“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
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) offers new possibilities for English as a foreign language (EFL) learners to enhance their learning outcomes, provided that they have access to AI applications. However, little is written about the factors that influence their intention to use AI in distributed EFL learning contexts. This mixed-methods study, based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), examined the determinants of behavioral intention to use AI among 464 Chinese EFL college learners. As to quantitative data, a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach using IBM SPSS Amos (Version 24) produced some important findings. First, it was revealed that perceived ease of use significantly and positively predicts perceived usefulness and attitude toward AI. Second, attitude toward AI significantly and positively predicts behavioral intention to use AI. However, contrary to the TAM assumptions, perceived usefulness does not significantly predict either attitude toward AI or behavioral intention to use AI. Third, mediation analyses suggest that perceived ease of use has a significant and positive impact on students’ behavioral intention to use AI through their attitude toward AI, rather than through perceived usefulness. As to qualitative data, semi-structured interviews with 15 learners, analyzed by the software MAXQDA 2022, provide a nuanced understanding of the statistical patterns. This study also discusses the theoretical and pedagogical implications and suggests directions for future research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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