ChatGPT Usage and Its Perceived Contribution to Study Habits and Academic Productivity Among Management Students: A Study at a Private University in Vijayawada, India

Full text

Text extracted from the article PDF for reading and search. Tables, figures and equations are in the PDF, which remains the authoritative version.

1. Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming higher education by changing how students access information, understand academic concepts, and complete learning-related tasks. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly conversational tools such as ChatGPT, has expanded opportunities for interactive academic support through explanations, summaries, idea generation, and writing assistance. Unlike conventional digital resources that primarily provide predefined information, ChatGPT generates responses to natural-language queries, offering students an accessible means of obtaining academic assistance. Research has documented the expanding applications of AI in higher education and highlighted the educational opportunities and challenges associated with generative AI (Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2024; Kasneci et al., 2023; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019) [2, 14]. Artificial intelligence in higher education extends beyond conversational tools to include applications supporting learning, teaching, assessment, and educational administration. Chiu et al. (2023) [6] identified a range of opportunities and challenges associated with AI integration in education, emphasising the importance of examining educational outcomes alongside implementation concerns. Similarly, Crompton and Burke (2023) [8] reviewed the state of artificial intelligence research in higher education, highlighting the expanding role of AI in educational practice. Within this broader context, ChatGPT has attracted attention because of its capacity to generate explanations, summarise information, and facilitate interactive learning. However, its educational value depends on how students engage with the generated content and how institutions address accuracy, academic integrity, and responsible use. One important dimension of this development is its potential contribution to students’ study habits, including understanding difficult concepts, clarifying doubts, organising study materials, preparing for examinations, and engaging in independent learning. ChatGPT can supplement traditional learning resources, such as textbooks, classroom instruction, faculty guidance, and peer discussions, by providing immediate explanations and helping students process academic information. Chan and Hu (2023) [5] examined university students’ perceptions of generative AI and identified potential benefits alongside concerns regarding its appropriate use. Similarly, Kasneci et al. (2023) [14] discussed the potential of large language models to support personalised learning and feedback while emphasising limitations related to accuracy, bias, and responsible use. These findings suggest that ChatGPT may support students’ learning routines, although its perceived value depends on how effectively students evaluate and apply the information generated.

The educational implications of ChatGPT are not necessarily uniform. Students may use the tool to strengthen conceptual understanding, explore alternative explanations, and support examination preparation, or they may rely on generated responses without independently evaluating the content. Excessive reliance may raise concerns about critical thinking, independent problem-solving, and engagement with conventional learning resources. Eke (2023) [11] highlighted academic-integrity challenges associated with generative AI, underscoring the importance of responsible use. Consequently, understanding students’ experiences requires examining both their usage patterns and their perceptions of ChatGPT’s contribution to learning practices, rather than treating frequent adoption as evidence of educational effectiveness.

Academic productivity represents another important dimension of ChatGPT use. In this study, it refers to students’ perceived efficiency in completing assignments, generating ideas, preparing presentations, meeting deadlines, revising topics, and managing academic tasks. ChatGPT may facilitate these activities by structuring information, suggesting ideas, summarising materials, and explaining complex concepts. These functions may be particularly relevant to management education, where students undertake case analyses, projects, presentations, reports, and problem-solving exercises that require both conceptual understanding and practical application. Baig and Yadegaridehkordi (2024) [2] documented diverse applications of ChatGPT in higher education, while Lo et al. (2024) examined its implications for student engagement and identified areas requiring further investigation.

Nevertheless, perceived efficiency should not be equated with objectively demonstrated academic achievement. Completing assignments more quickly does not necessarily indicate improved work quality, deeper understanding, or better knowledge retention. Deng et al. (2025) [9], in a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies, reported positive effects of ChatGPT interventions on selected learning outcomes while highlighting the need for careful interpretation of the evidence. Farrokhnia et al. (2024) [12] similarly examined the opportunities and limitations of ChatGPT in education. These findings reinforce the importance of considering students’ perceptions of task efficiency alongside work quality, study practices, and potential reliance on AI-generated content. Although research on generative AI in higher education is expanding, further context-specific investigation is warranted into how students use ChatGPT in their everyday academic activities and how they perceive its contribution to study habits and productivity. Lo et al. (2024) identified study habits, self-regulation, and critical thinking as areas requiring additional research. Moreover, findings from international reviews and experimental studies cannot automatically be generalised across institutions and disciplines. Examining students’ reported experiences within a specific educational setting can therefore provide useful descriptive evidence regarding the applications and perceived implications of ChatGPT.

Against this background, the present study examines ChatGPT usage and students’ perceptions of its contribution to study habits and academic productivity among management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. Based on 56 completed survey responses, the study describes the frequency and duration of ChatGPT use, its principal academic applications, and students’ perceptions of its contribution to conceptual understanding, examination preparation, task completion, deadline management, and overall academic performance. It also examines reported reliance on ChatGPT relative to traditional academic resources.

