Advertisement

Measuring Students’ Acceptance to AI-Driven Assessment in eLearning: Proposing a First TAM-Based Research Model

  • Juan Cruz-BenitoEmail author
  • José Carlos Sánchez-Prieto
  • Roberto Therón
  • Francisco J. García-Peñalvo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11590)

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence is one of the trend areas in research. It is applied in many different contexts successfully. One of the contexts where Artificial Intelligence is applied is in Education. In the literature, we find several works in the last years that explore the application of Artificial Intelligence-related techniques to analyze students’ behavior, to enable virtual tutors or to assess the learning. However, what are the students’ perceptions on this subject of Artificial Intelligence and Education? Do they accept the use of Artificial Intelligence techniques to assess their learning? Are they reluctant to be influenced by non-human agents in such a human process like education? To try to respond to these questions, this paper presents a novel proposal of a research model based on the Technology Acceptance Model. To describe the model, we present its different main constructs and variables, as well as the hypotheses to analyze, adapted to the object of study. Finally, we discuss the main implications of this research model, the opportunities that could come based on this proposal and the future of this research.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Technology acceptance model Education eLearning Students 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank to the GRIAL Research Group of the University of Salamanca and to the ETX team at the IBM Research AI & Q division the support received during this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Cruz-Benito, J., Vázquez-Ingelmo, A., Sánchez-Prieto, J.C., Therón, R., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Martín-González, M.: Enabling adaptability in web forms based on user characteristics detection through A/B testing and machine learning. IEEE Access 6, 2251–2265 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruz-Benito, J., Faro, I., Martín-Fernández, F., Therón, R., García-Peñalvo, Francisco J.: A deep-learning-based proposal to aid users in quantum computing programming. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10925, pp. 421–430. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91152-6_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education Ltd., Malaysia (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shahin, M.A.: State-of-the-art review of some artificial intelligence applications in pile foundations. Geosci. Front. 7, 33–44 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zang, Y., Zhang, F., Di, C.-A., Zhu, D.: Advances of flexible pressure sensors toward artificial intelligence and health care applications. Mater. Horiz. 2, 140–156 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vasant, P., DeMarco, A.: Handbook of research on artificial intelligence techniques and algorithms. Information Science Reference (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dilek, S., Çakır, H., Aydın, M.: Applications of artificial intelligence techniques to combating cyber crimes: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03552 (2015)
  8. 8.
    Papers With Code: Browse state-of-the-art in machine learning. https://paperswithcode.com/sota. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  9. 9.
    Byrne, E.: From ethics to accountability, this is how AI will suck less in 2019. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/artificial-intelligence-2019-predictions. Accessed 5 Jan 2019
  10. 10.
    Knight, W.: One of the fathers of AI is worried about its future. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612434/one-of-the-fathers-of-ai-is-worried-about-its-future/. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  11. 11.
    Hao, K.: Americans want to regulate AI but don’t trust anyone to do it. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612734/americans-want-to-regulate-ai-but-dont-trust-anyone-to-do-it/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  12. 12.
    Rodríguez, M.C., et al.: Learning analytics trends and challenges in engineering education: SNOLA special session. In: 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 2066–2070 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zollanvari, A., Kizilirmak, R.C., Kho, Y.H., Hernández-Torrano, D.: Predicting students’ GPA and developing intervention strategies based on self-regulatory learning behaviors. IEEE Access 5, 23792–23802 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colchester, K., Hagras, H., Alghazzawi, D., Aldabbagh, G.: A survey of artificial intelligence techniques employed for adaptive educational systems within e-learning platforms. J. Artif. Intell. Soft Comput. Res. 7, 47–64 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Timms, M.J.: Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: educational cobots and smart classrooms. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 701–712 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wenger, E.: Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems: Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holland, S.: Artificial intelligence, education and music: the use of artificial intelligence to encourage and facilitate music composition by novices (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McArthur, D., Lewis, M., Bishary, M.: The roles of artificial intelligence in education: current progress and future prospects. J. Educ. Technol. 1, 42–80 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Self, J.: Artificial Intelligence and Human Learning: Intelligent Computer-Aided Instruction. Chapman and Hall, London (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brusilovsky, P., Peylo, C.: Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. (IJAIED) 13, 159–172 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jordan, M.I., Mitchell, T.M.: Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 349, 255–260 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roll, I., Wylie, R.: Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 582–599 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mikulecký, P.: Smart environments for smart learning. In: 9th International Scientific Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics, pp. 213–222. Constantine Philosophe Univ Nitra, (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCusker, K., Callaghan, M., Harkin, J., Wilson, S.: Intelligent assessment and learner personalisation in virtual 3D immersive environments. In: European Conference on Games Based Learning, p. 591. Academic Conferences International Limited (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLaren, B.M., DeLeeuw, K.E., Mayer, R.E.: Polite web-based intelligent tutors: can they improve learning in classrooms? Comput. Educ. 56, 574–584 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cheung, B., Hui, L., Zhang, J., Yiu, S.M.: SmartTutor: an intelligent tutoring system in web-based adult education. J. Syst. Softw. 68, 11–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Human-robot interaction: status and challenges. Hum. Factors 58, 525–532 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vendlinski, T., Stevens, R.: The use of artificial neural nets (ANN) to help evaluate student problem solving strategies. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp. 108–114. Erlbaum (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wei, Y., Yang, Q., Chen, J., Hu, J.: The exploration of a machine learning approach for the assessment of learning styles changes. Mechatron. Syst. Control 46, 121–126 (2018)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    García, P., Schiaffino, S., Amandi, A.: An enhanced Bayesian model to detect students’ learning styles in web-based courses. