Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly
Sign inSign upJoin
Submit an articleSubmit
2026, no. 8
DIGITALIZATION OF EDUCATION

Artificial intelligence in education: opinions of students studying in advertising and public relations field

Marianna Yu. AbabkovaORCID, Irina Yu. MelnikovaORCID, Maria E. Kudryavtseva, Olga O. VasilevaORCID

DOI 10.20339/am.08-26.106pp. 106–116UDC 378-042.4:004.880 RUB

PDF

Bookmark

Abstract

The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into media education comes with benefits and risks. Research shows that only a small proportion of teachers (less than 20%) actively use AI in the educational process, while half of the students are willing to experiment with these technologies. Russian data is similar to foreign data: most people are positive about AI, but they don't implement it effectively enough. The purpose of this study is to identify the factors and mechanisms influencing the perception of artificial intelligence technologies for improving educational technologies and personal development of students in higher education institutions. The article contains an analysis of secondary data sources from Russian and foreign researchers on the problem of integrating artificial intelligence into the educational process. The empirical component of the study is a survey of 277 students studying in the field of Advertising and public Relations at 4 universities in St. Petersburg, conducted on the basis of the unified theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Unifie Theory for Acceptance and Use of Technology), which allows us to understand user behavior when introducing a new technology. The novelty of the conducted research is the application of the extended UTAUT model to assess the possibilities and prospects of introducing new technologies into the educational process. The results obtained based on a survey of 277 students studying in the field of Advertising and Public Relations at 4 universities in St. Petersburg showed the active use of AI by students in their studies: 61.6% use the technology regularly (from several times a week to daily use). The majority of respondents positively assess the use of AI in the educational process and the ease of mastering the technology. However, only a third of respondents believe that AI reveals their creative potential. The study highlights the need to develop a competent approach to the use of AI in education, taking into account the balance between technological capabilities and the preservation of students’ subjectivity.

Keywords

  • artificial intelligence
  • educational technologies
  • unified theory for acceptance and use of technology UTAUT
  • Likert scale

References

  1. Strzelecki, A. (2024) Students’ Acceptance of Chat GPT in Higher Education: An Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Innov. High Educ. 49, 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1

    DOI 10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1

  2. Razumov, V.I., Sizikov, V.P. (2019) Natural and Artificial Intelligence and Their Relationship. Vestnik of Omsk University, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 98–105. https://doi.org/10.25513/1812-3996.2019.24(1).98-105

    DOI 10.25513/1812-3996.2019.24(1).98-105

  3. Elsakova, R.Z., Kuzmina, N.N., Kochkina, D.V. (2024) Artificial vs. Natural Intelligence in the Higher Education Process. Vestnik of South Ural State University. Series “Education. Pedagogical Sciences”, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 90–101. https://doi.org/10.14529/ped240109

    DOI 10.14529/ped240109

  4. Li, C., Xing, W., & Leite, W. (2022) Building socially responsible conversational agents using big data to support online learning: A case with Algebra Nation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53 (4), 776–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13227

    DOI 10.1111/bjet.13227

  5. Teubner, T., Flath, C.M., Weinhardt, C., van der Aalst, W., & Hinz, O. (2023) Welcome to the era of ChatGPT et al. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65 (2), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00795-x

    DOI 10.1007/s12599-023-00795-x

  6. Arkabayev, N.K., Mamatova, V.T. (2025) The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Role of the Instructor in the Transformation of Pedagogical Competencies in the Context of the Digitalization of Education. Vestnik of Osh State University. Pedagogy. Psychology, vol. 1 (6). pp. 49–56. https://doi.org/10.52754/16948742_1(6)_6-2025

    DOI 10.52754/16948742_1(6)_6-2025

  7. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023) ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6 (1), 1–22.