The study adopts a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design and analyses the survey responses using frequencies and percentages. Accordingly, it documents students’ reported usage patterns and perceptions rather than testing causal relationships or establishing objectively measured improvements in academic achievement. By providing institution-specific evidence, the study contributes to understanding how management students perceive the role of ChatGPT in their academic routines and highlights the importance of balancing AI-assisted learning with independent thinking, critical evaluation, and responsible academic practices.

Against this background, the present study examines ChatGPT usage and students’ perceptions of its contribution to study habits and academic productivity among management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. Based on 56 completed survey responses, the study describes respondents’ demographic characteristics, frequency and duration of ChatGPT use, and principal academic applications. It further examines students’ reported perceptions of ChatGPT’s contribution to understanding difficult concepts, clarifying doubts, preparing for examinations, organising study materials, completing academic tasks efficiently, meeting deadlines, and improving perceived academic productivity. The study also documents overall perceptions of academic performance and reported reliance on ChatGPT relative to traditional learning resources.

The study employs a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design, using frequencies and percentages to summarise the responses. The findings indicate that ChatGPT was widely adopted for academic purposes and frequently used by respondents, particularly for understanding difficult concepts, examination preparation, and summarising study materials. Respondents generally reported favourable perceptions of its contribution to study habits, task completion, and academic productivity, with particularly high agreement regarding completing assignments within deadlines, clarifying doubts, and completing academic tasks faster. However, reliance on ChatGPT rather than traditional academic resources received comparatively lower agreement and more varied responses. These outcomes represent students’ self-reported perceptions rather than objectively verified improvements in academic achievement. By documenting these patterns, the study provides context-specific evidence on the perceived role of ChatGPT in management students’ academic routines while highlighting the importance of responsible use and continued engagement with conventional learning resources.

2. Literature Review

2.1. ChatGPT Usage in Higher Education

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an increasingly important component of higher education, supporting teaching, learning, assessment, and academic administration. The emergence of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT has expanded these applications by enabling students to obtain explanations, summarise information, generate ideas, and receive assistance with academic tasks. Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019), in a systematic review of AI applications in higher education, highlighted the expanding role of AI while emphasising the need for stronger pedagogical engagement in research and implementation. More recent reviews have examined ChatGPT’s applications, adoption, and implications for students and educational institutions (Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2024; Bhullar et al., 2024) [2, 3]. Artificial intelligence in higher education extends beyond conversational tools to include applications supporting learning, teaching, assessment, and educational administration. Chiu et al. (2023) [6] identified a range of opportunities and challenges associated with AI integration in education, emphasising the importance of examining educational outcomes alongside implementation concerns. Similarly, Crompton and Burke (2023) [8] reviewed the state of artificial intelligence research in higher education, highlighting the expanding role of AI in educational practice. Within this broader context, ChatGPT has attracted attention because of its capacity to generate explanations, summarise information, and facilitate interactive learning. However, its educational value depends on how students engage with the generated content and how institutions address accuracy, academic integrity, and responsible use. ChatGPT offers an interactive means of accessing academic support beyond conventional classroom interactions. Students may use it to understand difficult concepts, prepare for examinations, summarise study materials, solve problems, and develop assignments. However, adoption and frequency of use do not necessarily establish educational effectiveness. The implications of ChatGPT depend on the purposes for which it is used, the extent to which students critically evaluate its responses, and how its assistance is integrated into existing learning practices. Examining usage patterns and specific academic applications is therefore essential to understanding students’ experiences with generative AI.

2.2. ChatGPT and Students’ Study Habits

Study habits encompass the recurring practices through which students organise learning materials, clarify doubts, understand concepts, revise topics, prepare for examinations, and engage in independent study. ChatGPT may support these practices by providing immediate explanations, generating examples, simplifying complex information, and helping students structure academic content. The potential contribution of ChatGPT to learning should be considered in relation to students’ learning practices and the wider educational environment. Kohnke et al. (2023) [15] discussed the implications of ChatGPT for teaching and learning, particularly its potential to support language-related learning activities. Lim et al. (2023) explored the implications of generative AI for the future of education from the perspective of management education, making their work relevant to business and management students. In addition, Gimpel et al. (2023) discussed how generative AI systems such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT could be used in higher education by students and lecturers. Collectively, these contributions support examining students’ perceived benefits in areas such as clarifying concepts, organising study materials, generating ideas, and completing academic tasks. Nevertheless, perceived efficiency should be distinguished from demonstrated improvement in academic performance. Chan and Hu (2023) [5] examined university students’ perceptions of generative AI and identified potential educational benefits alongside concerns about its implementation. Similarly, Kasneci et al. (2023) [14] discussed the potential of large language models to facilitate personalised learning, explanations, and feedback, while highlighting concerns regarding accuracy, bias, and the need for human oversight. These contributions suggest that ChatGPT may complement students’ learning routines, although its usefulness depends on the quality of its outputs and students’ ability to assess and apply the information appropriately.

