The Dynamics of Perceived Benefits, Risks, and Frequency of ChatGPT Use in Indonesian Students' Academic Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64850/cognitive.v1i2.124Keywords:
AI Literacy, ChatGPT, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Perceived Benefits, Perceived RisksAbstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), especially LLMs like ChatGPT has changed students' school habits. It also highlights risks, such as copying and privacy concerns, that those who create rules must address. This research examines how students perceive the benefits and drawbacks of ChatGPT, as well as their frequency of use for school writing in Indonesia. We conducted a survey of 272 students from two government colleges, specifically targeting them. We changed some ideas from studies by Balraj (2025), Meyer et al (2024), Črček & Patekar (2023), and OECD (2023). We analyzed the data using basic statistics, the Pearson correlation test, and multiple linear regression. The results show that students use ChatGPT extensively for writing papers, creating summaries, understanding complex ideas, and correcting their grammar. They thought the good things were good (M = 4.08), mainly because they made them faster and helped them write better. However, they also worried about issues such as AI causing copying, being overly reliant on it, incorrect information, and privacy concerns (M = 3.81). Regression analysis revealed that exposure to the positive aspects of ChatGPT was associated with increased usage (β = 0.39, p < 0.001). These results underscore the need for clear rules to ensure the integrity of schoolwork and protect privacy with AI, prompting educators and policymakers to take a proactive role in shaping ethical guidelines.
Downloads
References
Ajibade, S.-S. M., Oyebode, O. J., Adediran, A. O., & Bassey, M. A. (2025). The evolving role of artificial intelligence in higher education technology: A research mapping through bibliometrics. NIPES Journal of Science and Technology Research, 7(2), 2807–2813. https://doi.org/10.37933/nipes/7.4.2025.SI334
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2023). The inevitability of educational AI: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10111-3
APJII. (2024). Survei penetrasi dan perilaku pengguna internet Indonesia 2024. Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia. https://apjii.or.id
Balraj, B. M. (2025). Exploring education students’ use of ChatGPT for academic and personal purposes: Insights from a developing country context. Frontiers in Education. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1580310/full
BERA. (2022). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). British Educational Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., ... & Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2023). The automation trap: How AI is transforming knowledge work. MIT Press.
Cotton, S., Smith, J., & Patel, R. (2023). Academic integrity and AI: Navigating generative AI in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09476-9
Črček, N., & Patekar, J. (2023). Writing with AI: University students’ use of ChatGPT. Journal of Language and Education, 9(4), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.17379 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.17379
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J., ... & Williams, M. D. (2023). Impact of generative AI on society, business, and higher education. Information Systems Frontiers, 25, 1231–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10405-8
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Halaweh, M. (2023). Overreliance on AI in education: Risks and implications. Computers & Education, 199, 104863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104863 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104863
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
Ji, S., Pan, Z., Cambria, E., & Huang, L. (2023). Misinformation and AI hallucinations: Implications for education. AI & Society, 38, 1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01610-5
Lim, S., Kim, H., & Park, J. (2023). Adoption of generative AI in higher education: A cross-country perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 4523–4545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11678-x
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376718 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Schiller, R., Liebenow, L. W., Steinbach, M., Horbach, A., & Fleckenstein, J. (2024). Using LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students’ text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., & Chu, S. K. (2021). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3179–3206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10041-5
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/ai-in-education.htm
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT reaches 100 million users: The fastest-growing consumer app in history. OpenAI Blog. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading and the extended mind: A review of the evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0850-0
Selwyn, N. (2023). Governing AI in higher education: Policy gaps and risks. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2128735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2039938
Spector, J. M. (2023). AI and assessment: Ensuring integrity in a generative AI era. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(4), 1225–1241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10102-y
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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Zawacki-Richter, O. (2023). Generative AI in higher education: Global trends and implications. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00401-x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dwi Hermawan, Zekry Tri Firnanda (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with Cognitive Insight in Education agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
