Cited by 16Technology Adoption and User BehaviourArtificial Intelligence in EducationGender and Technology in Education

Predicting STEM students’ adoption of generative AI in academic contexts: an application of the UTAUT model

Open access
BinJwair, Amani·2025·Frontiers in Education

Abstract

Introduction: The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has created new opportunities and challenges in higher education, particularly in STEM disciplines. Understanding the factors that influence students' behavioral intention to adopt generative AI is essential for effective integration into learning environments. This study applies the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to examine these factors among STEM students. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 464 STEM students at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the proposed model. Model fit indices indicated good fit (χ 2 /df = 2.94, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.056, NFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94). Results: Performance expectancy (β = 0.491, p < 0.001), effort expectancy (β = 0.130, p < 0.001), social influence (β = 0.239, p < 0.001), and facilitating conditions (β = 0.213, p < 0.001) significantly predicted behavioral intention to adopt generative AI. Subgroup analyses revealed higher adoption intentions among female students, those with beginner-level computer experience, and students majoring in Engineering and Computer Science. Discussion: The findings highlight the crucial role of perceived usefulness, ease of use, social norms, and institutional support in influencing AI adoption among STEM students. To enhance adoption, the study recommends improving digital infrastructure, providing targeted AI training, and promoting peer-led initiatives. Future research should investigate longitudinal and cross-cultural dynamics of AI adoption in education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2025.1669750

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Authors
BinJwair, A.
Affiliations
Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University (SA)
Corresponding author
BinJwair, Amani
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Published
2025-11-24
Volume
10
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416607865
Cited by
16
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
generative AI, technology adoption, STEM students, UTAUT, behavioral intention, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, gender differences, computer experience, higher 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