Lo et al. (2024), in a systematic review of 72 studies, examined ChatGPT’s implications for student engagement and identified both positive and negative dimensions of AI-supported learning. Their review also highlighted study habits, self-regulation, and critical thinking as areas requiring further investigation. This distinction is important because students may use ChatGPT to strengthen conceptual understanding and independent learning, but excessive reliance on generated responses may reduce engagement with conventional learning resources.

Accordingly, the perceived contribution of ChatGPT to study habits can be examined through specific indicators, including understanding difficult concepts, clarifying doubts, organising study materials, preparing for examinations, and supporting independent study. These indicators provide a more focused basis for investigating students’ experiences than usage frequency alone.

2.3. ChatGPT Usage and Academic Productivity

Academic productivity refers to students’ perceived ability to complete academic tasks efficiently while maintaining the quality of their work. In higher education, relevant activities include preparing assignments and presentations, generating ideas, meeting deadlines, revising topics, and managing academic responsibilities. ChatGPT may facilitate these activities by structuring information, suggesting preliminary ideas, explaining concepts, and assisting with routine academic tasks.

Dwivedi et al. (2023) [10] examined the opportunities and challenges of generative conversational AI across research, practice, and policy, highlighting its implications for knowledge-related activities and the need to balance potential benefits against associated risks. In academic settings, such capabilities may help students organise their work and reduce the time required for selected tasks. Nevertheless, the benefits depend on task requirements, output accuracy, and students’ ability to verify and adapt AI-generated content. Deng et al. (2025) [9], in a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies, reported positive effects of ChatGPT interventions on student learning outcomes, including academic performance and selected affective-motivational outcomes. However, the interpretation of such findings requires attention to differences in study design and assessment methods. Evidence of benefits under particular experimental conditions does not establish that all forms of ChatGPT use improve academic productivity. For management students, the perceived value of ChatGPT may extend to summarising management concepts, preparing business presentations, analysing case studies, generating project ideas, and revising for examinations. However, perceived efficiency should be distinguished from objectively demonstrated productivity. Faster task completion does not necessarily indicate improved accuracy, deeper understanding, or stronger knowledge retention. Academic productivity therefore warrants examination through multiple self-reported indicators, including task-completion efficiency, perceived work quality, deadline management, and revision practices.

2.4. Overdependence, Academic Integrity, and

Responsible Use Despite its potential benefits, ChatGPT raises concerns regarding information accuracy, academic integrity, originality, and independent learning. Generative AI systems may produce inaccurate or misleading information, making verification essential when their outputs are used for academic purposes. Uncritical acceptance of generated responses may result in errors in assignments or an incomplete understanding of subject matter. Eke (2023) [11] discussed the implications of generative AI for academic integrity, particularly the challenges associated with the use of AI-generated material and the maintenance of independent intellectual contribution. Farrokhnia et al. (2024) [12] examined ChatGPT through a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework, highlighting both its educational potential and its limitations. Academic integrity has also emerged as a prominent theme in reviews of ChatGPT use in higher education (Bhullar et al., 2024) [3].

The integration of generative AI into academic work also raises questions about authorship, assessment design, and responsible use. Cotton et al. (2024) [7] discussed the challenges generative AI presents for academic integrity and the need for appropriate institutional responses. Perkins (2023) [20] examined academic integrity considerations associated with large language models in higher education, while Miao and Holmes (2023) [18] provided international guidance on generative AI in education and research. These contributions indicate that responsible adoption requires more than access to AI tools; it also requires clear expectations, critical evaluation of AI-generated content, and appropriate academic safeguards. This perspective is particularly relevant when students report both positive learning experiences and increased reliance on ChatGPT relative to traditional academic resources. These concerns are relevant to the distinction between using ChatGPT as a supplementary learning resource and relying on it as a substitute for conventional academic materials. Students who use the tool to clarify concepts and explore alternative explanations may integrate it into their learning routines. Conversely, students who depend primarily on generated answers may engage less with textbooks, original readings, and independent problem-solving. Responsible use therefore requires critical evaluation of AI-generated information, verification against reliable sources, and compliance with institutional academic-integrity requirements.

In the present study, reliance on ChatGPT relative to traditional learning resources provides a descriptive indicator of students’ perceptions of their use of AI. It does not, by itself, establish actual dependence or demonstrate a decline in independent learning.

2.5. Research Gap and Relevance of the Present Study

The literature demonstrates growing interest in ChatGPT adoption, AI-supported learning, student engagement, academic productivity, and academic integrity. However, further context-specific investigation is warranted into how students use ChatGPT in their academic routines and how they perceive its contribution to particular learning and productivity-related activities. Lo et al. (2024) identified study habits and self-regulation as areas requiring further attention, while the broader literature highlights the need to consider both the potential benefits and limitations of generative AI.

