Navigating Generative AI in Higher Education: Mining Engineering Students’ Practices, Perceptions, and Language Choices

  • Marija Đorđević University of Belgrade Faculty of Mining and Geology, Serbia
Keywords: generative artificial intelligence, higher education, mining engineering students, student perceptions, AI literacy, language choice

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has rapidly become an everyday academic resource, making students’ actual practices increasingly important for higher-education policy and pedagogy. This small-scale exploratory survey study examines familiarity with, frequency and purposes of use of, attitudes toward, verification practices, and language choices in GenAI among 30 second-year undergraduate students from Mining Engineering, Petroleum Engineering and Environmental Engineering programmes at the Faculty of Mining and Geology University of Belgrade. For the purposes of the study, the term Mining Engineering students is used as a departmental umbrella term encompassing these three distinct study programmes. Data were collected through an anonymous paper-based questionnaire combining closed-ended, multiple-response, Likert-type, and open-ended items. Descriptive statistics were complemented by exploratory respondent-level comparisons using Fisher’s exact tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, and Spearman’s rank correlation where appropriate. Twenty students (66.7%) used AI several times per week or almost every day; 21 (70.0%) used it for solving tasks or problems and 17 (56.7%) for understanding course content. Twenty-five students (83.3%) reported asking follow-up questions to obtain more precise information, while 10 of 28 valid respondents (35.7%) checked AI-generated information often or almost always. Open responses primarily emphasised speed and efficiency as benefits and inaccuracy or unreliability as limitations. Language use was flexible: Serbian was prominent, but English and bilingual interaction were also common. Higher self-reported English proficiency was strongly associated with English-involved AI use in an exploratory Fisher’s exact test (p < .001). The findings suggest pragmatic rather than uncritical GenAI adoption and point to the need for discipline-sensitive AI literacy, transparent institutional guidance, and explicit attention to multilingual AI interaction in higher education.

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), Article ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152

Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education. Discover Education, 3, 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2

Baek, C., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2024). “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100294

Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2024). ChatGPT in the higher education: A systematic literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Educational Research, 127, 102411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102411

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

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Edmett, A., Ichaporia, N., Crompton, H., & Crichton, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence and English language teaching: Preparing for the future. British Council. https://doi.org/10.57884/78EA-3C69

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.

Liu, Y., Park, J., & McMinn, S. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence/ChatGPT for academic communication: Students’ perspectives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1437–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12574

Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2024). The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda. Computers & Education, 219, 105100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100

Mulalić, A., Benaouda, D., & Jelešković, E. (2025). University students’ perceptions of using generative artificial intelligence tools for learning English language. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 13(2), 349–360.

Ravšelj, D., Keržič, D., Tomaževič, N., Umek, L., Brezovar, N., Iahad, N. A., Abdulla Abdulla, A., Akopyan, A., Aldana Segura, M. W., AlHumaid, J., Allam, M. F., Alló, M., Andoh, R. P. K., Andronic, O., Arthur, Y. D., Aydın, F., Badran, A., Balbontín-Alvarado, R., Ben Saad, H., … Aristovnik, A. (2025). Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions. PLOS ONE, 20(2), e0315011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315011

UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO.

Published
2026-10-05
How to Cite
Đorđević, M. (2026). Navigating Generative AI in Higher Education: Mining Engineering Students’ Practices, Perceptions, and Language Choices. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 9(10), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v9i10.3581