Exploring the effect of demographic characteristics and personality traits on attitude toward AI-assisted second language learning among Chinese college students: A multiple regression analysis

Wentao  Liu; Hanwei  Wu

doi:10.59400/fes.v2i3.1501

Exploring the effect of demographic characteristics and personality traits on attitude toward AI-assisted second language learning among Chinese college students: A multiple regression analysis

Wentao Liu School of Foreign Studies, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
Hanwei Wu School of Foreign Studies, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China

Article ID: 1501

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i3.1501

Keywords: AI-assisted L2 learning; demographic characteristics; personality traits; multiple regression analyses

Abstract

Previous research underscores the pivotal role of AI in advancing second language (L2) learning, yet gaps persist in understanding how individual differences shape L2 learners’ perceptions of AI resources. Addressing this gap, this study explored the impact of demographic characteristics (age and gender) and personality traits (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) on attitude toward AI-assisted L2 learning. This attitude encompasses the opinions, feelings, and beliefs individuals hold about using AI as a tool to facilitate L2 learning. Data were collected from 493 L2 learners enrolled in Chinese colleges through an online questionnaire using two validated scales. Through SPSS 26, descriptive statistics indicated a moderately high positive attitude among students. Multiple regression analyses revealed that older students and females exhibited more favorable attitude compared to their younger and male counterparts, respectively. Additionally, personality traits—excluding agreeableness—significantly influenced attitude. Besides, extroversion and neuroticism negatively predicted attitude, whereas conscientiousness and openness had positive predictive effects. Moreover, this study discusses theoretical implications and offers educational insights while suggesting avenues for future research.

References

[1]Chen X, Xie H, Hwang GJ. A multi-perspective study on Artificial Intelligence in Education: grants, conferences, journals, software tools, institutions, and researchers. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2020; 1: 100005. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100005

[2]Bicknell K, Brust C, Settles B. How Duolingo’s AI Learns what you Need to Learn: The language-learning app tries to emulate a great human tutor. IEEE Spectrum. 2023; 60(3): 28–33. doi: 10.1109/mspec.2023.10061631

[3]Wang Y, Xue L. Using AI-driven chatbots to foster Chinese EFL students’ academic engagement: An intervention study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2024; 159: 108353. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108353

[4]Yang L, Zhao S. AI-induced emotions in L2 education: Exploring EFL students’ perceived emotions and regulation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior. 2024; 159: 108337. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108337

[5]Marquis P, Papini O, Prade H, et al. A Guided Tour of Artificial Intelligence Research. Springer International Publishing; 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-06170-8

[6]Son JB, Ružić NK, Philpott A. Artificial intelligence technologies and applications for language learning and teaching. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning. 2023. doi: 10.1515/jccall-2023-0015

[7]Crompton H, Burke D. Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2023; 20(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

[8]Gardner J, O’Leary M, Yuan L. Artificial intelligence in educational assessment: ‘Breakthrough? Or buncombe and ballyhoo?’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2021; 37(5): 1207-1216. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12577

[9]Castañeda L, Selwyn N. More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2018; 15(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

[10]Wu H, Liu W, Zeng Y. Validating the AI-assisted second language (L2) learning attitude scale for Chinese college students and its correlation with L2 proficiency. Acta Psychologica. 2024; 248: 104376. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104376

[11]Spencer H. First principles, 2nd ed. Williams and Norgate: London; 1867.

[12]Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin. 1977; 84(5): 888–918. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

[13]Reid N, Amanat Ali A. Making Sense of Learning. Springer International Publishing; 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-53677-0

[14]Jafari J, Xiao H. Encyclopedia of Tourism. Springer Nature; 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01384-8

[15]Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Orlando, FL, US; 1993. pp. xxii,794-xxii,794.

[16]Ries F. The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology. Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2

[17]Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13(3): 319. doi: 10.2307/249008

[18]Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA; 1975. p. 27.

[19]Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2016; 17(5): 328–376. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00428

[20]Zheng Y, Wang Y, Liu KSX, et al. Examining the moderating effect of motivation on technology acceptance of generative AI for English as a foreign language learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12763-3

[21]An X, Chai CS, Li Y, et al. Modeling students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2023; 1–22. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2023.2246519

[22]Liu G, Ma C. Measuring EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT in informal digital learning of English based on the technology acceptance model. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 2023; 18(2): 125–138. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2023.2240316

[23]Schepman A, Rodway P. The General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory Validation and Associations with Personality, Corporate Distrust, and General Trust. International Journal of Human—Computer Interaction. 2022; 39(13): 2724–2741. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400

[24]Wu H, Wang Y, Wang Y. “To use or not to use?”: A mixed-methods study on the determinants of EFL college learners’ behavioral intention to use AI in the distributed learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2024.