Three issues are particularly relevant. First, general measures of adoption provide limited insight into the academic activities for which students use ChatGPT. Examining concept clarification, examination preparation, summarisation, and assignment support offers a more detailed account of its educational applications. Second, the perceived contribution of ChatGPT to study habits and productivity requires examination through practical indicators, such as organising study materials, completing assignments within deadlines, preparing presentations, and revising topics efficiently. Third, the potential for reliance on AI-generated responses warrants consideration alongside perceived benefits, particularly in relation to students’ use of traditional learning resources.

Furthermore, findings from international reviews and experimental studies cannot automatically be generalised across institutions, disciplines, and student populations. Institution-specific descriptive research can complement the existing literature by documenting students’ reported usage patterns and experiences within a particular educational context.

The present study addresses these issues by examining ChatGPT usage among management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. Based on 56 completed survey responses, it describes the frequency and duration of use, major academic applications, perceived changes in study habits, perceived academic productivity, and overall assessments of academic impact. Its contribution is descriptive rather than causal: the study documents students’ reported experiences without claiming objectively verified improvements in academic achievement or statistically established relationships between variables.

2.6. Objectives of the Study

The primary objective of this study is to examine ChatGPT usage and students’ perceptions of its contribution to study habits and academic productivity among management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Specifically, the study aims to describe the frequency, duration, and academic purposes of ChatGPT usage; examine students’ perceptions of its contribution to study habits, including conceptual understanding, doubt clarification, examination preparation, and independent learning; assess its perceived contribution to academic productivity in terms of task-completion efficiency, idea generation, deadline management, presentation preparation, and revision; describe students’ overall perceptions of ChatGPT’s impact on academic performance; and examine their reported reliance on ChatGPT relative to traditional academic resources.

2.7. Research Questions

The study addresses five research questions. First, how frequently do management students use ChatGPT for academic purposes, and how much time do they spend using it? Second, what are the principal academic activities for which students use ChatGPT? Third, how do students perceive ChatGPT’s contribution to their study habits and learning practices? Fourth, how do students perceive ChatGPT’s contribution to academic productivity in terms of task completion, work quality, deadline management, and revision efficiency? Finally, how do students assess ChatGPT’s overall academic impact, and to what extent do they report relying on it rather than traditional learning resources?

2.8. Hypotheses of the Study

Drawing on the conceptual relationships discussed in the literature, the following hypotheses are proposed for empirical testing: study habits. academic productivity.

H3: Students’ study habits are positively associated with their academic productivity. perceived overall academic performance.

H5: Study habits mediate the relationship between ChatGPT usage and academic productivity.

2.9. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 proposes relationships between ChatGPT usage, study habits, academic productivity, and perceived overall academic performance. ChatGPT usage is the independent variable, study habits are the proposed mediating variable, and academic productivity is the principal dependent variable. Perceived overall academic performance is included as an additional outcome.

ChatGPT usage encompasses frequency, approximate duration, and academic purposes of use. Study habits include conceptual understanding, doubt clarification, organisation of study materials, examination preparation, and independent learning. Academic productivity covers perceived task-completion efficiency, idea generation, work quality, deadline management, presentation preparation, and revision efficiency. Overall perceived academic performance represents students’ subjective assessment of ChatGPT’s academic impact.

The framework proposes that ChatGPT usage may be associated with study habits, academic productivity, and perceived academic performance. It further proposes that study habits may be associated with productivity and mediate the relationship between ChatGPT usage and productivity. These relationships are conceptual propositions rather than established causal effects.

Fig 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study The conceptual framework suggests that the relationship between ChatGPT usage and academic productivity may operate both directly and indirectly through students’ study habits. It also proposes a separate relationship between ChatGPT usage and overall perceived academic performance. The framework provides the basis for the research questions and hypotheses and identifies the relationships to be examined using the collected survey data. Since the current study uses 56 responses summarised in aggregate form, the proposed relationships cannot be statistically verified without respondent-level data.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Design

The study employed a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional research design to examine ChatGPT usage patterns and students’ perceptions of its influence on study habits and academic productivity. The study focused on management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. Data were collected at a single point in time to describe students’ adoption of ChatGPT, its academic applications, and their perceived learning-related outcomes. The study relied on self-reported responses and did not experimentally assess causal effects.

3.2. Study Population and Sampling Technique

The target population comprised management students enrolled at a private university in Vijayawada. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit accessible and willing participants. A total of 56 completed responses were collected through an online survey. Given the non-probability sampling method, modest sample size, and single-institution setting, the findings are primarily descriptive of the participating students and cannot be generalised to the wider management student population without further investigation.

3.3. Data Collection Instrument and Procedure

Primary data were collected using a structured questionnaire administered through Google Forms. The questionnaire covered respondents’ demographic characteristics, patterns of ChatGPT usage, academic applications, and perceptions of its contribution to study habits and academic productivity. It also assessed respondents’ overall perceptions of ChatGPT’s academic impact. The analysis was based on the 56 completed responses and the aggregate response summaries available from Google Forms.

