Cited by 71Technology Adoption and User BehaviourArtificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Participant or spectator? Comprehending the willingness of faculty to use intelligent tutoring systems in the artificial intelligence era

Wang, Shanyong, Yu, Haotian, Hu, Xianfeng, Li, Jun·2020·British Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

The advancement of technology, especially the development and application of artificial intelligence, has deeply affected the education sector and brought opportunities for pedagogical adaptation. Intelligent tutoring systems, a major application of artificial intelligence in education, have drawn extensive concerns. However, in reality, the penetration rate of intelligent tutoring systems and the enthusiasm of faculty to use are still relatively low. This research examined the determinants of the willingness of faculty to use intelligent tutoring systems. Innovation diffusion theory was the theoretical basis of this research and it was adapted by incorporating perceived trust and experience. To gather data, a cross‐sectional questionnaire survey was performed and structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the data. The findings indicated that relative advantage, compatibility, perceived trust and experience are the contributing determinants of the willingness of faculty to use intelligent tutoring systems, while complexity has no significant effect. Meanwhile, complexity is significantly negatively affected by experience and compatibility. Relative advantage is significantly positively affected by perceived trust but not by complexity. Based on the research findings, relevant recommendations for encouraging faculty to use intelligent tutoring systems were proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.12998

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, S., Yu, H., Hu, X., & Li, J.
Affiliations
Hefei University of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Jun
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-20
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
1657-1673
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
OpenAlex
W3044610131
Cited by
71
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
intelligent tutoring systems, faculty technology adoption, adoption intention, diffusion of innovation theory, perceived trust, perceived experience, relative advantage, compatibility, perceived complexity, artificial intelligence 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