Adoption and impact of AI-enhanced learning platforms in education
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in education is rapidly transforming learning environments, and the adoption of AI-based e-learning platforms (AI-ELP) is gaining momentum. However, understanding the factors influencing AI-ELP adoption is crucial to ensure its effective implementation. This research study aims to extend the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) by incorporating technophobia, technophilia, content quality, and functional quality. By examining the psychological tendencies of users toward technology and the quality aspects of AI-ELP, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the adoption process. Through a quantitative study involving research scholars at IIT Kharagpur, the research will identify key factors influencing the acceptance and use of AI-ELP. The findings will have significant implications for educational practitioners, policymakers, and platform developers, enabling them to tailor strategies that address user concerns, enhance platform quality, and promote successful AI-ELP adoption in educational settings.
References
[1]Lin HC, Ho CF, Yang H. Understanding adoption of artificial intelligence enabled language e-learning system: An empirical study of UTAUT model. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation. 2022; 16(1): 74–94, 2022.
[2]Adu EK, Poo DC. Smart learning: A new paradigm of learning in the smart age. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (TLHE); 3–5 December 2008; Singapore, China.
[3]Cárdenas-Robledo LA, Peña-Ayala A. Ubiquitous learning: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics. 2018; 35(5): 1097–1132.
[4]Huang R, Yang J, Hu Y. From Digitally Smart: The evaluation and trends of learning envirenment. Open Education Research. 2012; 9(1): 75–84.
[5]Hwang GJ, Xie H, Wah BW, Gašević D. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial intelligence. 2020; 1: 1–5.
[6]Cox AM, Pinfield S, Rutter S. The intelligent library: Thought leaders’ views on the likely impact of artificial intelligence on academic libraries. Library Hi Tech. 2019; 37(3): 418–435.
[7]Chatterjee S, Chaudhuri R, Vrontis D, et al. Adoption of artificial intelligence-integrated CRM systems in agile organizations in India. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;168: 120783.
[8]Chatterjee S, Bhattacharjee KK. Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: a quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25(5): 3443–3463.
[9]Martínez-Córcoles M, Teichmann M, Murdvee M. Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technol. Soc. 2017; 51: 83–188, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007
[10]Al-Ammari J, Hamad S. Factors Influencing the Adoption of E-Learning at UOB. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference and Exhibition for Zain E-Learning Center; 1–10 January 2008; Manama, Bahrain.
[11]Kolekar SV, Pai RM, Manohara Pai MM. Adaptive User Interface for Moodle based E-learning System using Learning Styles. Procedia Computer Science. 2018; 135: 606–615.
[12]Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies on JSTOR,” Management Science. 2000; 46(2): 186–204.
[13]Awotunde JB, Ogundokun RO, Ayo FE, et al. UTAUT model: integrating social media for learning purposes among university students in Nigeria. SN Social Sciences. 2021; 1(9): 1–27.
[14]Kinkel S, Baumgartner M, Cherubini E. Prerequisites for the adoption of AI technologies in manufacturing-Evidence from a worldwide sample of manufacturing companies. Technovation. 2022; 110: 102375.
[15]Lee A. How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education. 2008; 33(3): 267–281.
[16]Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R. Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education. 2002; 27(2): 95–111.
[17]Graesser AC, Lu S, Jackson GT, et al. AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 2004; 36(2): 180–192.
[18]Wolf MJ, Miller K, Grodzinsky FS. Why we should have seen that coming? ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 2017; 47(3): 54–64.
[19]Tsai YS, Poquet O, Gašević D, S. et al. Complexity leadership in learning analytics: Drivers, challenges and opportunities. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 50(6): 2839–2854.
[20]Altadona N. Technology Adoption Explained. Available online: https://www.apty.io/blog/technology-adoption-explained (accessed on 25 July 2022).
[21]Nam K, Dutt CS, Chathoth P, et al. The adoption of artificial intelligence and robotics in the hotel industry: prospects and challenges. Electronic Markets. 2021; 31(3): 553–574.