3.4. Research Instrument and Measurement

The questionnaire comprised demographic questions, ChatGPT usage measures, and academic perception items. The demographic variables included age, gender, year of study, specialisation, and self-reported academic performance. Usage measures captured academic adoption, frequency and approximate daily duration of use, and the purposes for which ChatGPT was employed. Questions 11–26 consisted of 16 statements measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. These items assessed perceived benefits relating to conceptual understanding, clarification of doubts, organisation of study materials, independent learning, examination preparation, task completion, academic work quality, meeting deadlines, presentation preparation, revision efficiency, confidence, and academic productivity. Additional questions captured respondents’ overall perceptions of ChatGPT’s impact on academic performance and study habits.

For the analysis, agreement with individual Likert-scale statements was calculated by combining the Agree and Strongly Agree responses and expressing their sum as a percentage of the total sample ((n = 56)). Overall perceptions were summarised using the reported response categories.

3.5. Data Analysis Techniques

The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, primarily frequencies and percentages. These measures were used to summarise respondents’ demographic profiles, ChatGPT usage frequency and duration, academic applications, Likert-scale responses, and overall perceptions of study habits, academic productivity, and academic performance. The results were presented in tables and figures to facilitate comparison and interpretation.

The analysis was restricted to aggregate response counts rather than respondent-level records. Accordingly, inferential statistical tests, correlation, regression, reliability assessment, and formal hypothesis testing were not conducted. The findings therefore describe response distributions and self-reported perceptions rather than statistically established relationships or causal effects.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

The study used survey responses provided by participating students, and the findings are reported in aggregate form. Information regarding informed consent, institutional ethics approval, and data-protection procedures was not available in the materials reviewed. Any applicable consent procedures, ethics approval details, and data-handling arrangements should be reported in the final manuscript based on the researcher’s records.

3.7. Methodological Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, the sample of 56 students from a single private university limits the generalisability of the findings. Second, convenience sampling may introduce selection bias. Third, the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported perceptions preclude causal conclusions about the effects of ChatGPT on study habits, academic productivity, or academic performance. Finally, the absence of respondent-level data restricted the analysis to descriptive statistics and prevented formal testing of the five proposed hypotheses. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and drawing implications.

4. Results

The analysis is based on 56 completed responses collected through Google Forms from management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe respondents’ demographic characteristics, ChatGPT usage patterns, academic applications, and perceived effects on study habits and academic productivity. As respondent-level data were unavailable, the analysis was restricted to descriptive statistics.

4.1. Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics and self-reported academic performance of the respondents.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents (n = 56) Characteristic Category Frequency Percentage Age 18–20 years 47 83.9 21–23 years 9 16.1 Gender Male 24 42.9 Female 32 57.1 Year of study First year 3 5.4 Second year 4 7.1 Third year 47 83.9 Fourth year 2 3.6 Specialization Marketing 14 25.0 Finance 9 16.1 Human Resource Management 0 0.0 Business Analytics 4 7.1 Other 29 51.8 Academic performance Excellent 3 5.4 Very Good 18 32.1 Good 29 51.8 Average 6 10.7 Below Average 0 0.0 Note. Percentages are based on 56 respondents and rounded to one decimal place. Age categories with zero responses are omitted. As shown in Table 1, most respondents were aged 18–20 years (83.9%), female (57.1%), and in their third year of study (83.9%). The largest specialization category was “Other” (51.8%), followed by Marketing (25.0%). Regarding academic performance, 51.8% rated themselves as good and 32.1% as very good. These characteristics indicate that the findings predominantly reflect the experiences of young, third-year management students.

4.2. Patterns of ChatGPT Usage

Table 2 summarizes the frequency and approximate daily duration of ChatGPT use.

Table 2: Frequency and Duration of ChatGPT Usage Measure Category Frequency Percentage Frequency of use Daily 22 39.3 Several times a week 26 46.4 Once a week 4 7.1 Occasionally 1 1.8 Rarely 3 5.4 Daily time spent Less than 15 minutes 10 17.9 15–30 minutes 15 26.8 31–60 minutes 15 26.8 1–2 hours 6 10.7 More than 2 hours 10 17.9 Note. Daily duration represents respondents’ self-reported approximate usage. Table 2 shows that ChatGPT use was frequent, with 46.4% of respondents using it several times a week and 39.3% daily. Combined, 85.7% reported using the tool at least several times a week. Regarding daily duration, 53.6% reported using ChatGPT for 15–60 minutes, while 17.9% reported more than two hours of use. These findings indicate variation in usage intensity but do not establish an association between usage duration and learning outcomes.

4.3. Main Academic Uses of ChatGPT

Figure 2 illustrates the principal academic applications of ChatGPT. Respondents could select multiple options; therefore, the percentages do not sum to 100%.

