The aim of present study was to measure the relationship of UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) and TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) variables regarding AI technology and AI-based applications acceptance in education sector. Research was carried out by using PRISMA (Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) guidelines. The relevant studies were searched from major databases that included a) Scopus, and b) Web of Science. Initial search retrieved 309 titles, and 30 relevant articles and conference papers were selected following the search process. Data was analysed using CMA (Comprehensive Meta-analysis) and Meta-Essential software. Findings exhibit that the relationship between UTAUT variables and BI to accept AI and AI-based applications in education was high (PE → BI), medium (EE → BI, SI → BI), and low (FC → BI). The magnitude of the relationship of TAM constructs remained high for all paths (PU → AT, PEOU → AT, PU → BI, and PEOU → BI). Theoretically, this meta-analysis provided a panoramic picture of two leading technology acceptance models regarding the acceptance/adoption of AI and AI-based technology in education sector. This meta-analysis provided a way forward for researchers to extend research on AI-based applications including ChatGPT, intelligent tutoring, AI-based robots, AI-based Chatbots, and AI-based voice assistants. Practically, findings are useful for IT companies, and decision makers of educational institutes in designing and implementing AI and AI-based applications.
Al-EmranMMezhuyevVKamaludinA (2018) Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education125: 389–412.
3.
Al-RahmiAMAl-RahmiWMAlturkiU, et al. (2022) Acceptance of mobile technologies and M-learning by university students: An empirical investigation in higher education. Education and Information Technologies27(6): 7805–7826.
4.
*Al DaraysehA (2023) Acceptance of artificial intelligence in teaching science: Science teachers’ perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100132.
5.
*AlGerafiMAZhouYAlfaddaH, et al. (2023) Understanding the factors influencing higher education students’ intention to adopt artificial intelligence-based robots. IEEE Access11: 99752–99764.
6.
AliIButtKWarraichNF (2023) Factors effecting digital citizenship in education sector: A systematic review and future direction. Education and Information Technologies28(12): 15789–15821.
7.
AliIWarraichNF (2018) Linked data initiatives in libraries and information centres: A systematic review. The Electronic Library36(5): 925–937.
8.
AliIWarraichNF (2023a) Use and acceptance of technology with academic and digital libraries context: A meta-analysis of UTAUT model and future direction. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science: 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231179716.
9.
AliIWarraichNF (2023b) Information systems success in libraries: A meta-analysis of ISSM and future direction. The Electronic Library42(1): 158–171.
10.
AlsahafiRMendozaA (2020) Predicting students’ intention to use gamified mobile learning in Saudi Higher Education. ACIS 2020 Proceedings35. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2020/35.
11.
Alfaisal, R., Hashim, H., & Azizan, U. H. (2024). Metaverse system adoption in education: a systematic literature review. Journal of Computers in Education 11(1): 259–303.
12.
Al ShamsiJHAl-EmranMShaalanK (2022) Understanding key drivers affecting students’ use of artificial intelligence-based voice assistants. Education and Information Technologies27(6): 8071–8091.
13.
*AnXChaiCSLiY, et al. (2023a) Modeling English teachers’ behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence in middle schools. Education and Information Technologies28(5): 5187–5208.
14.
*AnXChaiCSLiY, et al. (2023b) Modeling students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning: 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2246519.
*BilquiseGIbrahimSSalhiehSEM (2023) Investigating student acceptance of an academic advising chatbot in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies29(5): 6357–6382.
17.
BorensteinMHedgesLVHigginsJP, et al. (2009) Introduction to Meta-Analysis. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
*CaiQLinYYuZ (2023) Factors influencing learner attitudes towards ChatGPT-Assisted language learning in higher education. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction: 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2261725.
19.
*ChatterjeeSBhattacharjeeKK (2020) Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: A quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Education and Information Technologies25: 3443–3463.
20.
ChaudhryMAKazimE (2022) Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd): A high-level academic and industry note 2021. AI and Ethics2(1): 157–165.
21.
ChenHLVicki WidarsoGSutrisnoH (2020) A chatbot for learning Chinese: Learning achievement and technology acceptance. Journal of Educational Computing Research58(6): 1161–1189.
22.
ChocarroRCortiñasMMarcos-MatásG (2023) Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: A technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educational Studies49(2): 295–313.
23.
*ChoiSJangYKimH (2023) Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction39(4): 910–922.
24.
Cohen J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
CosminPOPA (2011) Adoption of artificial intelligence in agriculture. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Agriculture68(1).
26.
Cruz-BenitoJSánchez-PrietoJCTherónR, et al. (2019, June) Measuring students’ acceptance to AI-driven assessment in eLearning: Proposing a first TAM-based research model. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 15–25.
