AstM/
Articles/
2607004579
  • Open Access
  • Article

Public Sentiment and Social Cognition toward Generative AI in Education: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in Sina Weibo Discourse

  • Han Huang (黄晗),   
  • Qiong Wei (魏琼),   
  • Zicheng Wang (王自成),   
  • Kang Liu (刘康),   
  • Min Yuan (袁敏) *

Received: 18 Jun 2026 | Revised: 08 Jul 2026 | Accepted: 09 Jul 2026 | Published: 16 Jul 2026

Abstract

With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies, their application in the field of education has gradually become a focal topic of interest for both academia and the public. However, research on emotional responses and social cognition regarding the educational applications of GenAI based on social media data analysis remains limited. Based on public Weibo posts and comments related to ChatGPT and DeepSeek, this study combines BERT-based sentiment classification, BERTopic topic modeling, dynamic topic analysis, and representative-text validation to examine sentiment patterns and negative discourse themes in education-related discussions. Social cognitive theory is used as a discourse-oriented interpretive framework to organize negative topics into perceived competence, perceived risk, and value-related concerns. The results show that ChatGPT-related negative discourse was mainly associated with uncertainty about AI use and human competence, academic integrity, teacher substitution, reduced independent thinking, and classroom effectiveness. DeepSeek-related negative discourse was more closely related to children’s learning dependence, output reliability, employment pressure, humanities learning, traditional cultural education, and teacher roles. Overall, public responses to GenAI in education vary across model-specific, temporal, and sociocultural contexts. The study contributes context-specific evidence on GenAI-related public discourse in China and suggests that GenAI literacy, output verification, academic integrity, teacher professional development, and value-sensitive implementation should receive greater attention in future empirical research and educational practice.

References 

  • 1.

    Krakowski, S. Human-AI Agency in the Age of Generative AI. Inf. Organ. 2025, 35, 100560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2025.100560.

  • 2.

    Kim, H.; Hwang, J.; Kim, T.; et al. Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Learning: Scaffolding Strategies and Self-Directed Learning Perspectives. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2026, 42, 2965–2987. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2531267.

  • 3.

    Ortega-Mohedano, J. Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Other Emerging Technologies on Education and Media. Educ. Media Int. 2024, 61, 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2024.2436735.

  • 4.

    Liang, E.S.; Bai, S. Generative AI and the Future of Connectivist Learning in Higher Education. J. Asian Public Policy 2025, 18, 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2386085.

  • 5.

    Francis, S.P.; Kolil, V.K.; Pavithran, V.; et al. Exploring Gender Dynamics in Cybersecurity Education: A Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Comput. Secur. 2024, 144, 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.103968.

  • 6.

    Bewersdorff, A.; Hartmann, C.; Hornberger, M.; et al. Taking the next Step with Generative Artificial Intelligence: The Transformative Role of Multimodal Large Language Models in Science Education. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2025, 118, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102601.

  • 7.

    Liu, Y.; Du, Y. The Effect of Generative AI Ethics on Users’ Continuous Usage Intentions: A PLS-SEM and fsQCA Approach. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2025, 41, 12831–12842. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2465861.

  • 8.

    Cai, H.; Han, B.; Sun, J.; et al. Harnessing AI for Teacher Education to Promote Inclusive Education: Investigating the Effects of ChatGPT-Supported Lesson Plan Critiques on the Development of Pre-Service Teachers’ Lesson Planning Skills. Internet High. Educ. 2025, 67, 101022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101022.

  • 9.

    Huang, H.; Sun, K.; Long, R. Navigating Sentiment Dynamics in Social Media: The Role of Information Characteristics in Promoting Green Consumption across Multiple Domains. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2025, 112, 107840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107840.

  • 10.

    Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Luo, S.; et al. The Influence of GenAI on the Effectiveness of Argumentative Writing in Higher Education: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Study in China. J. Asian Public Policy 2025, 18, 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2363128.

  • 11.

    Xia, Q.; Zhang, P.; Huang, W.; et al. The Impact of Generative AI on University Students’ Learning Outcomes via Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Meta-Analysis and Pattern Mining Approach. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2025, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2025.2530503.

  • 12.

    Chiu, T.K.F. A Classification Tool to Foster Self-Regulated Learning with Generative Artificial Intelligence by Applying Self-Determination Theory: A Case of ChatGPT. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2024, 72, 2401–2416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10366-w.

  • 13.

    Uğraş, H.; Uğraş, M.; Papadakis, S.; et al. ChatGPT-Supported Education in Primary Schools: The Potential of ChatGPT for Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229855.

  • 14.

    Uğraş, H.; Uğraş, M.; Papadakis, S.; et al. Innovative Early Childhood STEM Education with ChatGPT: Teacher Perspectives. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2025, 30, 809–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09804-8.

