ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
The impact of pedagogical beliefs on the adoption of generative AI in higher education: predictive model from UTAUT2.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating AI-powered learning assistants in engineering higher education with implications for student engagement, ethics, and policy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Determinants of acceptance and usage of generative AI among Chinese medical students: a UTAUT-based empirical investigation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Exploring the relationship between AI literacy, AI trust, AI dependency, and 21st century skills in preservice mathematics teachers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- University teachers' beliefs about the use of generative artificial intelligence for teaching and learning.Frontiers in psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd) offers advanced tools that can personalize learning experiences and enhance teachers' research capabilities. This paper explores the beliefs of 425 university teachers regarding the integration of generative AI in educational settings, utilizing the UTAUT2 model to predict their acceptance and usage patterns through the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method. The findings indicate that performance expectations, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and hedonic motivation all positively impact the intention and behavior related to the use of AIEd. Notably, the study reveals that teachers with constructivist pedagogical beliefs are more inclined to adopt AIEd, underscoring the significance of considering teachers' attitudes and motivations for the effective integration of technology in education. This research provides valuable insights into the factors influencing teachers' decisions to embrace AIEd, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of technology integration in educational contexts. Moreover, the study's results emphasize the critical role of teachers' pedagogical orientations in their acceptance and utilization of AI technologies. Constructivist educators, who emphasize student-centered learning and active engagement, are shown to be more receptive to incorporating AIEd tools compared to their transmissive counterparts, who focus on direct instruction and information dissemination. This distinction highlights the need for tailored professional development programs that address the specific beliefs and needs of different teaching philosophies. Furthermore, the study's comprehensive approach, considering various dimensions of the UTAUT2 model, offers a robust framework for analyzing technology acceptance in education.
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.