  8. Who Are the Neo-Luddites and How Are They Resisting the Adoption of AI Technologies. URL: https://trends.rbc.ru/trends/innovation/68fbb02e9a7947ab812414c2?from=copy (accessed on: 26.11.2025).

    trends.rbc.ru

  9. Are Your Employees Sabotaging Your AI Initiatives? They Might Be. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2025/04/04/are-your-employees-sabotaging-your-ai-initiatives-they-might-be/) (дата обращения: 26.11.2025).

    forbes.comforbes.com

  10. Arkhipov, V.V., Naumov, V.B., Starostenko, V.A., Nesterov, A.A. (2025) The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: The Experience of St. Petersburg State University. Works on Intellectual Property, vol. 52, no. 1. pp. 122–135. https://doi.org/10.17323/tis.2025.25343

    DOI 10.17323/tis.2025.25343

  11. Coffey, L. (2023, October 31) Students outrunning faculty in AI use. The Inside Higher Ed. URL: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificialintelligence/2023/10/31/most-students-outrunning-faculty-ai-use

    insidehighered.com

  12. European Commission. (2023) Results of the teachers’ survey on Artificial Intelligence help the European Commission to develop ethical guidelines. European School Education Platform. URL: https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/insights/news/results-teacherssurvey-artificial-intelligence (accessed on: 18.11.2023).

    school-education.ec.europa.eu

  13. UNESCO (2023) Less than 10% of schools and universities have formal guidance on AI. URL: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-survey-less-10- schools-and-universities-have-formal-guidance-ai (accessed on: 18.11.2023).

    unesco.org

  14. Glazunova, I.N., Kuzmin, N.N., Tereshchenkova, V.V., Chistyakova, N.A. (2025) Artificial Intelligence in the Information and Methodological Support of Students. Education Management: Theory and Practice, 15 (3-1), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.25726/k2192-7915-7873-l

    DOI 10.25726/k2192-7915-7873-l

  15. Kuzmin, N.N., Glazunova, I.N., Chistyakova, N.A., Baitimerova, L.S. (2024) Artificial Intelligence and Its Role in Shaping Individual Development Trajectories for University Students. Education Management: Theory and Practice, 14 (3-1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.25726/f3942-2092-6900-m

    DOI 10.25726/f3942-2092-6900-m

  16. Can AI Replace University Professors? An Interview on the Results of a Series of Experiments. URL: https://skillbox.ru/media/education/mozhet-li-ii-zamenit-prepodavatelya-v-vuze-intervyu-o-rezultatah-serii-eksperimentov/ (accessed on: 26.11.2025).

    skillbox.ru

  17. Toteva, M. (2023) Revolutionizing Education: The Transformative Power of AI Technologies in PR. Postmodernism Problems, 13 (3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.46324/PMP2303307

    DOI 10.46324/pmp2303307

  18. Yang, A. (2024) Preparing Public Relations’ Practitioners for the AI Era: Advancing Pedagogical Principles in Public Relations’ Artificial Intelligence Education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 80 (1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958241277682

    DOI 10.1177/10776958241277682

  19. Kurganova, E.B. (2023) The Potential of AI in Solving Problems in the Fields of Advertising and PR. MediaVector, no. 9, pp. 68–71.

  20. Lan, Y, Liu, S, Chen, H and Xia, L (2025) Mindfulness and AI adoption: extending the technology acceptance model for Chinese media students. Front. Psychol. 16:1637502. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1637502

    DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1637502

  21. Strzelecki, A. (2023) To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 32 (9), 5142–5155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

    DOI 10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

  22. Dahri, N.A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W.M., Almogren, A.S. &Vighio, M.S. (2024) Investigating factors affecting teachers’ training through mobile learning: Task technology fit perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol., Jan., vol. 2024, pp. 1–37.

  23. Soormo, R.B., Al-Rahmi, W.M., Dahri, N.A., Alblehai, F., Alshimai,A., Aldaijy, A., Salameh, A.A. (2024) Evaluating the influence of UTAUT factors on the adoption of QR codes in MSMEs: An application of SEM and ANN methodologies, IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 191304–191322.

  24. Chocarro, R., Cortiñas, M., Marcos-Matás, G. (2023) Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: A technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educ. Stud., Mar., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 295–313.

