ArticleScientific reports2024
An explanatory study of factors influencing engagement in AI education at the K-12 Level: an extension of the classic TAM model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI applied to Saudi Arabia higher education: systematic literature review-SLR with PRISMA and VOSviewer.Frontiers in big data · 2026Pooled it
- Factors influencing students' intentions to continue learning in AI-assisted painting courses.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Psychological and technological predictors of AI literacy profiles: a latent profile analysis among Chinese college students.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of quality of information on classroom engagement with GenAI tools: integrating TAM and SOR framework.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Navigating AI feedback in translation training: how text type, proficiency, and attitude shape students' acceptance behaviors.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Trust, ethical, and learning impact of artificial intelligence feedback in English education.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Modeling teacher education students' adoption of large language models through an extended technology acceptance framework.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Data on behavioural intention to use AI copilot through TAM and AI ecological education policy lens.Data in brief · 2025Article
- Educational impacts of generative artificial intelligence on learning and performance of engineering students in China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Factors influencing AI adoption by Chinese mathematics teachers in STEM education.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- AI adoption among adolescents in education: extending the UTAUT2 with psychological and contextual factors.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers to AI adoption in nursing practice: a qualitative study of registered nurses' perspectives.BMC nursing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) holds immense promise for K-12 education, yet understanding the factors influencing students' engagement with AI courses remains a challenge. This study addresses this gap by extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) to incorporate cognitive factors such as AI intrinsic motivation (AIIM), AI readiness (AIRD), AI confidence (AICF), and AI anxiety (AIAX), alongside human-computer interaction (HCI) elements like user interface (UI), content (C), and learner-interface interactivity (LINT) in the context of using generative AI (GenAI) tools. By including these factors, an expanded model is presented to capture the complexity of student engagement with AI education. To validate the model, 210 Chinese students spanning grades K7 to K9 participated in a 1 month artificial intelligence course. Survey data and structural equation modeling reveal significant relationships between cognitive and HCI factors and perceived usefulness (PU) and ease of use (PEOU). Specifically, AIIM, AIRD, AICF, UI, C, and LINT positively influence PU and PEOU, while AIAX negatively affects both. Furthermore, PU and PEOU significantly predict students' attitudes toward AI curriculum learning. These findings underscore the importance of considering cognitive and HCI factors in the design and implementation of AI education initiatives. By providing a theoretical foundation and practical insights, this study informs curriculum development and aids educational institutions and businesses in evaluating and optimizing AI4K12 curriculum design and implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.