  • 15.

    Rasul, T.; Nair, S.; Kalendra, D.; et al. Enhancing Academic Integrity among Students in GenAI Era:A Holistic Framework. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2024, 22, 101041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101041.

  • 16.

    Zacharis, G.; Papadakis, S. Can AI Grade Like a Human? Validity, Reliability, and Fairness in University Coursework Assessment. Educ. Process Int. J. 2025, 19, e2025591. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.19.591.

  • 17.

    Yang, H.; Markauskaite, L. Fostering Language Student Teachers’ Transformative Agency for Embracing GenAI: A Formative Intervention. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2025, 159, 104980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.104980.

  • 18.

    Yujie, Z.; Al Imran Yasin, M.; Alsagoff, S.A.B.S.; et al. The Mediating Role of New Media Engagement in This Digital Age. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 879530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.879530.

  • 19.

    So, H.-J.; Jang, H.; Kim, M.; et al. Exploring Public Perceptions of Generative AI and Education: Topic Modelling of YouTube Comments in Korea. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2024, 44, 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2294699.

  • 20.

    Napoli, P.M.; Adi, S. On Moving Fast and Breaking Things…Again: Social Media’s Lessons for Generative AI Governance. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2026, 29, 1912–1928. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2513668.

  • 21.

    Cohen, M.; Khavkin, M.; Davidow, D.M.; et al. ChatGPT in the Public Eye: Ethical Principles and Generative Concerns in Social Media Discussions. New Media Soc. 2026, 28, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241279034.

  • 22.

    Qi, W.; Pan, J.; Lyu, H.; et al. Excitements and Concerns in the Post-ChatGPT Era: Deciphering Public Perception of AI through Social Media Analysis. Telemat. Inform. 2024, 92, 102158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2024.102158.

  • 23.

    Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; et al. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.

  • 24.

    Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

  • 25.

    Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 2, 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024.

  • 26.

    Ma, X.; Huo, Y. Are Users Willing to Embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the Factors on the Acceptance of Chatbots from the Perspective of AIDUA Framework. Technol. Soc. 2023, 75, 102362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102362.

  • 27.

    Shata, A.; Hartley, K. Artificial Intelligence and Communication Technologies in Academia: Faculty Perceptions and the Adoption of Generative AI. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2025, 22, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00511-7.

  • 28.

    Jin, B.; Zhang, D. Linking Parental Restrictive Mediation to Adolescents’ Science Achievement: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2022, 98, 102187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102187.

  • 29.

    Huang, H.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; et al. Examining Public Attitudes and Perceptions of Waste Sorting in China through an Urban Heterogeneity Lens: A Social Media Analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 199, 107233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107233.

  • 30.

    Chandan, M.K.; Mandal, S. A Comprehensive Survey on Sentiment Analysis: Framework, Techniques, and Applications. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2025, 58, 100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100777.

  • 31.

    Özmantar, M.F.; Gökdağ, K.; Hangül, T.; et al. Research Themes and Trends in the Field of Teacher Educators: A Topic Modelling Study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2024, 148, 104696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104696.

  • 32.

    Grootendorst, M. BERTopic: Neural Topic Modeling with a Class-Based TF-IDF Procedure. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2203.05794.

  • 33.

    Francis, N.J.; Jones, S.; Smith, D.P. Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 2025, 81, 14048. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048.

  • 34.

    Woreta, G.T.; Zewude, G.T.; Józsa, K. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations in the Relationship Between Peer Context and Academic Engagement: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 681. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050681.

  • 35.

    Amzalag, M. When Professions Meet GenAI: Patterns of Self-Regulated Learning. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030416.

  • 36.

    Chung, J.; Henderson, M.; Slade, C.; et al. The Use and Usefulness of GenAI in Higher Education: Student Experience and Perspectives. Comput. Educ. Open 2026, 10, 100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100347.

  • 37.

    Cheah, Y.H.; Lu, J.; Kim, J. Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education: Examining Teachers’ Preparedness, Practices, and Barriers. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2025, 8, 100363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100363.

  • 38.

    García-López, I.M.; Trujillo-Liñán, L. Ethical and Regulatory Challenges of Generative AI in Education: A Systematic Review. Front. Educ. 2025, 10, 1565938. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1565938.

Share this article:
Download PDF
Issue
Volume 1, Issue 1
How to Cite
Huang (黄晗), H.; Wei (魏琼), Q.; Wang (王自成), Z.; Liu (刘康), K.; Yuan (袁敏), M. Public Sentiment and Social Cognition toward Generative AI in Education: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in Sina Weibo Discourse. ASTRA MAN 2026, 1 (1), 3.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.