International Journal of Advanced Engineering Application

Student Adoption Intention, Academic Integrity Risk, and Learning Outcome Perceptions Under the NEP 2020 Framework

Author(s):Divya Krishnamurthy, Prasad Venkataraman, Sneha Balakrishnan

Affiliation: School of Education, Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam (SPMVV), Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India

Page No: 73-77

Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 3, Issue 3, 2026/03/14

Journal: International Journal of Advanced Engineering Application (IJAEA)

ISSN NO: 3048-6807

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19351279

Download PDF Cite this article

Article Indexing:

Abstract:
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence tools — most visibly ChatGPT, but including Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Anthropic’s Claude — has introduced what many educational scholars are describing as the most significant pedagogical disruption since the mass adoption of the internet. Unlike prior educational technologies, which augmented existing learning processes, generative AI can produce complete essays, laboratory reports, mathematical derivations, code, and examination answers indistinguishable from student-generated work, creating a fundamental challenge to assessment-based credentialing systems that have constituted the organisational core of higher education for over a century.
In the Indian higher education context, this challenge arrives simultaneously with the implementation of the National Education Policy 2020, which mandates a shift toward competency-based, multidisciplinary, and experiential learning frameworks explicitly designed to move away from rote memorisation and examination performance as the primary educational currency. This creates a paradoxical institutional moment: NEP 2020’s ambition to reorient Indian education toward deeper learning and critical thinking is potentially aligned with the use of generative AI as a learning scaffold — if used to support exploration, research formulation, and iterative thinking — but is simultaneously undermined by AI’s capacity to circumvent precisely the assessment mechanisms through which NEP 2020’s competency gains are meant to be demonstrated and certified.
The current study addresses this tension empirically through a Technology Acceptance Model extended with academic integrity risk and NEP 2020 policy alignment as theoretically motivated constructs, applied to survey data from 1,521 undergraduate and postgraduate students across nine Indian universities spanning Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. The study’s dual-outcome design — treating both learning outcome improvement and academic integrity violation risk as simultaneous consequences of generative AI adoption intention — reflects the field’s emerging consensus that these outcomes are not alternatives but co-occurring consequences of the same adoption behaviour, with their relative magnitude determined by pedagogical context, institutional policy clarity, and individual use orientation.
The study’s Indian focus is motivated by three features of the Indian higher education context that are not captured in the predominantly Western empirical literature: the extreme heterogeneity of institutional policy responses, ranging from total prohibition in some state universities to active encouraged integration in IITs and private deemed universities; the language access dimension, where AI tools’ English language bias creates differential access by student linguistic background; and the high-stakes examination culture, where the pressure to perform in terminal written examinations creates a different risk calculus around AI-assisted academic dishonesty than exists in continuous assessment systems typical of European universities.

Keywords: generative AI, ChatGPT, higher education, academic integrity, NEP 2020, India, TAM, PLS-SEM, technology adoption, learning outcomes, AI anxiety, plagiarism, educational technology, digital literacy, student perceptions

Reference:

• [1] Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62.
• [2] Bearman, M., Nieminen, J. H., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Designing artificial intelligence assessment policies amid uncertainty. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(7), 1069-1082.
• [3] Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 43.
• [4] Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239.
• [5] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
• [6] Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., 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.
• [7] Farrukh, M., Lee, Y. Y., & Shahzad, I. A. (2019). Intrapreneurial behavior in higher education institutions: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 683-694.
• [8] Fyfe, P. (2023). How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & Society, 38, 1395-1405.
• [9] GoI. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Education, Government of India.
• [10] Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Chinn, C. A. (2023). Inquiry learning in the age of AI: Preserving epistemic practices in science education. Science Education, 107(4), 812-834.
• [11] Huang, J., Saleh, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). A review on artificial intelligence in education. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(3), 206-217.
• [12] Jaidka, K., Khoo, C. S. G., & Na, J. C. (2023). Literature review writing: How information is selected and transformed. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 75(4), 605-626.
• [13] Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.
• [14] Kumar, R., Ezhilarasu, P., & Krishnaswamy, L. (2024). Awareness and use of AI tools among Indian medical students: A multi-institutional survey. Medical Education Online, 29(1), 2318965.
• [15] Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410.
• [16] Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students with prompts. SSRN Working Paper 4475995.
• [17] OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT Usage Statistics and Educational Impact Report. OpenAI Research.
• [18] Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100020.
• [19] Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), 07.
• [20] Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. IEEE Access, 11, 60609-60617.
• [21] Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342-363.
• [22] Sharma, D., & Mehta, V. (2024). Indian students and ChatGPT: Usage patterns and academic integrity implications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 27(2), 118-131.
• [23] Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., et al. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15.
• [24] UGC. (2024). Guidance Note on Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education Institutions. University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
• [25] Wach, K., Duong, C. D., Ejdys, J., et al. (2023). The dark side of generative AI: A critical analysis of ChatGPT. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 19(4), 99-151.
• [26] Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39.