Abstract

In the context of the widespread integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology into education, this study aims to understand the factors influencing Vietnamese mathematics teachers' adoption of ChatGPT in secondary school teaching. Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model, the study uses a quantitative approach with data collected from 490 teachers. It applied the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling to examine factors influencing this adoption. The results indicate that Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Social Influence (SI), and Perceived Trust (PT) significantly affect teachers' Behavioral Intention (BI) to incorporate ChatGPT into their instruction. The study also examines the influence of moderator variables, such as geographic location and gender. While PE, SI, and PT significantly impact BI, no statistically significant differences were found between urban and rural teachers. In contrast, gender differences emerged: PE had a more substantial effect on females, SI influenced males and females differently, PT was significant only for males, and EE impacted only females. Most of these results align with existing research on AI adoption in education. To implement ChatGPT effectively, the study introduces a structured training program aimed at helping teachers integrate ChatGPT into their classrooms. Despite its theoretical and practical contributions, this study has certain limitations and suggests directions for future research. Further studies could incorporate qualitative methods to gain deeper insights, employ random sampling techniques with more extensive and diverse samples to enhance generalizability and explore additional constructs within the theoretical model to provide a more comprehensive understanding of AI adoption in education.  

Keywords

References

• Acquah, B. Y. S., Arthur, F., Salifu, I., Quayson, E., & Nortey, S. A. (2024). Pre-service teachers' behavioural intention to use artificial intelligence in lesson planning: A dual-staged PLS-SEM-ANN approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100307
• Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7
• Anderson, S. S. (2023). “Places to stand”: Multiple metaphors for framing ChatGPT’s corpus. Computers and Composition, 68, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102778
• Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
• Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023). Time to revisit existing student’s performance evaluation approach in higher education sector in a new era of ChatGPT — A Case Study. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2210461. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2210461
• Chaudhry, M. A., & Kazim, E. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in education (AIEd): A high-level academic and industry note 2021. AI and Ethics, 2(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00074-z
• Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares (pp. 655–690). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8
• Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092
• DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Habibi, A., Muhaimin, M., Danibao, B. K., Wibowo, Y. G., Wahyuni, S., & Octavia, A. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education learning: Acceptance and use. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100190
• Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Octavia, A., Wahyuni, S., Danibao, B. K., & Wibowo, Y. G. (2024). ChatGPT acceptance and use through UTAUT and TPB: A big survey in five Indonesian Universities. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101136
• Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
• Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903439003
• Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277–319). Emerald.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
• Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3(2), 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115
• Kabudi, T., Pappas, I., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017
• Kelly, S., Kaye, S.-A., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2023). What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 77, 101925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
• Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100156
• Lai, C. Y., Cheung, K. Y., Chan, C. S., & Law, K. K. (2024). Integrating the adapted UTAUT model with moral obligation, trust and perceived risk to predict ChatGPT adoption for assessment support: A survey with students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100246
• Lo, C. K. (2023). what is the impact of ChatGPT on education? a rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
• Lozano, A., & Fontao, C. B. (2023). Is the education system prepared for the irruption of artificial intelligence? a study on the perceptions of students of primary education degree from a dual perspective: current pupils and future teachers. Education Sciences, 13(7), 733. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070733
• Menon, D., & Shilpa, K. (2023). “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users’ intention to Use the Open AI’s ChatGPT using the UTAUT model. Heliyon, 9(11), e20962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20962
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
• Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & V. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior: Theory, Research and Practice (5th Edition, pp. 95–124). John Wiley & Sons.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. In J. C. Nunnally (Ed.), Psychometric Theory (Vol. 3, pp. 248–292). McGraw-Hill.
• Qian, Y., Li, C., Zou, X., Feng, X., Xiao, M., & Ding, Y. (2022). Research on predicting learning achievement in a flipped classroom based on MOOCs by big data analysis. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(1), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22452
• Rahim, N. I. M., Iahad, N. A., Yusof, A. F., & Al-Sharafi, M. A. (2022). AI-based chatbots adoption model for higher-education institutions: A hybrid PLS-SEM-Neural network modelling Approach. Sustainability, 14(19), 12726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912726
• Siegle, D. (2023). A Role for ChatGPT and AI in Gifted Education. Gifted Child Today, 46(3), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231168443
• Tran, K., & Nguyen, T. (2021). Preliminary research on the social attitudes toward AI’s involvement in christian education in vietnam: promoting ai technology for religious education. Religions, 12(3), 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12030208
• UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Author. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
• Valle, N. N., Kilat, R. V., Lim, J., General, E., Dela Cruz, J., Colina, S. J., Batican, I., & Valle, L. (2024). Modeling learners’ behavioral intention toward using artificial intelligence in education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101167
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
• Vietnamese Ministry of Information and Communications (2023). White book Vietnam information and communication technology. Author.
• Walczak, K., & Cellary, W. (2023). Challenges for higher education in the era of widespread access to Generative AI. Economics and Business Review, 9(2), 71–100. https://dnceoi.ornceg/10.18559/ebr.20nce23.2.743

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.