as mediators in student engagement. Sustainability, 18(3), Article 1353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031353
Albayrak, M. A., & Çetin, K. (2025). Use of generative artificial intelligence in academic assignments: Views from the faculty of education. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 6(2), 120-136. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1760535
Aldreabi, H., Dahdoul, N. K. S., Alhur, M., Alzboun, N., & Alsalhi, N. R. (2025). Determinants of student adoption of generative AI in higher education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 23(1), 15-33. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.23.1.3599
Ali, I., Warraich, N. F., & Butt, K. (2024). Acceptance and use of artificial intelligence and AI-based applications in education: A meta-analysis and future direction. Information Development, 41(3), 859-874. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669241257206
Alotaibi, H., & Alayed, A. (2025). Adoption of generative AI in higher education: Understanding usage through a technology acceptance model. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(12), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.12.004
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Ateş, H., & Gündüzalp, C. (2025). Proposing a conceptual model for the adoption of artificial intelligence by teachers in STEM education. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(6), 4020-4046. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2457350
Bahadur, S. G. C., Bhandari, P., Gurung, S. K., Srivastava, E., & Ojha, D. (2024). Examining the role of social influence, learning value and habit on students’ intention to use ChatGPT: The moderating effect of information accuracy in the UTAUT2 model. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2403287. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2403287
Bilos, A., & Budimir, B. (2024). Understanding the adoption dynamics of ChatGPT among Generation Z: Insights from a modified UTAUT2 model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 857-876. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020045
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Budhathoki, T., Zirar, A., Tchouamou Njoya, E., & Timsina, A. (2024). ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: A cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 831-846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2333937
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421
Caffaratti, L. B., Longobardi, C., Badenes-Ribera, L., & Marengo, D. (2025). AI adoption among adolescents in education: Extending the UTAUT2 with psychological and contextual factors. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1614993
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dalgic-Tetikol, D. E., Guloglu, B., & Köksal, E. (2022). Determinants of Internet adoption in Turkey and the need for a more coherent vision on information and communication technologies policy. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 23(4), 311-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/17835917221143060
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., ... Wright, 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
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Information Systems Frontiers, 21, 719-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (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
Grassini, S., Aasen, M. L., & Møgelvang, A. (2024). Understanding university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT: Insights from the UTAUT2 model. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 38(1), Article 2371168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2024.2371168
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the UTAUT model. Information & Management, 48(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001
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., ... 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
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Liu, C., Yang, L., Dong, X., & Li, X. (2025). Factors influencing generative AI usage intention in China: Extending the acceptance-avoidance framework with perceived AI literacy. Systems, 13(8), Article 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080639
Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Cai, Y., Kousha, K., & Fairclough, R. (2026). Is generative AI reshaping academic practices worldwide? A survey of adoption, benefits, and concerns. Information Processing & Management, 63(1), Article 104350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104350
Musa, M., Ismail, M. N., Tahir, S., Fudzee, M. F. M., & Jofri, M. H. (2022). Student acceptance towards online learning management system based on UTAUT2. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2022.0131115
Namatovu, A., & Kyambade, M. (2025). Leveraging AI in academia: University students’ adoption of ChatGPT for writing coursework (take home) assignments through the lens of UTAUT2. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2485522. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2485522
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Polyportis, A., & Pahos, N. (2024). Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: A focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 107. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02464-6
Rönkkö, M., & Evermann, J. (2013). A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 425-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112474693
Sergeeva, O. V., Zheltukhina, M. R., & Demir, S. (2025). Understanding higher education students’ adoption of generative AI technologies: An empirical investigation using UTAUT2. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), Article 571. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/16039
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604491
Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 33(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00026-8
Strzelecki, A. (2024). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5142-5155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
Strzelecki, A., & ElArabawy, S. (2024). Investigation of the moderation effect of gender and study level on the acceptance and use of generative AI by higher education students: Comparative evidence from Poland and Egypt. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1209-1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13425
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021a). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: A meta-analytic evaluation of UTAUT2. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(4), 987-1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10007-6
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Prakasam, N., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). The battle of brain vs. heart: A literature review and meta-analysis of “hedonic motivation” use in UTAUT2. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 222-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.008
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Wamba, S. F., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021b). The extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evaluation. International Journal of Information Management, 57, Article 102269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102269
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Weber, R. (2012). Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00284
Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Xue, L., Mahat, J., & Ghazali, N. (2026). Technology acceptance model in artificial intelligence in education: A meta-analysis. SAGE Open, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251409441

How to cite this article

APA

Küçük, M., & Çalışkan, H. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(7), em2869. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934

Vancouver

Küçük M, Çalışkan H. Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(7):em2869. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934

AMA

Küçük M, Çalışkan H. Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(7), em2869. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934

Chicago

Küçük, Mestan, and Hasan Çalışkan. "Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2026 22 no. 7 (2026): em2869. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934

Harvard

Küçük, M., and Çalışkan, H. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(7), em2869. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934

MLA

Küçük, Mestan et al. "Generative artificial intelligence adoption among Generation Z students in Turkish higher education". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 22, no. 7, 2026, em2869. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18934