[22]Venkatesh V. Adoption and use of AI tools: a research agenda grounded in UTAUT,” Ann. Oper. Res. 2022; 308(1–2): 641–652.
[23]Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Jeyaraj A, et al. Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model. Information Systems Frontiers. 2019; 21(3): 719–734.
[24]Al-Adwan AS, Yaseen H, Alsoud A, et al. Novel extension of the UTAUT model to understand continued usage intention of learning management systems: the role of learning tradition. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27(3): 3567–3593.
[25]Alasmari T, Zhang K. Mobile learning technology acceptance in Saudi Arabian higher education: an extended framework and A mixed-method study. Education and Information Technologies. 2019; 24(3): 2127–2144.
[26]Khasawneh OK. Technophobia: How Students’ Technophobia Impacts Their Technology Acceptance in an Online Class. Int. J. Hum Comput. Interact. 2022; 39(1).
[27]ROSEN LD, WEIL MM. Adult and Teenage Use of Consumer, Business, and Entertainment Technology: Potholes on the Information Superhighway? Journal of Consumer Affairs. 1995; 29(1): 55–84.
[28]Tekinarslan E. Computer anxiety: A cross-cultural comparative study of Dutch and Turkish university students. Computers in Human Behavior. 2008; 24(4): 1572–1584.
[29]Xi W, Zhang X, Ayalon L. When less intergenerational closeness helps: The influence of intergenerational physical proximity and technology attributes on technophobia among older adults. Computers in Human Behavior. 2022; 131: 107234.
[30]Khasawneh OK. Technophobia without boarders: The influence of technophobia and emotional intelligence on technology acceptance and the moderating influence of organizational climate. Comput. Human Behav. 2018b; 88: 210–218.
[31]Khasawneh OY. Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it. Technol. Soc. 2018; 54: 93–100.
[32]Barrientos-Gutierrez I, Lozano P, Arillo-Santillan E, et al. Technophilia: A new risk factor for electronic cigarette use among early adolescents? Addictive Behaviors. 2028; 91: 193–200.
[33]Anderson M. Humanization in the Digital Age: A Critique of Technophilia in Education. Educational Policy Studies Dissertations. 2018.
[34]Hannan A, Hussain A, Tab MA. Towards a more general theory of blockchain technology adoption–Investigating the role of mass media, social media and technophilia. Technol. Soc. 2023; 73: 102225.
[35]Osiceanu ME. Psychological Implications of Modern Technologies: Technofobia versus Technophilia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014; 180: 1137–1144.
[36]Coulthard D, Keller S. Technophilia, neo-Luddism, Dependency and the judgement of Thamus. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. 2012; 10(4): 262–272.
[37]Ronit P. Technophilia: A New Model for Technology Adoption. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of UK Academy of Information Systems (UKAIS); 11–13 April 2011; Oxford, UK.
[38]Papp R. Critical Success Factors for Distance Learning. In: Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS); 10–13 August 2000; Long Beach, California. pp. 1858–1861.
[39]Lee YC. An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review. 2006; 30(5), 517–541.
[40]Fan W, Liu J, Zhu S, Pardalos PM. Investigating the impacting factors for the healthcare professionals to adopt artificial intelligence-based medical diagnosis support system (AIMDSS). Annals of Operations Research. 2020; 294(1–2): 567–592.
[41]Rahi S, Khan MM, Alghizzawi M. Extension of technology continuance theory (TCT) with task technology fit (TTF) in the context of Internet banking user continuance intention. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 2021; 38(4): 986–1004.
[42]Tam C, Oliveira T. Performance impact of mobile banking: using the task-technology fit (TTF) approach. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2016; 34(4): 434–457.
[43]Al-Kofahi MK, Hassan H, Mohamad R. Information systems success model: A review of literature. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. 2020; 12(10): 104–128.
[44]DeLone W, McLean ER. Information systems success revisited. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 10 January 2002; Big Island, HI, USA. pp. 2966–2976.
[45]Sweller J. Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation-Advances in Research and Theory. 2011; 55: 37–76.
