International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES. Education ORIGINAL RESEARCH Artificial Intelligence as a Factor Revolutionizing Higher Education Authors’ Contribution: A – Study design; Melnyk Yu. B. 1,2 ABCDEF , Pypenko I. S. 1,2 ABCDEF B – Data collection; C – Statistical analysis; 1 Kharkiv Regional Public Organization “Culture of Health”, Ukraine D – Data interpretation; 2 Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH, Ukraine E – Manuscript preparation; F – Literature search; Received: 09.04.2024; Accepted: 10.05.2024; Published: 30.06.2024 G – Funds collection Abstract Background and The use of artificial intelligence and various chatbots based on it is becoming part of Aim of Study: everyday higher education practice. The aim of the study: to explore practices and identify trends in the use of artificial intelligence-based chatbots by higher education stakeholders. Material and Methods: The survey was conducted between January and April 2024. The total number of respondents from 57 countries was 788, of whom 363 were students and 425 were university faculty. The probability sampling method was applied. Respondents were interviewed online. The questionnaire is available on the official website of the Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH using Google Forms, as well as on social networks Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. for potential participants. In addition, a selective individual online interview was conducted with respondents. Cronbach’s alpha confirmed adequate internal consistency (α=0.837). Results: The role of artificial intelligence-based chatbots in higher education practice was considered. The use of chatbots among higher education stakeholders (students and faculty) was studied. A model of stakeholder behaviour was developed. This model describes two ways of solving problems: with and without the use of artificial intelligence. Trends in the use of chatbots in higher education were identified: students were 26.9% more likely than faculty to use artificial intelligence-based chatbots to prepare for classes or complete assignments at their college/university; almost all students (68.0% of 68.3% who use chatbots) edited the results returned by generative chatbots at their request; students were 30.1% more likely than faculty to edit these results. Conclusions: The new technologies of generative artificial intelligence have been the factors that have revolutionised the industry of higher education. A new “Human-AI” system has emerged that is fundamentally changing the rules for training young professionals. The study emphasizes that higher education stakeholders using chatbots should do so correctly, consider the possibilities and limitations of using this toolkit, and recognize their responsibility for the outcomes and consequences of their use. Keywords: education, artificial intelligence, chatbots, Human-AI system, interaction, responsibility, stakeholder Copyright: © 2024 Melnyk Yu. B., Pypenko I. S. Published by Archives of International Journal of Science Annals DOI: https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2024.1.2 Conflict of interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests Peer review: Double-blind review Source of support: This research did not receive any outside funding or support Information about Melnyk Yuriy Borysovych (Corresponding Author) – https://orcid.org/0000-0002- the authors: 8527-4638; y.b.melnyk@gmail.com; Doctor of Philosophy in Pedagogy, Affiliated Associate Professor; Chairman of the Board, Kharkiv Regional Public Organization “Culture of Health”; Director, Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH, Ukraine. Pypenko Iryna Sergiivna – https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-540X; Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, Affiliated Associate Professor; Secretary of the Board, Kharkiv Regional Public Organization “Culture of Health”; Co-Director, Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH, Kharkiv, Ukraine. 8 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Introduction Society has entered an era of digitalisation. This has The questionnaire was available on the official website opened up new perspectives for the study and use of of the Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH using artificial intelligence (Pypenko, 2019). The higher Google Forms education industry is one of the first sectors of human (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeu0HZ endeavour to embark on digital transformation W1t7I5guMH7M_FcTDizHxnpU- (Shenkoya & Kim, 2023). The number of studies and OvPMU1_lCfPF_K9y6g/viewform). The questionnaire publications on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in was also made available to potential participants on higher education has increased two to three times in the social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. last five years compared