Factors Influencing High School Students' Creative Thinking When Using ChatGPT: The Mediating Role of ChatGPT Usage and the Moderating Role of AI Literacy

Paper ID: EIJTEM_2026_13_3_147-156

Author's Name: Phi Cong Manh

Volume: 13

Issue: 3

Year: 2026

Page No: 147-156

Abstract:

The rapid advancement of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), particularly ChatGPT, is bringing significant changes to teaching and learning activities. ChatGPT not only assists students in searching for information, explaining concepts, and solving academic tasks but also facilitates idea generation, exploration of multiple perspectives, and the development of creative thinking. However, the extent to which ChatGPT enhances creative thinking depends not only on the technology itself but also on various learner-related and educational environmental factors. This study aims to identify the factors influencing high school students' creative thinking when using ChatGPT by developing an extended research model based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Specifically, the study examines the mediating role of ChatGPT usage and the moderating role of AI literacy in the relationship between antecedent factors and creative thinking. Data are expected to be collected from high school students in Hanoi and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings are expected to provide empirical evidence regarding the mechanisms through which ChatGPT influences creative thinking and offer practical implications for the effective integration of AI into secondary education.

Keywords: ChatGPT; Generative Artificial Intelligence; Creative Thinking; AI Literacy; ChatGPT Usage; High School Students; PLS-SEM.

References:

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Barnard-Brak, L., Lan, W. Y., & Paton, V. O. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 61–80.
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13.
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' self-regulated learning and the use of ChatGPT in higher education. Education and Information Technologies.
Chatterjee, S., et al. (2024). [Article on information quality and generative AI adoption].
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
Dwivedi, Y. K., et al. (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, 102642.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
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.
Kasneci, E., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410.
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16.
Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. University of Pennsylvania.
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 504–509.
OECD. (2022). Creative thinking: PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review. Healthcare, 11(6), 887.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers' intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Personnel Press.
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.

View PDF