Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Students’ Behavioral Intentions and Attitudes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has undergone considerable advancement in the contemporary period and represents an emerging technology in higher education. Cultural contexts significantly shape individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors, particularly in the realm of technology acceptance. By adopting a cross-cultural lens, this research explores the potential variations across Chinese and international students from diverse countries in terms of attitudes and their behavioral intentions toward AI use. With a technology acceptance model (TAM) framework, the research used a survey approach, employing questionnaires as the primary means of data collection. The data were then analyzed through structural equation modeling and descriptive statistics. A substantial discrepancy was found in the prevalence, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward AI use between Chinese and international students. Findings further revealed a stronger effect of perceived ease of use on both attitudes and behavioral intentions among international students compared with their Chinese counterparts. Findings suggest that cultural backgrounds and prior technological exposure play intricate roles in shaping perceptions of AI technology. The study emphasizes the need for tailored educational strategies to regulate diverse cultural perspectives, provide language-specific support, and ensure user-friendly interfaces. These insights contribute to the evolving discourse on technology acceptance in higher education and offer practical implications for educators and institutions toward optimizing AI integration in pedagogical practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it