Fig 2: Main Academic Uses of ChatGPT Understanding difficult concepts was the most frequently reported application (67.9%), followed by examination preparation (66.1%) and summarising study materials (64.3%). Preparing assignments (57.1%) and solving problems (53.6%) were also common. Other reported uses included preparing presentations (46.4%), writing or improving content (41.1%), and generating ideas (39.3%). Only 10.7% selected “Other.” Overall, ChatGPT was used primarily for conceptual understanding, examination preparation, information summarisation, and completing academic tasks.

4.4. Perceived Overall Impact, Study Habits, and

Academic Productivity Figure 3 compares respondents’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s overall academic impact, changes in study habits, and academic productivity.

Fig 3: Respondents’ Overall Perceptions of ChatGPT As illustrated in Figure 3, 85.7% perceived ChatGPT’s overall impact on academic performance as positive or very positive, while 14.3% were neutral. Regarding study habits, 82.1% reported moderate or significant improvement, whereas 17.9% reported no change. Academic productivity received the most favourable assessment, with 89.3% reporting moderate or significant improvement and 10.7% reporting no change. No respondents reported a negative impact or deterioration across these three measures.

These findings indicate favourable self-reported perceptions of ChatGPT’s contribution to studying and academic task completion. However, the results reflect subjective assessments rather than objectively measured improvements in grades or learning achievement.

4.5. Study-Habit and Academic-Productivity Statements

Table 3 presents responses to 16 Likert-scale statements concerning study habits and academic productivity.

Agreement represents the combined proportion selecting Agree or Strongly Agree.

Table 3: Responses to Study-Habit and Academic-Productivity Statements Item Statement (abbreviated) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Agreement (%) Q11 Understand difficult concepts 19 32 5 0 0 91.1 Q12 Reduce time searching for study materials 18 31 6 1 0 87.5 Q13 Clarify doubts while studying 20 31 5 0 0 91.1 Q14 Organise study materials and ideas 17 27 12 0 0 78.6 Q15 Encourage independent study 17 27 9 3 0 78.6 Q16 Rely more on ChatGPT than traditional resources 17 18 16 5 0 62.5 Q17 Change examination preparation 16 29 10 1 0 80.4 Q18 Make studying more convenient 17 32 7 0 0 87.5 Q19 Complete academic tasks faster 16 35 5 0 0 91.1 Q20 Generate assignment/project ideas 13 35 5 3 0 85.7 Q21 Improve academic work quality 14 30 9 3 0 78.6 Q22 Complete assignments within deadlines 21 31 3 1 0 92.9 Q23 Increase academic productivity 16 29 8 3 0 80.4 Q24 Prepare presentations efficiently 15 26 13 2 0 73.2 Q25 Revise topics in less time 17 30 7 2 0 83.9 Q26 Feel more confident completing academic tasks 15 27 12 2 0 75.0 Note. Agreement (%) = [(Strongly Agree + Agree)/56] × 100. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place. Table 3 shows that completing assignments within deadlines received the highest agreement (92.9%). Understanding difficult concepts, clarifying doubts, and completing academic tasks faster each recorded 91.1% agreement. Reducing search time for study materials and making studying more convenient also received substantial agreement (87.5% each). Furthermore, 85.7% agreed that ChatGPT helped generate assignment or project ideas, while 83.9% reported that it helped them revise topics in less time. Agreement was comparatively lower for preparing presentations efficiently (73.2%), increasing confidence in completing academic tasks (75.0%), and improving academic work quality (78.6%). Nevertheless, responses remained predominantly favourable across the statements. The item concerning reliance on ChatGPT rather than traditional resources (Q16) recorded the lowest agreement (62.5%). A further 28.6% were neutral, and 8.9% disagreed. This comparatively mixed response suggests that perceived academic benefits did not necessarily translate into a uniform preference for ChatGPT over conventional learning resources. However, the responses do not establish the extent to which students actually replaced textbooks, lectures, or other resources with AI assistance.

4.6. Summary of Key Findings

The findings indicate widespread and frequent academic use of ChatGPT among the respondents, with 98.2% reportedly using it for academic purposes and 85.7% using it daily or several times a week. Its principal applications were understanding difficult concepts, preparing for examinations, and summarising study materials. Most respondents also perceived improvements in study habits, academic productivity, and overall academic performance. Completing assignments within deadlines, clarifying doubts, and completing tasks faster received particularly high agreement. However, reliance on ChatGPT over traditional resources attracted comparatively lower agreement and greater neutrality. Overall, the results suggest that respondents viewed ChatGPT as a useful academic support tool, although its perceived benefits should be interpreted in light of the study’s descriptive design and self-reported measures.

5. Discussion

The present study examined ChatGPT usage and students’ perceptions of its contribution to study habits and academic productivity among 56 management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The findings indicate that ChatGPT has become a frequently used academic support tool among the respondents, particularly for understanding difficult concepts, preparing for examinations, and summarising study materials. The results provide context-specific insights into students’ reported experiences with generative artificial intelligence (AI), while reflecting perceptions rather than objectively measured academic outcomes.