  25. Youssef Alyoussef, A. Mohammed Drwish, F. Adel Albakheet, R. Hassan Alhajhoj and A. Ahmed Al-Mousa (2025) “AI Adoption for Collaboration: Factors Influencing Inclusive Learning Adoption in Higher Education.” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 81690–81713, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3567656

    DOI 10.1109/access.2025.3567656

  26. Venkatesh, V., James Y.L. Thong, Xu, Xu (2012). Consumer acceptance and Use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and Use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 157. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

    DOI 10.2307/41410412

  27. Blagov, E.Yu., & Bogolyubov, P.P. (2012) Construct Validity of a Unified Theory of Technology Adoption and Use in the Russian Context. Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Management, no. 4. pp. 101–125.

  28. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

    DOI 10.2307/30036540

  29. El-Masri, M., Tarhini, A. (2017) Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 (3), 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8

    DOI 10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8

  30. Raza, S.A., Qazi, Z., Qazi, W., Ahmed, M. (2022) E-learning in higher education during COVID-19: Evidence from blackboardlearning system. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14 (4), 1603–1622. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-02-2021-0054

    DOI 10.1108/jarhe-02-2021-0054

  31. Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., Lavidas, K. (2020) Acceptance of mobile phone by university students for their studies: An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 25 (5), 4139–4155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10157-9

    DOI 10.1007/s10639-020-10157-9

  32. Osei, H.V., Kwateng, K.O., Boateng, K.A. (2022) Integration of personality trait, motivation and UTAUT 2 to understand e-learning adoption in the era of COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (8), 10705–10730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11047-y

    DOI 10.1007/s10639-022-11047-y

  33. Twum, K.K., Ofori, D., Keney, G., Korang-Yeboah, B. (2022) Using the UTAUT, personal innovativeness and perceived financial cost to examine student’s intention to use E-learning. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 13 (3), 713–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-12-2020-0168

    DOI 10.1108/jstpm-12-2020-0168

  34. Alotumi, M. (2022). Factors influencing graduate students’ behavioral intention to use Google Classroom: Case study mixed methods research. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (7), 10035–10063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11051-2

    DOI 10.1007/s10639-022-11051-2

  35. Sitar-Taut, D.-A., & Mican, D. (2021) Mobile learning acceptance and use in higher education during social distancing circumstances: An expansion and customization of UTAUT2. Online Information Review, 45 (5), 1000–1019. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2021-0017

    DOI 10.1108/oir-01-2021-0017

  36. Burganova, L.A., Yuryeva, O.V., Kukushkina, O.Yu. (2025) Risks of Using Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Student Perspective. Vestnik of Economics, Law, and Sociology, no. 2. pp. 241–246. https://doi.org/10.24412/1998-5533-2025-2-241-246

    DOI 10.24412/1998-5533-2025-2-241-246

  37. Caucheteux, C., Hodgkins, LB., Batifol, V., Fouché, L., Romero, M. (2024) Students’ Perspective on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education. In: Urmeneta, A., Romero, M. (eds) Creative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55272-4_8

    DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-55272-4_8

  38. Habib, S., Vogel T., Thorne, E. (2025) Student Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy: Considerations for the Age of AI. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56 (3):101767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101767

    DOI 10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101767

  39. Liu, H., Zhouand, F., Li, J. (2025) Empoweror Disempower: The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on College Students’ Creativity. 7th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE), Wuhan, China, 2025, pp. 661–665, https://doi.org/10.1109/CSTE64638.2025.11091881

    DOI 10.1109/cste64638.2025.11091881

  40. Kock, N. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: An application in tourism and hospitality research. In Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research (pp 1–16). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-699-620181001

    DOI 10.1108/978-1-78756-699-620181001

  41. Are your employees sabotaging your artificial intelligence initiatives? It might be the case. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2025/04/04/are-your-employees-sabotaging-your-ai-initiatives-they-might-be/ (accessed on: 26.11.2025).

    forbes.com

  42. Siri, A., Olcese, G., Spulber, D. (2024) Artificial Intelligence and Creativity: Anthropological, Sociological and Pedagogical Reflections. Geopolitical Social Security and Freedom Journal, 7 (1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/gssfj-2024-0001

    DOI 10.2478/gssfj-2024-0001
Rubrics
DIGITALIZATION OF EDUCATION