MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417421985 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.9.001

The impact of attitude toward artificial intelligence on teaching satisfaction: The mediating role of teachers’ self-efficacy of teaching innovation skills among chinese faculty in Thai universities

2025· article· en· W4417421985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sen Xie, Haiying Zhang, Dong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingMediationReliability (semiconductor)Robustness (evolution)Higher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the expansion of Sino–Thai higher education cooperation, many Chinese faculty members are teaching in Thai universities. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into teaching offers opportunities for innovation but also presents challenges, especially in cross-cultural contexts. Understanding how Attitude toward Artificial Intelligence (AIA) influence Teaching Satisfaction (TS) through Teachers’ Self-Efficacy of Teaching Innovation Skills (TISE) is therefore essential. This study surveyed 475 Chinese faculty in Thai universities to examine the relationships among AIA, TISE, and TS. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to assess the proposed mediation model, in which AIA was hypothesized to exert an indirect effect on TS via TISE. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted to ensure the robustness of the measurement instruments. Findings show that AIA has a weak but significant direct effect on TS (β = 0.084, p < .05), but a much stronger total effect (β = 0.441, p < .001). AIA significantly predicts TISE (β = 0.573, p < .001), and TISE strongly predicts TS (β = 0.658, p < .001). Mediation analysis indicates that TISE accounts for 81.6% of the total effect of AIA on TS, confirming a dominant partial mediation. The model demonstrates good fit indices (χ²/df = 3.959, RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.936, SRMR = 0.042). Investigation of AI adoption among cross-cultural faculty represents the key contribution of this study to the literature, validating the TISE scale, and extending theoretical perspectives on faculty development. Practical recommendations include strengthening AI-related training, establishing institutional support mechanisms, and refining faculty evaluation to improve teaching satisfaction and facilitate the intelligent transformation of higher education in Thailand.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207