Faculty Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence in a Canadian Higher Education Institution
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
The landscape of higher education (HE) continues to change rapidly with the incorporation of new artificial intelligence (AI) applications like generative artificial intelligence (genAI). These transformations can be attributed to the ubiquity, efficacy, and quality of genAI applications. GenAI will necessitate the need for HE instructors to adapt and use these technologies to sustain and enhance student learning. This paper reports quantitative findings influencing instructors’ intentions to adopt genAI into their pedagogies. The Artificial Intelligence Acceptance Measurement Survey (AIAMS) was developed and adapted from the revised Technology Acceptance Model Survey-2 (TAMS-2) that incorporates the main constructs from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The survey was administered to a sample of instructors from different programs working in a large Canadian urban polytechnic institution (n=87). Multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify the main determinants influencing instructors’ intention to adopt genAI in their teaching. Statistical findings reveal that instructors’ attitudes toward genAI were the only significant factor influencing their intent to adopt it in their teaching practices. It is crucial for those in HE to understand the factors that influence instructors’ intentions to integrate genAI into their teaching practices to support and realize its successful adoption. This understanding is also key for leveraging the full potential and capabilities of genAI to enhance educational outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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