to previous years (Bearman et A selective individualised online interview was also al., 2023; Chu et al., 2022; Crompton & Burke, 2023). conducted with survey participants, when it was The advent of chatbots based on artificial intelligence necessary to clarify their answers and/or determine the (AI chatbots) and specialised in text (Large Language specifics of their use of AI chatbots. Models) has been a catalyst and a major factor in Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 28.0.1 revolutionising higher education. These changes are in software. Descriptive statistics using frequencies, means progress at this moment. The changes affect all elements and standard deviations were used to analyze the data of the higher education system and all stakeholders collected. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal involved in the process. Today, we are seeing a boom in consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.837. This meets the use of various AI-based chatbots by faculty and internal consistency requirements (α>0.7). students in the educational process. As a result, many new questions arise about the Results legitimacy of using AI and adhering to ethical standards The questionnaire developed consisted of six questions. when using AI chatbots in education and science It was used to gather information about the possibilities (Melnyk & Pypenko, 2023). Therefore, there is an of using AI chatbots in higher education. The obvious need to study the influence and role of AI in the questionnaire consisted of an instruction sheet research and teaching activities of professors and the explaining the purpose and conditions of the study and learning activities of university students. six questions, of which three questions characterised the The aim of the study. To explore practices and identify respondent (gender, status, country) and three questions trends in the use of artificial intelligence-based chatbots related to the purpose of the study. by stakeholders in higher education. To explore how stakeholders are using AI chatbots in higher education, the following general questions apply: Materials and Methods A. Does your college/university use hybrid learning The study was conducted among 363 students (175 (face-to-face / distance learning)? males and 188 females) and 425 university faculty (198 B. Do you use artificial intelligence-based chatbots to males and 227 females) from 57 countries between prepare for classes or complete assignments at your January and April 2024. The probability sampling college/university? method (randomly generated) was used to survey faculty C. Do you edit the results returned by generative working in hybrid modes in higher education. A similar chatbots at your request? method was used to survey students who were studying The questions involved the choice of one of the answer synchronous contact and distance learning or options “yes” or “no”. asynchronous distance learning. The survey was The key findings of the study on the use of artificial voluntary. Participation was anonymous. Respondents intelligence-based chatbots by higher education were interviewed online. stakeholders are summarized in Tables 1–3. Table 1 Comparative Characteristics of the Use of Hybrid (Face-to-Face/Distance) Learning by Higher Education Stakeholders Higher Answer to question A Total education Positive Negative stakeholders people % people % people % Students 315 86.8 48 13.2 363 100.0 Male 141 38.8 34 9.4 175 48.2 Female 174 47.9 14 3.9 188 51.8 Faculty 353 83.1 72 16.9 425 100.0 Male 178 41.9 20 4.7 198 46.6 Female 175 41.2 52 12.2 227 53.4 Total 668 84.8 120 15.2 788 100.0 Male 319 40.5 54 6.9 373 47.3 Female 349 44.3 66 8.4 415 52.7 9 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Table 2 Comparative Characteristics of Higher Education Stakeholders’ Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots to Prepare for Classes or Complete Assignments at Their College/University Higher Answer to question B Total education Positive Negative stakeholders people % people % people % Students 248 68.3 115 31.7 363 100.0 Male 121 33.3 54 14.9 175 48.2 Female 127 35.0 61 16.8 188 51.8 Faculty 176 41.4 249 58.6 425 100.0 Male 81 19.1 117 27.5 198 46.6 Female 95 22.4 132 31.1 227 53.4 Total 424 53.8 364 46.2 788 100.0 Male 202 25.6 171 21.7 373 47.3 Female 222 28.2 193 24.5 415 52.7 Table 3 Comparative Characteristics of the Processing of the Results Returned by the Generative Chatbot at the Request of Higher Education Stakeholders Higher Answer to question C Total education Positive Negative stakeholders people % people % people % Students 247 68.0 116 32.0 363 100.0 Male 124 34.2 51 14.0 175 48.2 Female 123 33.9 65 17.9 188 51.8 Faculty 161 37.9 264 62.1 425 100.0 Male 88 20.7 110 25.9 198 46.6 Female 73 17.2 154 36.2 227 53.4 Total 408 51.8 380 48.2 788 100.0 Male 212 26.9 161 20.4 373 47.3 Female 196 24.9 219 27.8 415 52.7 The results showed that 84.8% (668 