[46]Wigfield A, Eccle JS. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25(1): 68–81.
[47]Bandura A. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology. 2002; 51(2): 269–290.
[48]Baptista G, Oliveira T. Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 50: 418–430.
[49]Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. 2012; 36(1): 157–178.
[50]Peng H, Ma S, Spector JM. Personalized Adaptive Learning: An Emerging Pedagogical Approach Enabled by a Smart Learning Environment. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. 2019; 171–176.
[51]Meyer-Waarden L, Cloarec J. Baby, you can drive my car: Psychological antecedents that drive consumers’ adoption of AI-powered autonomous vehicles. Technovation. 2022; 109: 102348.
[52]Gao L, Bai X. A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2014; 26(2): 211–231.
[53]Chen X, Xie H, Zou D, Hwang GJ. Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial intelligence. 2020; 1: 100002.
[54]Chatterjee S, Ghosh SK, Chaudhuri R, Nguyen B. Are CRM systems ready for AI integration? A conceptual framework of organizational readiness for effective AI-RM integration. Bottom Line. 2019; 32(2): 144–157.
[55]Lam Y. Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review. 2020; 56(3), 389–420.
[56]Saltman KJ. Corporate schooling meets corporate media: Standards, testing, and technophilia. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies. 2016; 38(2): 105–123.
[57]Seebauer S, Stolz R, Berger M. Technophilia as a driver for using advanced traveler information systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2015; 60: 498–510.
[58]Brosnan MJ. Modeling technophobia: A case for word processing. Computers in Human Behavior. 1999; 15(2): 105–121.
[59]Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research. 1991; 2(3): 192–222.
[60]Galiveeti S, Tawalbeh L, Tawalbeh M, et al. Cybersecurity Analysis: Investigating the Data Integrity and Privacy in AWS and Azure Cloud Platforms. Journal of Studies in Big Data artificial intelligence and Blockchain for Future Cybersecurity Applications. 2021; 90: 329–360.
[61]Khasawneh O. Technical Knowledge and Ability Expectation Verses Reality the Dunning-Technical Knowledge and Ability: Expectation Verses Reality the Dunning-Kruger Effect. International Journal of Business Management and Commerce. 2020; 5(2): 21–29.
[62]Coppola A, Verneau F. An empirical analysis on technophobia/technophilia in consumer market segmentation. Agricultural and Food Economics. 2014; 2(1): 1–16.
[63]Koul S, Eydgahi A. The impact of social influence, technophobia, and perceived safety on autonomous vehicle technology adoption. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering. 2020; 48(2): 133–142.
[64]McClure PK. You’re Fired, Says the Robot: The Rise of Automation in the Workplace, Technophobes, and Fears of Unemployment. Social Science Computer Review. 2018; 36(2): 139–156.
[65]Soper SD. A-priori Sample Size Calculator for Structural Equation Models. Available online: https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc (accessed on 2 June 2024).
[66]Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge Publishing; 1987.
[67]Christopher Westland J. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2010; 9(6): 476–487.
[68]Hair J, Hollingsworth JC, Randolph AB, Chong AYL. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems. 2017; 117(3): 442–458.
[69]Fornell C, Larcker FD. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(1): 39–50.
[70]Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 2019; 31(1): 2–24.
[71]Kock N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration. 2015; 11(4): 1–10.
[72]Falk RF, Miller NB. A Primer for Soft Modeling. The University of Akron Press; 1992.
[73]Stone M. Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions (With Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1976; 38(1): 102–102.
[74]Henseler J, Dijkstra TK, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, et al. Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organizational Research Methods. 2014; 17(2): 182–209.
[75]Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods. 1998; 3(4): 424–453.
[76]Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology. 2008; 49(3): 182–185.
[77]Oliver RL. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research. 1980; 17(4): 460–469.
[78]Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13(3): 319–339.
[79]Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev. 1973; 80(4): 237–251.
Copyright (c) 2025 Sougato Das, Smita Poi, Shubham Saxena
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