[25]Devaraj S, Easley RF, Crant JM. Research Note—How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use. Information Systems Research. 2008; 19(1): 93-105. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0153

[26]Costa PT, McCrae RR. The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Its Relevance to Personality Disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders. 1992; 6(4): 343–359. doi: 10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343

[27]Costa PT, McCrae RR. Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1995; 64: 21–50. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2

[28]Power RA, Pluess M. Heritability estimates of the Big Five personality traits based on common genetic variants. Translational Psychiatry. 2015; 5(7): e604-e604. doi: 10.1038/tp.2015.96

[29]Wang X, Wang S. Exploring Chinese EFL learners’ engagement with large language models: A self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Motivation. 2024; 87: 102014. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102014

[30]Wang X, Reynolds BL. Beyond the Books: Exploring Factors Shaping Chinese English Learners’ Engagement with Large Language Models for Vocabulary Learning. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(5): 496. doi: 10.3390/educsci14050496

[31]Wu H, Wang Y, Wang Y. How burnout, resilience, and engagement interplay among EFL learners? A mixed-methods investigation in the Chinese senior high school context. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras. 2024; (IX): 193–213. doi: 10.30827/portalin.viix.29878

[32]Wu H, Zeng Y, Fan Z. Unveiling Chinese senior high school EFL students’ burnout and engagement: Profiles and antecedents. Acta Psychologica. 2024; 243: 104153. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104153

[33]Cooper C. Individual differences, 2nd ed. Arnold: London, England; 2002; pp. x,357-x,357.

[34]Dörnyei Z. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge; 2005.

[35]Ghorbani M, Semiyari SR. The Impact of the Big Five Personality Traits and Motivational Self-System on Iranian EFL Learners’ Intended Effort: An Investigation into McAdams’ Model of Personality. RELC Journal. 2020; 53(1): 24–39. doi: 10.1177/0033688220933011

[36]Cao C, Meng Q. Exploring personality traits as predictors of English achievement and global competence among Chinese university students: English learning motivation as the moderator. Learning and Individual Differences. 2020; 77: 101814. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101814

[37]Liyanage I, Bartlett B. Personality types and languages learning strategies: Chameleons changing colours. System. 2013; 41(3): 598–608. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.011

[38]Zohoorian Z. Zeraatpishe M. Willingness to Communicate, Big Five Personality Traits, And Empathy: How Are They Related? Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies. 2022; 2(5). doi: 10.53103/cjess.v2i5.69

[39]Chen X, He J, Swanson E, et al. Big Five Personality Traits and Second Language Learning: a Meta-analysis of 40 Years’ Research. Educational Psychology Review. 2021; 34(2): 851–887. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09641-6

[40]Wang MC, Dai XY, Yao SQ. Development of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory (CBF-Pl) Ill: Psychometric properties of CBF-Pl brief version. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2011; 19, 454–457.

[41]Khajavy GH. L2 motivation and personality as predictors of the second language proficiency: Role of the big five traits and L2 motivational self system. Canadian Social Science. 2011; 7: 148–155, doi: 10.3968/j.css.1923669720110706.030.

[42]Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment. 1992; 4(1): 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

[43]Kaya F, Aydin F, Schepman A, et al. The Roles of Personality Traits, AI Anxiety, and Demographic Factors in Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Human—Computer Interaction. 2022; 40(2): 497–514. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730

[44]Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann Jr WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality. 2003; 37: 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.

[45]Eisinga R, Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health. 2012; 58(4): 637–642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3

[46]Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1): 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

[47]Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock’n’roll, 3rd ed. CA: Sage: Thousand Oaks; 2009.

[48]Yu C, Yao W. Robust linear regression: A review and comparison. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation. 2016; 46(8): 6261–6282. doi: 10.1080/03610918.2016.1202271

[49]Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5): 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

[50]Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, et al. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69(8): 3192–3198. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

[51]Stein JP, Messingschlager T, Gnambs T, et al. Attitudes towards AI: measurement and associations with personality. Scientific Reports. 2024; 14(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53335-2

[52]Xu Z, Parizi RM, Loyola-González O, et al. Cyber Security Intelligence and Analytics. Springer International Publishing; 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69999-4

[53]Csizér K, Albert Á. Gender-Related Differences in the Effects of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Emotions on Autonomous Use of Technology in Second Language Learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2024; 33(4): 819–828. doi: 10.1007/s40299-023-00808-z

[54]Dong TH, Chen S, Tseng WT. The relationship between neuroticism and L2 anxiety: A meta-analysis. System. 2024; 123: 103293. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2024.103293

[55]Abouzeid E, Fouad S, Wasfy N, et al. Influence of Personality Traits and Learning Styles on Undergraduate Medical Students’ Academic Achievement. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2021; 12: 769–777. doi: 10.2147/amep.s314644

[56]Barańczuk U. The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Generalized Self Efficacy. Journal of Individual Differences. 2021; 42(4): 183–193. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000345

Published

2024-09-10

How to Cite

Liu, W., & Wu, H. (2024). Exploring the effect of demographic characteristics and personality traits on attitude toward AI-assisted second language learning among Chinese college students: A multiple regression analysis. Forum for Education Studies, 2(3), 1501. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i3.1501

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2024)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.