people) of the The comparative characteristics of stakeholders showed stakeholders have the possibility of hybrid (face-to- that 86.8% (315 people) of students, including 38.8% face/distance) learning in their college/university, (141 people) males and 47.9% (174 people) females, including 40.5% (319 people) males and 44.3% (349 and 83.1% (353 people) of faculty, including 41.9% people) females. Only 15.2% (120 people), of whom (178 people) males and 41.2% (175 people) females, use 6.9% (54 people) were male and 8.4% (66 people) were hybrid (face-to-face/distance) learning in their female, do not use hybrid learning. college/university. Only 13.2% (48 people) of students, 53.8% (424 people), including 25.6% (202 people) of whom 9.4% (34 people) were male and 3.9% (14 males and 28.2% (222 people) females, use artificial people) were female, and 16.9% (72 people) of faculty, intelligence-based chatbots to prepare for classes or of whom 4.7% (20 people) were male and 12.2% (52 complete assignments at their college/university. people) were female, do not use hybrid learning. A negative answer to question B was given by 46.2% The comparative characteristics of higher education (364 people) of the stakeholders, of whom 21.7% (171 stakeholders who use of artificial intelligence-based people) were male and 24.5% (193 people) were female. chatbots to prepare for classes or complete assignments Overall, the results returned by generative chatbots are at their college/university showed that 68.3% (248 edited by 51.8% (408 people) of stakeholders, including people) of students, of whom 33.3% (121 people) were 26.9% (212 people) men and 24.9% (196 people) male and 35.0% (127 people) were female, use of AI- women. Slightly less than half of the stakeholders based chatbots. Consequently, 31.7% (115 people) of (48.2% or 380 people) do not edit the results, of whom the students do not, including 14.9% (54 people) males 20.4% (161 people) were male and 27.8% (219 people) and 16.8% (61 people) females. were female. A different trend is observed among faculty. Only The comparative characteristics of the use of artificial 41.4% (176 faculty), including 19.1% (81 people) males intelligence-based chatbots by stakeholders of higher and 22.4% (95 people) females, use artificial education (students and university faculty) at their intelligence-based chatbots to prepare for classes or college/university are shown in Figures 1–3. complete assignments at their college/university. 10 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Figure 1 Use of Hybrid (Face-to-Face/Distance) Learning by Higher Education Stakeholders (Students and Faculty) at Their College/University Figure 2 Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots by Higher Education Stakeholders (Students and Faculty) to Prepare for Classes or Complete Assignments at Their College/University Figure 3 Processing of Results by Higher Education Stakeholders (Students and Faculty) Returned by Generative Chatbots In other words, more than half of the faculty (58.6% or (247 people) of students, of whom 34.2% (124 people) 249 people, of whom 27.5% or 117 people were male were male and 33.9% (123 people) were female, edit the and 31.1% or 132 people were female) do not use it. results. Accordingly, 32.0% (116 people) of the students The comparative characteristics of higher education do not edit, including 14.0% (51 people) males and stakeholders who process of the results returned by 17.9% (65 people) females. generative chatbots at their request showed that 68.0% 11 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa The trend is different for faculty. Only 37.9% (161 25.9% or 110 people were male and 36.2% or 154 faculty), including 20.7% (88 people) males and 17.2% people were female) do not edit. (73 people) females, edit of the results returned by The comparative characteristics of the respondents generative chatbots at their request. That is, more than (higher education stakeholders), grouped by country, are 60.0% of the faculty (62.1% or 264 people, of whom presented in Table 4. Table 4 Comparative Characteristics of Respondents Grouped by Country 12 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Respondents from the following countries have the higher education and the AI phenomenon is of highest representation: interdisciplinary interest to the scientific community. AI - US (5.7%, including 2.7% students and 3.0% faculty, chatbots are a tool used in a variety of interdisciplinary of whom 3.9% were male and 1.8% were female); research and subject areas, including education - India (5.6%, including 2.9% students and 2.7% faculty, (Doroudi, 2023; Shrivastava, 2023), psychological of whom 2.7% were male and 2.9% were female); research in education (Bonnefon et al., 2024; Melnyk, - Ukraine (4.9%, including 4.6% students and 0.4% 2023), and medical education (Civaner et al., 2022; faculty, of whom 0.6% were male and 4.4% were Masters, 2019), among