5.1. ChatGPT Usage and Academic Applications

The findings indicate that ChatGPT was used regularly by most respondents, with 46.4% reporting use several times a week and 39.3% reporting daily use. This pattern suggests that ChatGPT has become integrated into the academic routines of many students in the sample rather than being used only occasionally. The reported applications further indicate that students primarily use the tool to support learning and academic preparation. Understanding difficult concepts was the most frequently reported purpose (67.9%), followed by examination preparation (66.1%) and summarising study materials (64.3%). Assignment preparation and problem-solving were also common applications.

These findings are consistent with the broader literature describing ChatGPT as a flexible academic support tool that can provide explanations, summarise information, generate ideas, and assist with learning tasks (Kasneci et al., 2023; Lo et al., 2024). The prominence of conceptual clarification and examination preparation suggests that respondents value ChatGPT for making academic material more accessible and supporting revision. However, the survey does not establish whether the explanations were accurate, whether students developed deeper conceptual understanding, or whether examination performance improved. The findings should therefore be interpreted as evidence of reported usage patterns and perceived usefulness.

5.2. Perceived Contribution to Study Habits

The results generally indicate favourable perceptions of ChatGPT’s contribution to study habits. A substantial proportion of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ChatGPT helped them understand difficult concepts and clarify doubts (91.1% for each item). Furthermore, 78.6% reported that it helped them organise study materials and ideas, while 80.4% indicated that it had changed their examination preparation practices. These responses suggest that students perceive ChatGPT as a convenient supplementary resource for addressing learning difficulties and organising academic activities.

This pattern corresponds with research suggesting that generative AI can provide accessible explanations and personalised learning support, potentially helping students engage with material at their own pace (Chan & Hu, 2023; Kasneci et al., 2023) [14]. The findings also complement the overall assessment of study habits, in which 82.1% of respondents reported moderate or significant improvement. Nevertheless, such responses reflect students’ own assessments and do not demonstrate that their study routines became more effective according to independent measures. An important qualification concerns independent learning and reliance on AI. Although 78.6% agreed that ChatGPT encouraged independent study, 62.5% agreed that they relied on ChatGPT more than traditional academic resources. The latter item received less agreement than several perceived learning-support items, indicating variation in students’ reported reliance on AI. These findings suggest that perceived support for independent study can coexist with greater reliance on an AI tool. This distinction is important because using ChatGPT to explore a topic independently is not necessarily equivalent to evaluating its responses critically or verifying them against authoritative academic sources. As discussed in the literature, the educational value of generative AI depends partly on how students engage with its outputs and whether they retain responsibility for evaluating information (Eke, 2023; Farrokhnia et al., 2024) [11, 12].

5.3. Perceived Academic Productivity

Respondents also reported favourable perceptions of ChatGPT’s contribution to academic productivity. At the overall level, 89.3% indicated moderate or significant improvement in productivity. At the item level, 92.9% agreed or strongly agreed that ChatGPT helped them complete assignments within deadlines, while 91.1% reported that it helped them complete academic tasks faster. The same proportion agreed that it helped clarify difficult concepts, and 85.7% reported that it supported the generation of assignment or project ideas. These results suggest that students particularly value ChatGPT for task completion, time management, and idea development.

The findings broadly correspond with literature identifying potential efficiency benefits of generative AI in academic work, including brainstorming, summarisation, drafting, and information processing (Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2024; Lo et al., 2024) [2]. The relatively high agreement concerning completing assignments on time may indicate that students perceive ChatGPT as useful when managing competing academic tasks. However, perceived speed and timely completion do not necessarily indicate higher-quality work or deeper learning. In this study, 78.6% agreed that ChatGPT improved the quality of their academic work, while 73.2% reported that it helped them prepare presentations efficiently. These comparatively lower percentages suggest that perceived benefits may differ according to the type of academic task.

The distinction between productivity and academic performance is therefore important. Completing a task more quickly may improve students’ perceptions of efficiency, but the study did not objectively assess the accuracy, originality, analytical depth, or academic quality of submitted work. Nor did it compare students’ grades or performance before and after ChatGPT adoption. Accordingly, the results support conclusions about perceived productivity rather than verified improvements in learning achievement.

5.4. Overall Perceived Academic Impact

The overall responses were predominantly positive: 85.7% of respondents rated ChatGPT’s impact on academic performance positively or very positively, while the remaining 14.3% reported a neutral impact. In addition, 82.1% reported moderate or significant improvement in study habits. No respondents selected the reported negative or deterioration categories for the overall impact and change measures. Taken together, these responses indicate that the surveyed students generally viewed ChatGPT as a useful academic resource.

