EDUCATORS’ ACCEPTANCE OF AI-ENABLED TEACHING METHODS IN CHINESE HIGHER EDUCATION: EXTENDING UTAUT WITH PERCEIVED RISK AND DEMOGRAPHIC MODERATORS

Authors

  • Tian Yuan College of Applied Science and Technology, Beijing Union University, Beijing 100020, China.
  • Yue Wang College of Applied Arts and Science, Beijing Union University, Beijing 100020, China.
  • BaoDong Cheng (Corresponding Author) College of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China.

Keywords:

AI-enabled teaching methods, Educator adoption, Structural equation modeling

Abstract

This study examines educators’ behavioral intention to adopt AI-enabled teaching methods in China using an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework that incorporates perceived risk. Survey data were collected from 312 higher-education teachers and analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling, followed by multi-group comparisons across gender, age, educational background, and teaching experience. The results indicate that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions significantly and positively predict educators’ intention to adopt AI-enabled teaching methods, whereas perceived risk exerts a significant negative effect. The proposed model explains 63.7% of the variance in behavioral intention. Multi-group analyses further suggest that age, educational background, and teaching experience moderate several relationships in the model, while gender does not show statistically significant moderation. These findings highlight the importance of demonstrating pedagogical value and reducing implementation barriers through institutional infrastructure, technical support, and targeted professional development, alongside transparent governance mechanisms for privacy, ethics, and data protection to mitigate risk perceptions. This study contributes to the AI-in-education adoption literature by validating an extended UTAUT model in a higher-education context and offers actionable implications for universities and policymakers aiming to promote responsible and scalable integration of AI into teaching practices.

References

[1] Chen R, Lee V R, G Lee M. A cross-sectional look at teacher reactions, worries, and professional development needs related to generative AI in an urban school district. Education and Information Technologies, 2025: 1-38. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-025-13350-w.

[2] Chassignol M, Khoroshavin A, Klimova A, et al. Artificial Intelligence trends in education: a narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 2018, 136: 16-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233.

[3] Roll I, Wylie R. Evolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2016, 26: 582-599. DOI: 10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3.

[4] Sanusi I T, Agbo F J, Dada O A, et al. Stakeholders’ insights on artificial intelligence education: Perspectives of teachers, students, and policymakers. Computers and Education Open, 2024, 7: 100212. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100212.

[5] Hwang G J, Xie H, Wah B W, et al. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 1: 100001. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001.

[6] Park J, Teo T W, Teo A. Integrating artificial intelligence into science lessons: Teachers’ experiences and views. International Journal of STEM Education, 2023, 10: 61. DOI: 10.1186/s40594-023-00454-3.

[7] Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 2007, 77: 81-112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487.

[8] Baker T, Smith L, Anissa N. Educ-AI-tion rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. 2019. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Future_of_AI_and_education_v5_WEB.pdf.

[9] Shamsuddinova S, Heryani P, Naval M A. Evolution: Critical exploration of educators’ perceptions of the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the teaching and learning process in the GCC region. International Journal of Educational Research, 2024, 125: 102326. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102326.

[10] Siemens G, Long P. Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 2011, 46: 30. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ950794.

[11] Yao N, Wang Q. Factors influencing pre-service special education teachers’ intention toward AI in education: Digital literacy, teacher self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness. Heliyon, 2024, 10: e34894. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34894.

[12] Venkatesh V, Morris M G, Davis G B, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 2003, 27: 425-478. DOI: 10.2307/30036540.

[13] Dwivedi Y K, Rana N P, 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: 719-734. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y.

[14] Venkatesh V, Thong J Y, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 2012, 36: 157-178. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-020-10007-6.

[15] Williams M D, Rana N P, Dwivedi Y K. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2015, 28: 443-488. DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088.

[16] Raman A, Don Y. Preservice teachers' acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies, 2013, 6: 157-164. DOI: 10.5539/IES.V6N7P157.

[17] Teo T, Huang F, Hoi C K W. Explicating the influences that explain intention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning Environments, 2018, 26: 460-475. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2017.1341940.

[18] Šumak B, Šorgo A. The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: Differences in UTAUT determinants between pre-and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, 64: 602-620. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037.

[19] Alalwan A A, Dwivedi Y K, Rana N P, et al. Consumer adoption of mobile banking in Jordan: Examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk and self-efficacy. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2016, 29: 118-139. DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-04-2015-0035.

[20] Magsamen-Conrad K, Upadhyaya S, Joa C Y, et al. Bridging the divide: Using UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 50: 186-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.032.

[21] Kong S C, Yang Y, Hou C. Examining teachers’ behavioural intention of using generative artificial intelligence tools for teaching and learning based on the extended technology acceptance model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2024, 7: 100328. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100328.

[22] Featherman M S, Pavlou P A. Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2003, 59: 451-474. DOI: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3.

[23] Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Lee J Y, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88: 879. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-10

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 9 (2026)

Section

Research Article

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61784/wjes3193

How to Cite

Tian Yuan, Yue Wang, BaoDong Cheng. Educators’ Acceptance Of Ai-Enabled Teaching Methods In Chinese Higher Education: Extending Utaut With Perceived Risk And Demographic Moderators. World Journal of Educational Studies. 2026, 4(9): 34-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wjes3193.