others. female); The most pressing issue in research into the - Indonesia (4.9%, including 2.7% students and 2.3% revolutionary impact of AI on learning and teaching in faculty, of whom 3.2% were male and 1.8% were higher education has been the following question: Is female); there compelling evidence that AI can have a positive - Singapore (4.4%, including 2.0% students and 2.4% pedagogical impact on students and be a reliable tool in faculty, of whom 2.0% were male and 2.4% were the teaching and research process? female); O’Dea and O’Dea (2023) argue that there is as yet no - China (4.3%, including 2.3% students and 2.0% reliable evidence of how the use of AI technologies and faculty, of whom 1.9% were male and 2.4% were applications has helped students improve their learning female); and/or helped faculty make effective pedagogical - UK (4.2%, including 2.3% students and 1.9% faculty, changes. of whom 2.0% were male and 2.2% were female). There is also an opposing point of view. A group of Thus, the survey conducted among 363 university researchers claim that the introduction of AI has led to students and 425 university faculty from 57 countries the development of robust assessment methods and allowed to obtain quantitative and qualitative increased teacher engagement (Rahiman & Kodikal, characteristics of the use of AI chatbots in higher 2024); AI can shape future education and research education. Importantly, students are 26.9% more likely practices, leading to better outcomes (Alqahtani et al., than faculty to use AI-based chatbots to prepare for 2023), and radically transform and improve the way classes or complete assignments at their learning and teaching takes place in higher education college/university. At the same time, almost all students institutions (Mishra, 2019). (68.0% of 68.3% who use AI-based chatbots) edit the Researchers on the digital transformation of the higher results returned by generative chatbots at their request. education sector take a similar view. These academics In addition, students are 30.1% more likely to edit these argue that digital transformation will lead to the results than faculty. development of sustainable curricula, the digitisation of higher education, increased innovation and improved Discussion student outcomes (Melnyk & Pypenko, 2021; Shenkoya As AI develops in society and AI chatbots are used in & Kim, 2023). higher education, this area is becoming increasingly In recent years, a growing number of researchers have important for research. Experts predict that the use of argued that the implementation of AI is the most artificial intelligence in education will grow by 43.0% optimistic solution for improving education (Chedrawi between 2018 and 2022 (Educause, 2018). But already & Howayeck, 2019). It suggests ways in which in the 2019 Horizon Report for higher education universities can change their role to respond quickly and (Educause, 2019), predictions about teaching and effectively to emerging issues. learning with AI applications have become even more These may include new courses, but also organisational optimistic. As practice has shown, they were fully structures and new pedagogical practices (Moscardini et justified. al., 2020). In the first two months of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, more The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption than 100 million people became its active users. of online technologies in higher education (Bartolic et According to Reuters (Hu, 2023), the analysts note that al., 2022; Pypenko, et al., 2020) and the associated in the last 20 years in the Internet space, it is hard to opportunities for AI-mediated student-teacher remember a faster growth rate for consumer Internet interaction (Rof et al., 2022). applications. Some researchers believe that the widespread At first glance, the prospects look promising for students availability of online learning platforms at universities and faculty who have already begun to use AI-based has made it possible to study courses and training tools. There is a growing consensus among researchers programmes to obtain degrees entirely online (Dieguez about the revolutionary impact of AI on learning and et al., 2021). teaching in higher education (Alqahtani et al., 2023; It is therefore possible that the use of online learning O’Dea & O’Dea, 2023; Rahiman & Kodikal, 2024). platforms is one of the reasons for the active Because revolutionary impact can affect the way people development and application of AI in higher education. live, as well as education, health, the economy and other Therefore, one of our research questions is to investigate areas of society, we limited our study to the higher how the use of hybrid learning (face-to-face/distance education sector. However, this restriction is learning) in higher education has influenced the use of conditional, as these areas are closely intertwined in AI tools among stakeholders. 