## 4 Discussion
The findings that are reported in the Section 3.3 \"Regression analysis of the predictors of the Intention to Use Bing Chat (or GPT) in the future\" place additional emphasis on the importance of the use of a broad range of instruments for in-depth evaluation of CAI tools beyond sole reliance on the TAM/UTAUT sets of variables. For this purpose, the assessment scales labeled Personalization, Cognitive Involvement, and Design Appeal were constructed or adapted for use in our study. For instance, in a related study [70], a construct similar to Personalization that was labeled perceived humanness was found to influence effort expectancy and positively correlate with willingness to accept the use of ChatGPT. The first goal of our study was to create and perform an initial evaluation of an assessment instrument for CAI tools from a much broader perspective than that presented in related studies of ChatGPT that utilized TAM or UTAUT theoretical models [39; 40; 41; 42], i.e., with variables broadly associated with the concepts of usability and user experience. This goal was achieved in our study and the assessment scales are presented in the Appendix A (see also the responses to RQ1). The second goal of our study was to investigate how specific characteristics of Bing Chat are evaluated by students in higher education, as well as to identify the most influential usability and user experience characteristics, as independent or predictor variables, in relation to Intention to Use Bing Chat, as a dependent or criterion variable. This goal is related to the second and third research questions (RQ2 and RQ3) and was also achieved. The main limitation of this study concerns the relatively small convenience sample of respondents (N = 126) that was used for data collection. Also, results could vary depending on the study year of students, their major and minor, and the course in which the activities with Bing Chat were performed, as well as on the learning activities that were used before the application of the survey. The timing of the study is also relevant--CAI tools are constantly being advanced and expanded with additional features like voice and picture recognition, text-to-speech, and others, as well as integrated into common applications and services (Windows 11, Microsoft 365, Google applications, etc. ), alongside their more wide-spread presence and longer experience of subjects in research with their use, all of which may considerably affect the perceptions and evaluations of their characteristics. This research was focused on the use of one tool--Bing Chat (i.e., Microsoft Copilot). One possible future direction for the authors is to perform comparative studies across various CAI tools (Bing Chat/Copilot, ChatGPT, Bard) that would include similar usability and user experience characteristics of this technology and a much larger sample of subjects. Since the technological evolution in the field of CAI is progressive--in terms of the development of their new functionalities and use of more complex LLMs--it is recommended that the assessment scales that were used in our study are not only improved and refined but also adapted to the novel characteristics of such tools/services and having in mind their use in specific educational and other contexts. Possible other future directions for research in this area could include the exploration of various pedagogical applications of CAI tools for learning in educational activities in diverse courses (e.g., STEM and social studies).