The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Creative Thinking, And Perceived Academic Achievement Among Vocational Education Students in Jordanian Universities: A Descriptive Correlational Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70568/IJPHDI.2.1.4Keywords:
Generative Artificial Intelligence, Creative Thinking, Perceived Academic Achievement, Vocational Education, Public Safety, Jordanian UniversitiesAbstract
This study examined the relationship between the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), creative thinking, and perceived academic achievement among vocational education and public safety students at Jordanian universities, and tested whether the study variables differed by gender. A quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive-correlational design was used. The sample comprised 140 undergraduate students selected through convenience sampling from Al-Balqa Applied University, Jadara University, Irbid National University, Jerash University, and Aqaba University of Technology. Students from Jerash University and Aqaba University of Technology were enrolled in vocational education and public safety programs. A 40-item questionnaire measured three dimensions of GenAI use and five educational outcomes: fluency, flexibility, originality, problem sensitivity, and perceived academic achievement. Overall GenAI use was high (M = 3.96, SD = 0.59). Fluency, flexibility, problem sensitivity, and perceived academic achievement were high, while originality was medium and recorded the lowest mean (M = 3.43, SD = 0.68). GenAI use was positively and moderately correlated with the combined creative-thinking and achievement outcome (r = .56, p < .001). No statistically significant gender differences were found, and all effect sizes were very small. The study concludes that GenAI can support idea generation, applied problem solving, lesson and activity planning, risk analysis, professional communication, and academic learning when its use is guided by independent thinking, technical verification, transparent disclosure, and authentic assessment. Jordanian universities are encouraged to embed responsible GenAI literacy in vocational education and public safety programs while protecting originality and practical competence.
References
Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for ‘mini-c’ creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28), eadn5290. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846
Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hwang, G.-J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
Jeon, J., & Lee, S. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 15873–15892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four-C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868
Koivisto, M., & Grassini, S. (2023). Best humans still outperform artificial intelligence in a creative divergent thinking task. Scientific Reports, 13, 13601. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40858-3
Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7), 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
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. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.
Strzelecki, A. (2025). ChatGPT in higher education: Investigating bachelor and master students’ expectations towards AI tool. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 10231–10255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13222-9
Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Scholastic Testing Service.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. U.S. Department of Education.
Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rogayah Ali Mousa Sharadgah, Tareq Atef Ali Al-Shboul, Adnan Ahmad Al-Ajlouni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