This pattern is consistent with literature that identifies opportunities for generative AI to support accessible learning assistance, academic task management, and student engagement (Chan & Hu, 2023; Kasneci et al., 2023) [5, 14]. At the same time, the favourable responses should not be interpreted as evidence that ChatGPT improves academic performance for all students or under all conditions. The findings are based on a convenience sample from one institution, and the measures capture self-reported perceptions. Moreover, the absence of negative responses in the overall measures does not rule out concerns about accuracy, overdependence, academic integrity, or inappropriate use that may not be fully captured by those items. The results are best understood as reflecting the respondents’ general assessment of ChatGPT rather than a comprehensive evaluation of its educational consequences.

5.5. Implications for Responsible Academic Use

The findings have practical implications for students and higher education institutions. For students, ChatGPT may be most useful when treated as a supplementary learning resource for clarifying concepts, generating initial ideas, organising revision, and identifying areas requiring further study. Its outputs should be checked against textbooks, scholarly literature, course materials, and other credible sources, particularly when factual accuracy and disciplinary precision are important.

For educators, the reported frequency of use suggests a need to provide clear guidance on appropriate academic applications, source verification, disclosure requirements, and academic integrity. Assessment activities can also encourage students to demonstrate their reasoning, explain how they evaluated AI-generated information, and apply concepts to unfamiliar cases rather than relying solely on AI-generated responses. Such practices may help students benefit from the convenience of ChatGPT while preserving independent judgement and subject knowledge. These implications should be understood as recommendations arising from the reported usage patterns and perceptions, not as interventions tested by the present study. In particular, the coexistence of perceived independent-study support and reported reliance on ChatGPT highlights the value of teaching students how to use AI critically rather than focusing only on the frequency of adoption.

5.6. Limitations and Future Research

The findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the study used a convenience sample of 56 management students from a single private university in Vijayawada, limiting the generalisability of the results to other institutions, disciplines, and student populations. Second, the cross-sectional design captures responses at one point in time and cannot establish causal relationships between ChatGPT use, study habits, productivity, and academic performance. Third, all reported outcomes are based on students’ perceptions, which may differ from their actual learning outcomes or independently assessed academic performance.

Finally, the analysis used aggregate response counts and descriptive statistics. Consequently, it was not possible to assess the statistical relationships among variables, establish scale reliability, or test the proposed hypotheses. Future research could use larger and more diverse samples, respondent-level data, validated measurement scales, and longitudinal or comparative designs. Combining survey responses with academic performance indicators, assessment of submitted work, or qualitative interviews would also help distinguish perceived convenience from measurable learning gains and clarify how students balance AI assistance with independent learning.

The responsible use of generative AI requires balancing its potential educational benefits with concerns about dependence, accuracy, and academic integrity. Saetra (2023) discussed the wider societal and ethical implications of generative AI, including potential risks to human agency and relationships. Bouteraa et al. (2024) [4] examined the relationship between students’ integrity and the adoption of ChatGPT in higher education. Similarly, Ortiz-Bonnin and Blahopoulou (2025) [19] investigated academic dishonesty, perceived risks, and ChatGPT usage among higher education students. Adeshola and Adepoju (2024) [1] reviewed opportunities and challenges associated with ChatGPT in education. These studies reinforce the need to examine not only whether students use ChatGPT, but also how they perceive its usefulness and limitations. For the present study, this perspective is relevant to interpreting the favourable responses regarding study habits and productivity alongside the reported reliance on ChatGPT rather than traditional academic resources.

The study indicates that the surveyed management students generally perceived ChatGPT as a useful resource for academic understanding, study organisation, and task completion. Its contribution lies in documenting these usage patterns and perceptions within a specific institutional context. The findings support the promotion of informed and responsible use while underscoring the need for further research to determine whether perceived benefits translate into measurable improvements in learning and academic achievement.

6. Conclusion

The present study examined ChatGPT usage and students’ perceptions of its contribution to study habits and academic productivity among 56 management students at a private university in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The findings indicate that ChatGPT was frequently used for academic purposes, particularly to understand difficult concepts, prepare for examinations, and summarise study materials. Respondents generally perceived the tool as helpful in clarifying doubts, organising learning activities, completing assignments within deadlines, and improving academic productivity. The overall responses also reflected predominantly positive perceptions of its academic contribution.

Despite these favourable perceptions, the findings highlight the importance of distinguishing perceived convenience and efficiency from objectively measured learning outcomes. Although many respondents reported that ChatGPT supported independent study, a proportion also indicated greater reliance on it than on traditional academic resources. This underscores the need to encourage critical evaluation of AI-generated information, verification through credible sources, and continued development of independent learning skills.

The study contributes institution-specific evidence on how management students perceive ChatGPT’s role in their academic routines. However, its small, single-institution convenience sample, cross-sectional design, self-reported measures, and descriptive analysis limit the generalisability of the findings and preclude causal conclusions. Future research using larger samples, respondent-level data, and objective academic performance measures could establish whether these perceived benefits correspond to measurable learning improvements. Overall, ChatGPT appears to be a useful supplementary academic resource for the surveyed students, provided that its use is guided by responsible practices and does not replace independent reasoning or engagement with reliable learning materials.