How Students (Really) Use ChatGPT: Uncovering Experiences Among Undergraduate Students
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We examine how undergraduate students integrate ChatGPT into everyday self-directed learning, analyzing 10,536 naturalistic messages donated by 36 students over a year. A sequential mixed-methods pipeline pairs iterative qualitative coding with zero-shot language-model annotation validated against human labels (kappa = 0.75-0.91). It yields a five-category taxonomy: Information Seeking, Content Generation, Language Use, Student-ChatGPT Interaction, and ChatGPT Response Behavior. Time-lagged linear regression and Cox proportional-hazards models link these categories to sustained engagement. Three findings stand out. First, structured tasks (theory application, code writing, job-application content, multiple-choice questions) predict continued use; ChatGPT becomes incorporated into academic rhythms when gratifications are reliably fulfilled. Second, system-issued "apologies" are the strongest positive predictor of increased engagement, outweighing every task-completion predictor. We name this mechanism "repair gratification": the reward of a breakdown acknowledged and repaired rather than a task simply completed. Third, interactional strain--prompt revision, frustration, follow-up clarification--predicts disengagement. When managing the system falls on the user without system accountability, students abandon the tool. We interpret these results through Self-Directed Learning, Uses and Gratifications Theory, and Expectancy Violations Theory, mapping predictors onto positive/negative violations and confirmations. We close with design recommendations for graduated repair patterns, mode-aware interaction, and verification affordances, and outline a participatory AI-literacy agenda for higher education.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 30 May 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2025TutorBench: A Benchmark To Assess Tutoring Capabilities Of Large Language Modelscited by 11
- 2026Priming, Path-dependence, and Plasticity: Understanding the molding of user-LLM interaction and its implications from (many) chat logs in the wildcited by 1
- 2026Rethinking Scaffolding in LLM Tutors: The Interactional Mismatch Between Benchmarks and Real-World Deploymentscited by 1
- 2025Thematic and Task-Based Categorization of K-12 GenAI Usages with Hierarchical Topic Modelingcited by 0
- 2026"How Do I ...?": Procedural Questions Predominate Student-LLM Chatbot Conversationscited by 0
- 2026Rethinking Scaffolding in LLM Tutors: The Interactional Mismatch Between Benchmarks and Real-World Deployments14 Jun 2026
- 2026Priming, Path-dependence, and Plasticity: Understanding the molding of user-LLM interaction and its implications from (many) chat logs in the wild7 May 2026
- 2026"How Do I ...?": Procedural Questions Predominate Student-LLM Chatbot Conversations20 Feb 2026
- 2025TutorBench: A Benchmark To Assess Tutoring Capabilities Of Large Language Models3 Oct 2025
- 2025Thematic and Task-Based Categorization of K-12 GenAI Usages with Hierarchical Topic Modeling1 Aug 2025