The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influence of Pedagogical Beliefs and Perceived Trust on Teachers’ Acceptance of Educational Artificial Intelligence Tools
Abstract
Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have stimulated the development of educational AI tools (EAIT). EAITs intelligently assist teachers in formulating better pedagogical decisions or actions for their students. However, teachers are hardly integrating EAITs, and little is known about their perceptions of EAITs. This study seeks to identify human factors that encourage or restrict teachers’ acceptance of EAITs. We propose a revised technology acceptance model incorporating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust in EAITs. Survey data were collected from 215 teachers in South Korea and analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results indicate that teachers with constructivist beliefs are more likely to integrate EAITs than teachers with transmissive orientations. Furthermore, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived trust in EAITs are determinants to be considered when explaining teachers’ acceptance of EAITs. Among them, the most influential determinant of predicting their acceptance was found to be how easily the EAIT is constructed. Significant implications for researchers and stakeholders regarding the development and integration of EAITs are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the results of a study with teachers from South Korea indicate that teachers with constructivist beliefs are more likely to integrate educational AI-based tools than teachers with transmissive orientations [33].”
From ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021) · Classroom Companion: Business · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7 · Cited by 10,343
Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct
Pajares, M. F. (1992) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543062003307 · Cited by 9,007
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · cited 1×
“These TAM-measuring items were adopted from Venkatesh and Bala (2008), which were based on Davis (1989).”
MethodReporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.3200/joer.99.6.323-338 · Cited by 6,937 · cited 1×
“Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the measurement model and to assess convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010; Schreiber et al., 2006).”
MethodTeacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 · Cited by 2,107
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.14507/epaa.v8n51.2000 · DOI
- 10.1080/10447318.2021.1970430 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10857-021-09504-5 · DOI
- Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Pearson.
- Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L., & Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015-Janua, 505–513.
- 10.1145/3362789.3362918 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3313831.3376416 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326
“Important steps to responsibly mitigate such an issue can be the following: • Asking the authors of the original documents trans-parently (i.e., purpose and policy of data usage) for permission to use their content for training the model”
BackgroundCelik, I. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468 · Cited by 1,012
Jeon, J., & Lee, S. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1 · Cited by 696
Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: A multigroup analysis
Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7 · Cited by 413
Metadata
- Authors
- Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H.
- Affiliations
- Korea University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Kim, Hyeoncheol
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-04-19
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 910-922
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W4224229986
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 75 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 10
- FWCI
- 54.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Keywords
- teacher acceptance, pedagogical beliefs, perceived trust, constructivist beliefs, technology acceptance model, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, teacher perceptions, AI integration in education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
