Technological advancements such as virtual teaching assistants, online courses, AI-powered learning platforms and interactive robotic teaching systems are transforming the educational landscape. These developments raise important questions regarding learners’ attitudes towards technology-driven self-learning (ATSL) and the anxiety associated with AI. While qualitative research has explored these attitudes, concerns regarding overreliance on AI and its long-term implications on traditional education systems persist. This study examines postgraduate management students’ perspectives on AI technologies’ learning environments, with a specific focus on four constructs: ATSL, AI anxiety related to learning (AIA), perceived usefulness of technology (PUT) and paradox mindset (PM). Data collected from 262 students through a structured questionnaire were analysed using IBM SPSS 23 and PROCESS macro. Findings suggest that a PM positively influences ATSL, with PUT partially mediating this relationship. However, AI anxiety moderates the connection, amplifying the positive effects of a PM when anxiety levels are high. These insights are especially relevant for educators, policymakers and developers, emphasizing the need for guidance and support to address AI-related apprehensions while promoting a positive attitudes towards technological innovations.
AghionP., JonesB. F., & JonesC. I. (2019). Artificial intelligence and economic growth. In AgrawalA., GansJ., & GoldfarbA. (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 237–282). University of Chicago Press.
2.
AlahmariF., NaimA., & AlqahtaniH. (2023). E-learning modeling technique and convolution neural networks in online education. In NavedM., DeviV. A., GaurL., & ElngarA. A. (Eds.), IoT-enabled convolutional neural networks: Techniques and applications (pp. 261–295). River Publishers.
3.
Al-MamaryY. H. S. (2022). Why do students adopt and use learning management systems? Insights from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2), 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100088
4.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2001). The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training and learning. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 327–350.
5.
ArifM., BasriA., MelibariG., SindiT., AlghamdiN., & AltalhiN. (2020). Classification of anxiety disorders using machine learning methods: A literature review. Insights in Biomedical Research, 4(1), 95–110.
6.
ArumugamR. (2011). University management information system (UMIS) acceptance among university students: Applying the extended technology acceptance model (ETAM). Journal of Studies in Education. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v1i1.990
7.
BeachP. (2017). Self-directed online learning: A theoretical model for understanding elementary teachers’ online learning experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.007
8.
BewersdorffA., ZhaiX., RobertsJ., & NerdelC. (2023). Myths, mis- and preconceptions of artificial intelligence: A review of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100143.
9.
BhutoriaA. (2022). Personalized education and artificial intelligence in the United States, China, and India: A systematic review using a human-in-the-loop model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100068.
10.
BrookfieldS. D. (2009). Self-directed learning. In MacleanR. & WilsonD. (Eds.), International handbook of education for the changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational learning (pp. 2615–2627). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5281-1_172
11.
BrowneM. W., & CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A. & LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage Publications.
12.
CampbellD. T., & FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
13.
ChenC. C., LiuC. C., ChiuT. H., LeeY. W., & WuK. C. (2023). Role of perceived ease of use for augmented reality app designed to help children navigate smart libraries. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(13), 2606–2623.
14.
ChowT. S., & ToK. (2025). Mindsets matter: A mediation analysis of the role of a technological growth mindset in generative artificial intelligence usage in higher education. Education Sciences, 15(3), 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030310
15.
CiharovaM., AmartiK., van BredaW., PengX., Lorente-CatalàR., FunkB., & RiperH. (2024). Use of machine-learning algorithms based on text, audio, and video data in the prediction of anxiety and post-traumatic stress in general and clinical populations: A systematic review. Biological Psychiatry, 96(7), 519–531.
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge Academic. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
17.
ColbrookM., AntunV., & HansenA. (2022). Mathematical paradoxes unearth the boundaries of AI. The Science Breaker, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.25250/thescbr.brk652
18.
CompeauD. R., & HigginsC. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
19.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
20.
DavisF. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
21.
DavisF. D., BagozziR. P., & WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
22.
DelelloJ. A., SungW., MokhtariK., HebertJ., BronsonA., & De GiuseppeT. (2025). AI in the classroom: Insights from educators on usage, challenges, and mental health. Education Sciences, 15(2), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020113
23.
DweckC. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
24.
EmeteT., GülsümA., & LütfiS. (2024). Refreshment students’ perceived usefulness and attitudes towards using technology: A moderated mediation model. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02839-3
25.
FisherM., KingJ., & TagueG. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21(7), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0589
26.
FlaviánC., Pérez-RuedaA., BelancheD., & CasalóL. V. (2022). Intention to use analytical artificial intelligence (AI) in services: The effect of technology readiness and awareness. Journal of Service Management, 33(2), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0378
27.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
28.
GibbonsM. (2002). The self-directed learning handbook: Challenging adolescent students to excel. Jossey-Bass.
29.
HairJ. F., BabinB. J., AndersonR. E., & BlackW. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice.
30.
HairJ. F., GabrielM., & PatelV. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, 13(2), 44–55.
31.
Hair JrJ. F., HowardM. C., & NitzlC. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110.
32.
HärtelC. E., & KrzeminskaA. (2024). Paradox theory. In HutchingsK., MichailovaS., & WilkinsonA. (Eds.), A guide to key theories for human resource management research (pp. 185–190). Edward Elgar Publishing.
33.
HashimR., AhmadH., & AbdullahC. Z. (2010, October). Paradox of e-learning for distance education students at UiTM Shah Alam. In 2010 4th International Conference on Distance Learning and Education (pp. 105–107). IEEE.
34.