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 24, 305–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moridis, C.N., Economides, A.A.: Prediction of student’s mood during an online test using formula-based and neural network-based method. Comput. Educ. 53, 644–652 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chin, D.B., Dohmen, I.M., Cheng, B.H., Oppezzo, M.A., Chase, C.C., Schwartz, D.L.: Preparing students for future learning with teachable agents. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 58, 649–669 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nwana, H.S.: Intelligent tutoring systems: an overview. Artif. Intell. Rev. 4, 251–277 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chou, C.-Y., Chan, T.-W., Lin, C.-J.: Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents. Comput. Educ. 40, 255–269 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xu, D., Wang, H.: Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments. Decis. Support Syst. 42, 825–843 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuehn, M., Estad, J., Straub, J., Stokke, T., Kerlin, S.: An expert system for the prediction of student performance in an initial computer science course. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT), pp. 1–6 (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Samarakou, M., Fylladitakis, E.D., Prentakis, P., Athineos, S.: Implementation of artificial intelligence assessment in engineering laboratory education. In: International Conference on e-Learning part of Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (MCCSIS). International Association for Development of the Information Society, Lisbon, Portugal (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stantchev, V., Prieto-González, L., Tamm, G.: Cloud computing service for knowledge assessment and studies recommendation in crowdsourcing and collaborative learning environments based on social network analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 762–770 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gokmen, G., Akinci, T.Ç., Tektaş, M., Onat, N., Kocyigit, G., Tektaş, N.: Evaluation of student performance in laboratory applications using fuzzy logic. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 2, 902–909 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., Tondeur, J.: The technology acceptance model (TAM): a meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Comput. Educ. 128, 13–35 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Al-Shihi, H., Sharma, S.K., Sarrab, M.: Neural network approach to predict mobile learning acceptance. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 1805–1824 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cascales, A., Pérez-López, D., Contero, M.: Study on parent’s acceptance of the augmented reality use for preschool education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 25, 420–427 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gros, B.: The dialogue between emerging pedagogies and emerging technologies. In: Gros, B., Kinshuk, Maina, M., et al. (eds.) The Future of Ubiquitous Learning: Learning Designs for Emerging Pedagogies. LNET, pp. 3–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Halili, S.H., Sulaiman, H.: Factors influencing the rural students’ acceptance of using ICT for educational purposes. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R.L.: Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q. 19, 213–236 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Khan, I.U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., Khan, S.U.: Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and self-determination theory. Telematics Inform. 35, 964–978 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ajzen, I.: From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J. (eds.) Action Control. SSSSP, pp. 11–39. Springer, Heidelberg (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhou, M.: Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: a self-determination perspective. Comput. Educ. 92–93, 194–203 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    King, W.R., He, J.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 740–755 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hernández García, Á.: Desarrollo de un modelo unificado de adopción del comercio electrónico entre empresas y consumidores finales. Aplicación al mercado español. Ingenieria_Empresas, p. 422. Telecomunicacion (2012)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P.: Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manage. 40, 191–204 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39, 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Teo, T., Zhou, M., Fan, A.C.W., Huang, F.: Factors that influence university students’ intention to use Moodle: a study in Macau. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 67, 749–766 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moorthy, K., et al.: Is Facebook useful for learning? A study in private universities in Malaysia. Comput. Educ. 130, 94–104 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Abdul Rabu, S.N., Hussin, H., Bervell, B.: QR code utilization in a large classroom: higher education students’ initial perceptions. Educ. Inf. Technol. 24, 359–384 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sánchez-Prieto, J.C., Hernández-García, Á., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Chaparro-Peláez, J., Olmos-Migueláñez, S.: Break the walls! second-order barriers and the acceptance of mLearning by first-year pre-service teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 95, 158–167 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Guo, X., Sun, Y., Wang, N., Peng, Z., Yan, Z.: The dark side of elderly acceptance of preventive mobile health services in China. Electron. Markets 23, 49–61 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cenfetelli, R.T.: Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 5, 16 (2004)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bhattacherjee, A., Hikmet, N.: Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 16, 725–737 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shao, Z., Zhang, L., Li, X., Guo, Y.: Antecedents of trust and continuance intention in mobile payment platforms: the moderating effect of gender. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 33, 100823 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., Torres, E.: How bricks-and-mortar attributes affect online banking adoption. Int. J. Bank Mark. 24, 406–423 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X., Lin, R., Zhang, W.: The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 98, 207–220 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sharma, S.K., Sharma, M.: Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in the actual usage of mobile banking services: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 44, 65–75 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Warkentin, M., Sharma, S., Gefen, D., Rose, G.M., Pavlou, P.: Social identity and trust in internet-based voting adoption. Gov. Inf. Q. 35, 195–209 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM Research, AI & Q. T. J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA
  2. 2.GRIAL Research GroupUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  4. 4.Research Institute for Educational Sciences (IUCE)University of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  5. 5.VISUSAL Research GroupUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations