The relationship between students’ self-regulated learning skills and technology acceptance of GenAI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has quickly become prolific in our daily lives, including the higher education sector. Although an AI-fuelled world is unpredictable, there is an urgent need to understand how university students use GenAI to support their learning and the factors influencing GenAI adoption. In this study, underpinned by self-regulated learning (SRL) theory and the technology acceptance model, we examined how university students’ adoption of GenAI is influenced by their SRL skills. Given the importance of SRL skills on students’ selection of study strategies, we hypothesised that SRL constructs would have a strong association with their adoption of GenAI. To explore this, we conducted an international survey-based study of 435 students from two universities in Australia and Canada to capture students’ use of GenAI within the first year of its wider adoption. Our findings reveal that SRL constructs of self-efficacy and social support predict the perceived ease of use of GenAI. Intrinsic motivation and effort regulation also predicted the perceived usefulness of GenAI, with a stronger association for students using GenAI for university learning than those who used it for non-academic purposes such as work or personal use. We discuss implications of our findings for educators. Implications for practice or policy: University teachers should demonstrate and model GenAI use that fosters SRL skill development, such as self-efficacy, social support, intrinsic motivation and effort regulation. University administrators should prioritise academic development to equip instructors with skills for fostering SRL with GenAI tools. The institution should provide guidance on GenAI tool usage and SRL strategies through social support strategies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".