HauptmanA. I., SchelbleB. G., McNeeseN. J., & MadathilK. C. (2023). Adapt and overcome: Perceptions of adaptive autonomous agents for human-AI teaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107451.
35.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
36.
HuL. T., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
37.
IsmailaT. S., SanusiM. A., & ChiuT. (2023). Investigating the moderating effects of social good and confidence on teachers’ intention to prepare school students for artificial intelligence education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12250-1
38.
JinS. H., ImK., YooM., RollI., & SeoK. (2023). Supporting students’ self-regulated learning in online learning using artificial intelligence applications. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 37.
39.
JohnsonD., & VerdicchioM. (2017). AI anxiety. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2267–2270. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23867
40.
JunY. (2021). Effects of the PM on work engagement: The mediating role of seeking challenges and individual unlearning. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01597-8
41.
KizilcecR. F. (2024). To advance AI use in education, focus on understanding educators. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34(1), 12–19.
42.
KleinS. P., SpiethP., & SöllnerM. (2024). Employee acceptance of digital transformation strategies: A paradox perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41(5), 999–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12722
43.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
44.
LaiT., ZengX., XuB., XieC., LiuY., WangZ., & FuS. (2024). The application of artificial intelligence technology in education influences Chinese adolescent’s emotional perception. Current Psychology, 43(6), 5309–5317.
45.
LeeK., TsaiP. S., ChaiC. S., & KohJ. H. L. (2014). Students’ perceptions of self-directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12055
46.
LieA., GozaliI., & WardhonoA. (2023). Language learning and teaching in digital environment. Journal of NELTA, 28(1), 213–220.
47.
LiuY., XuS., & ZhangB. (2020). Thriving at work: How a PM influences innovative work behaviour. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267
48.
MalhotraN. K., & DashS. (2011). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). Pearson Publishing.
49.
MillE., GarnW., & Ryman-TubbN. (2022, July). Managing sustainability tensions in artificial intelligence: Insights from paradox theory. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 491–498). Association for Computing Machinery.
50.
Miron-SpektorE., IngramA., KellerJ., SmithW. K., & LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
51.
NuryakinN., RakotoarizakaN., & MusaH. (2023). The effect of perceived usefulness and perceived easy to use on student satisfaction: The mediating role of attitude to use online learning. APMBA (Asia Pacific Management and Business Application), 11(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.apmba.2023.011.03.5
PremlathaK. R., & GeethaT. V. (2015). Learning content design and learner adaptation for adaptive e-learning environment: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44, 443–465.
54.
RaidalS. L., & VoletS. E. (2008). Preclinical students’ predispositions towards social forms of instruction and self-directed learning: A challenge for the development of autonomous and collaborative learners. Higher Education, 57(5), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9163-z
55.
RaischS., & KrakowskiS. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
56.
RattanA., SavaniK., ChughD., & DweckC. S. (2015). Leveraging mindsets to promote academic achievement: Policy recommendations. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(6), 721–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615599383.
57.
RodwayP., & SchepmanA. (2023). The impact of adopting AI educational technologies on projected course satisfaction in university students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100150.
58.
RomeroC., GonzálezP., VenturaS., Del JesúsM. J., & HerreraF. (2009). Evolutionary algorithms for subgroup discovery in e-learning: A practical application using Moodle data. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 1632–1644.
59.
Romero-RodríguezJ. M., Ramírez-MontoyaM. S., Buenestado-FernándezM., & Lara-LaraF. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 323–339.
60.
SaadéR., & BahliB. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317–327.
61.
SchadJ., LewisM. W., RaischS., & SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.
62.
SmithW. K., & LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
63.
SmithW. K., & TushmanM. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
64.
SongX., YangS., HuangZ., & HuangT. (2019). The application of artificial intelligence in electronic commerce. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1302, 032030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1302/3/032030
65.
StrzeleckiA. (2024). Students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: An extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Innovative Higher Education, 49(2), 223–245.
66.
TeoT., TanS. C., LeeC. B., ChaiC. S., KohJ. H. L., ChenW. L., & CheahH. M. (2010). The self-directed learning with technology scale (SDLTS) for young students: An initial development and validation. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1764–1771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.001
67.
TerziR. (2020). An adaptation of artificial intelligence anxiety scale into Turkish: Reliability and validity study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(4). 1501–1515.
68.
ThompsonR. L., HigginsC. A., & HowellJ. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443
69.
TsaiS. C., ChenC. H., & ShihK. C. (2022). Exploring transaction security on consumers’ willingness to use mobile payment by using the technology acceptance model. Applied Systems Innovation, 5(6), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5060113
70.
VenkateshV., & BalaH. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
71.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
72.
WangD., DonohueR., GuoF., YangM., & LuuT. (2024). A paradox theory lens for developing cross-cultural competence: Mindset, behavior, and work design. Journal of Business Research, 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113638
73.
WangJ., KimT.-Y., BatemanT. S., JiangY., & TangG. (2024). A paradox theory lens on proactivity, individual ambidexterity, and creativity: An empirical look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2786
74.
YapS. F., & LimW. M. (2024). A paradox theory of social media consumption and child well-being. Australasian Marketing Journal, 32(1), 65–75.
75.
ZhongG. (2023). The influence mechanism of AI technology learning anxiety in the human-computer collaboration context: The moderating effect of uncertainty avoidance and the mediating effect of self-efficacy. EUrASEANs: Journal on Global Socio-economic Dynamics, 6(43), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.35678/2539-5645.6(43).2023.170-180
