Artificial intelligence usage and ethical concerns among Jordanian University students: a cross-sectional study

This study explores the ethical implications of AI-driven natural language generation systems such as ChatGPT in university education from the perspective of students in Jordanian universities. The specific objectives of this study are to assess students’ awareness and utilization of AI, explore ethical considerations, evaluate institutional support, and determine needs for future training. A cross-sectional survey of university students from various disciplines at Jordanian universities was conducted. Participants provided demographic data and responded to questions on AI use, knowledge, ethical considerations, institutional support, and future training needs. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, and regression analyses. A total of 885 university students participated in the study, including 517 females and 368 males, aged 18–55 years (mean ± SD = 21.5 ± 3.1 years). Most participants (78.1%) reported using AI tools during their studies, primarily for answering academic questions (53.9%) and completing assignments (46.4%). While over half considered themselves moderately to very knowledgeable about AI, awareness of ethical guidelines was limited. Students generally viewed AI use for tasks such as translation, literature reviews, and exam preparation as ethically acceptable, whereas using AI to cheat or fully complete assignments was widely regarded as unacceptable. Significant differences in AI knowledge, usage, and ethical awareness were observed across gender, academic level, and field of study (p < 0.05). Notably, 76.7% of participants expressed interest in receiving professional training on the responsible use of AI in education. Jordanian university students demonstrate high levels of AI usage and moderate self-reported knowledge. While many recognize the ethical risks of AI in education, their familiarity with specific ethical principles and institutional guidelines remains limited. Notable differences across gender, academic level, and field of study highlight the need for targeted educational support.