13 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa The results show that there is a positive correlation Examining global trends in the use of AI and their between hybrid learning and the use of AI chatbots implications for changing educational paradigms among students and faculty. highlights the role of collaboration and partnership in The results of our study, and the willingness of students fostering innovation that, by setting new quality to use AI chatbots in their education, are consistent with standards, stimulates the evolution of higher education research on trends in the potential application of AI- (Aithal & Maiya, 2023). based robots in higher education. Research shows that With the advent of AI, the modern world has begun to students are ready to use them in their education change rapidly. And it is highly likely that the new (AlGerafi et al., 2023). This, in turn, is a signal to Human-AI system will radically change the rules of university administrators. They should pay attention to student education in universities (Melnyk & Pypenko, the social demands of today’s youth. 2023). A key benefit of using AI in higher education is its In our view, the main problem with using AI in learning ability to drive efficiency, personalisation and and teaching in higher education is getting the result optimisation of administrative processes (Al Husseiny, without any human effort. We have presented a model 2023). of stakeholder behaviour in Figure 4. Figure 4 A Model of Stakeholder Behaviour Describing two Options for Problem Solving: With and Without the Use of Artificial Intelligence The model developed shows that stakeholders can use the interaction remains unresolved. It still requires the following options to achieve their objectives. development, ratification and implementation of laws The first option involves personal effort on the part of the governing the norms of interaction and relationships stakeholder, using all available knowledge, skills, between humans and AI (Pypenko, 2023). competencies and experience to achieve a result. We believe that it is premature to declare a predominantly The second option involves the use of AI to achieve a positive role for AI in higher education, given the current result without any personal effort on the part of the stage of AI development, the extent of its prevalence in stakeholder. higher education, and the lack of research on the subject. Interviewing students in the study revealed that they are What is clear, however, is the revolutionary impact of AI actively using the help of AI chatbots in their studies, on higher education. because it is personalised and delivers results in the Our research (questionnaires and interviews) showed that shortest possible time. As a result, students are AI implementations at the institutional level were more increasingly using AI chatbots to complete academic likely to be initiated and implemented by students and tasks. These activities increase the risk of students faculty than by university administrators. Possible dropping out or experiencing academic difficulties. reasons for this are the need and the lack of readiness of In our view, AI tools can be useful for analysing administrations to upgrade the existing technological information, searching and framing literature, and even infrastructure of universities, and to introduce specialised to some extent for generating ideas. courses for students and to organise professional However, rewriting (copying) the text generated by AI development courses for faculty in the field of AI. chatbots is not sufficient to fulfil the curriculum and is against ethical principles. In addition, search engines and Conclusions plagiarism detection systems may consider such text to New generative artificial intelligence technologies are be duplicate content. This can have negative rapidly gaining popularity and have already become an consequences for higher education stakeholders. integral part of the higher education industry. The new As we can see from the results of our survey, one of the Human-AI system is fundamentally changing the rules of most common ways to avoid duplicating or borrowing student education at universities. other people’s work, and to make the result more AI tools can be useful for information analysis, literature original, is to edit the text generated by the AI. This searches and framing, and even to some extent for idea tendency is more pronounced among students (68.0%) generation. However, rewriting text generated by AI and less pronounced among faculty (37.9%). chatbots may not be enough to produce high-quality It is possible that the use of AI chatbots by students and original work. It is also in conflict with the ethical faculty, followed by editing and creative reinterpretation principles of scientific research. In addition, such text of the results, could be an intermediate, optimal way for may be considered as duplicate content by search engines them to interact with AI. and plagiarism detection systems. It should be noted that at the current stage of social and It is therefore appropriate not only to edit the text technological development, the issue of Human-AI generated by AI chatbots (which is often limited to 14 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa faculty and students), but also to add value to the text in and large language models in higher education the form of information or an idea that should be and research. Research in Social and developed from one’s own world view to create Administrative Pharmacy, 19(8), 1236–1242. something new and original. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.016 Higher education stakeholders should be made aware that Bartolic, S. K., Boud, D., Agapito, J., Verpoorten, D., AI chatbots are just a tool that needs to be used properly, Williams, S., Lutze-Mann, L., Matzat, U., taking into account their capabilities and limitations. It is Moreno, M. M., Polly, P., Tai, J., Marsh, H. L., especially important to send a message to higher Lin, L., Burgess, J.-L., Habtu, S., Rodrigo, M. M. education stakeholders that when they use AI chatbots in M., Roth, M., Heap, T., & Guppy, N. (2022). A their work, they are responsible for the outcomes and multi-institutional assessment of changes in consequences of their use. higher education teaching and learning in the face of COVID-19. Educational Review, 74(3), 517– Acknowledgments 533. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1955830 The authors would like to thank all the participants who Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Discourses completed the questionnaire and all those who helped us of artificial intelligence in higher education: A to distribute and collect the questionnaires needed for critical literature review. Higher Education, data collection. 86(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 022-00937-2 Ethical Approval Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., De The study protocol was consistent with the ethical Paul, K., V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. reflected in a prior approval by the Institution’s Human EDUCAUSE. Research Committee. Permission for research received in https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/ the Research Committee of virtue and ethics Scientific 2018/8/2018horizonreport.pdf Research Institute KRPOCH (protocol No. 023- Bonnefon, J. F., Rahwan, I., & Shariff, A. (2024). The 2/SRIKRPOCH dated 10.08.2023). Informed consent moral psychology of Artificial Intelligence. was obtained from all the participants. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-030123-113559 Funding Source Civaner, M. M., Uncu, Y., Bulut, F., Chalil, E. G., & This research did not receive any outside funding or Tatli, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence in medical support. education: a cross-sectional needs assessment. BMC Medical Education, 22, Article 772. References https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03852-3 Aithal, P. S., & Maiya, A. K. (2023). Innovations in Chedrawi, C., & Howayeck, P. (2019). Artificial higher education industry – Shaping the future. intelligence a disruptive innovation in higher International Journal of Case Studies in Business, education accreditation programs: Expert systems IT, and Education (IJCSBE), 7(4), 294–322. and AACSB. In Y. Baghdadi, & A. Harfouche. https://doi.org/10.47992/IJCSBE.2581.6942.0321 (Eds.), ICT for a Better Life and a Better World: Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Vol. 30. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Organisation. (pp. 115–129). Springer. Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10737-6_8 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-H., Tu, Y.-F., & Yang, K.-H. Education Edition. EDUCAUSE. (2022). Roles and research trends of artificial https://library.educause.edu/- intelligence in higher education: A systematic /media/files/library/2019/4/2019horizonreport.pdf review of the top 50 most-cited articles. AlGerafi, M. A., Zhou, Y., Alfadda, H., & Wijaya, T. T. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, (2023). Understanding the factors influencing 38(3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7526 higher education students’ intention to adopt Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence artificial intelligence-based robots. IEEE Access, in higher education: The state of the field. 11, 99752–99764. International Journal of Educational Technology https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3314499 in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. Al Husseiny, F. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 education: A new horizon. In S. Kaddoura (Ed.), Dieguez, T., Loureiro, P., & Ferreira, I. (2021). Handbook of Research on AI Methods and Entrepreneurship and leadership in higher Applications in Computer Engineering (pp. 295– education to develop the needed 21st Century 315). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1- skills. In F. Bezzina (Ed.), Proceedings of the 17th 6684-6937-8.ch014 European Conference on Management, Alqahtani, T., Badreldin, H. A., Alrashed, M., Alshaya, Leadership and Governance (pp. 143–151). A. I., Alghamdi, S. S., bin Saleh, K., Alowais, S. Academic Conferences International Limited. A., Alshaya, O. A., Rahman, I., Al Yami, M. S., https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0- & Albekairy, A. M. (2023). The emergent role of 85122925043&partnerID=40&md5=65810f73e090f3303 artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, 7e2729a253b6adf 15 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2024 рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa Doroudi, S. (2023). The intertwined histories of artificial Moscardini, A. O., Strachan, R., & Vlasova, T. (2022). intelligence and education. Journal of Artificial The role of universities in modern society. Studies Intelligence in Education, 33(4), 885–928. in Higher Education, 47(4), 812–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00313-2 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1807493 Habeeb Ur Rahiman & Rashmi Kodikal (2024). Pypenko, I. S. (2019). Digital product: The essence of the Revolutionizing education: Artificial intelligence concept and scopes. International Journal of empowered learning in higher education. Cogent Education and Science, 2(4), 56. Education, 11(1), Article 2293431. https://doi.org/10.26697/ijes.2019.4.41 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2293431 Pypenko, I. S. (2023). Human and artificial intelligence Hu, K. (2023, February 2). ChatGPT sets record for interaction. International Journal of Science fastest-growing user base – Analyst note. Reuters. Annals, 6(2), 54–56. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt- https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2023.2.7 sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst- Pypenko, I. S., Maslov, Yu. V., & Melnyk, Yu. B. (2020). note-2023-02-01/ The impact of social distancing measures on O’Dea, X., & O’Dea, M. (2023). Is artificial intelligence higher education stakeholders. International really the next big thing in learning and teaching Journal of Science Annals, 3(2), 9–14. in higher education? A conceptual paper. Journal https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2020.2.2 of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Pypenko, I. S., & Melnyk, Yu. B. (2021). Principles of 20(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.05 digitalisation of the state economy. International Masters, K. (2019). Artificial intelligence in medical Journal of Education and Science, 4(1), 42–50. education. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 976–980. https://doi.org/10.26697/ijes.2021.1.5 https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1595557 Rof, A., Bikfalvi, A., & Marques, P. (2022). Pandemic- Melnyk, Yu. B., & Pypenko, I. S. (2023). The legitimacy accelerated digital transformation of a born digital of artificial intelligence and the role of ChatBots higher education institution towards a customized in scientific publications. International Journal of multimode learning strategy. Educational Science Annals, 6(1), 5–10. Technology & Society, 25(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2023.1.1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/48647035 Melnyk, Yu. B. (2023). Using of ChatGPT in psychology Shenkoya, T., & Kim, E. (2023). Sustainability in higher research and practice. International Journal of education: digital transformation of the fourth Science Annals, 6(2), 5–8. industrial revolution and its impact on open https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2023.2.0 knowledge. Sustainability, 15(3), Article 2473. Mishra, R. (2019). Usage of data analytics and artificial https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032473 intelligence in ensuring quality assurance at Shrivastava, R. (2023). Role of artificial intelligence in higher education institutions. In S. K. Khatri future of education. International Journal of (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2019 Amity Professional Business Review, 8(1), e0840. International Conference on Artificial https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i1.840 Intelligence (pp. 1022–1025). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AICAI.2019.8701392 Cite this article as: Melnyk, Yu. B., & Pypenko, I. S. (2024). Artificial intelligence as a factor revolutionizing higher education. International Journal of Science Annals, 7(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.26697/ijsa.2024.1.2 The electronic version of this article is complete. It can be found online in the IJSA Archive https://ijsa.culturehealth.org/en/arhiv This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en). 16