27.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
28.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8): 982–1003.
29.
DongZChiuMMZhouS, et al. (2023) The effect of mobile learning on school-aged students’ science achievement: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies29(1): 517–544.
30.
FaganMH (2019) Factors influencing student acceptance of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in the Schools36(2): 105–121.
31.
FahdKVenkatramanSMiahSJ, et al. (2022) Application of machine learning in higher education to assess student academic performance, at-risk, and attrition: A meta-analysis of literature. Education and Information Technologies27(3): 3743–3775.
32.
FengGCSuXLinZ, et al. (2021) Determinants of technology acceptance: Two model-based meta-analytic reviews. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly98(1): 83–104.
33.
*ForoughiBSenaliMGIranmaneshM, et al. (2023) Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction: 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495.
34.
*GadoSKempenRLingelbachK, et al. (2022) Artificial intelligence in psychology: How can we enable psychology students to accept and use artificial intelligence?Psychology Learning & Teaching21(1): 37–56.
35.
GranićA (2023) Technology acceptance and adoption in education. In: Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 183–197.
36.
*HaoZMiaoEYanM (2021, December) Research on school principals’ willingness to adopt artificial intelligence education and related influencing factors. In 2021 Tenth International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT). IEEE, pp.356–361.
37.
HerathHMKKMBMittalM (2022) Adoption of artificial intelligence in smart cities: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights2(1): 100076.
38.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ and Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 327(7414): 557–560.
39.
HoiVN (2020) Understanding higher education learners’ acceptance and use of mobile devices for language learning: A Rasch-based path modeling approach. Computers & Education146: 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103761.
40.
HoraniOMAl-AdwanASYaseenH, et al. (2023) The critical determinants impacting artificial intelligence adoption at the organizational level. Information Development: 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231166889.
41.
*HuYH (2022) Effects and acceptance of precision education in an AI-supported smart learning environment. Education and Information Technologies27(2): 2013–2037.
42.
Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1: 100001. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. caeai. 2020. 100001
43.
*HuangHChenYRauPLP (2022) Exploring acceptance of intelligent tutoring system with pedagogical agent among high school students. Universal Access in the Information Society21(2): 381–392.
44.
JinZCZhouXHHeJ (2015) Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine34(2): 343–360.
45.
KaushikN (2022) Meta-Analysis-23 different forms of correlation for meta-analysis [YouTube Video]. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oli9L69ma6o (accessed 8 December 2023).
46.
Khan FM, Singh N, Gupta Y, Kaur J, Banik S, and Gupta S (2022). A meta-analysis of mobile learning adoption in higher education based on unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 3 (UTAUT3). Vision. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629221101159.
47.
*LiK (2023) Determinants of college students’ actual use of AI-based systems: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Sustainability15(6): 5221.
48.
*LinHCHoCFYangH (2022) Understanding adoption of artificial intelligence-enabled language e-learning system: An empirical study of UTAUT model. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation16(1): 74–94.
49.
*LiuGMaC (2023) Measuring EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT in informal digital learning of English based on the technology acceptance model. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching18(2): 125–138.
50.
MaQChanAHTehPL (2021) Insights into older adults’ technology acceptance through meta-analysis. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction37(11): 1049–1062.
51.
MahmoodASarwatQGordonC (2022) A systematic review on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) with a focus on ethics and ethical constraints. Pakistan Journal of Multidisciplinary Research3(1): 79–92.
52.
MarikyanDPapagiannidisSStewartG (2023) Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis. Journal of Information Science: 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191177.
53.
MendozaGAGJungIKobayashiS (2017) A review of empirical studies on MOOC adoption: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology11(1): 15–24. DOI: https://ijemt.org/index.php/journal/article/view/213.
54.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery8(5): 336–341.
55.
MunirHVogelBJacobssonA (2022) Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches in digital education: a systematic revision. Information13(4): 203.
56.
*NaidooDT (2023) Integrating TAM and IS success model: Exploring the role of Blockchain and AI in predicting learner engagement and performance in E-learning. Frontiers in Computer Science5: 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1227749.
57.
*NiACheungA (2023) Understanding secondary students’ continuance intention to adopt AI-powered intelligent tutoring system for English learning. Education and Information Technologies28(3): 3191–3216.
58.
OuyangFZhengLJiaoP (2022) Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies27(6): 7893–7925.
59.
PetersonRABrownSP (2005) On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology90(1): 175–181.
60.
*PillaiRSivathanuBMetriB, et al. (2023) Students’ adoption of AI-based teacher-bots (T-bots) for learning in higher education. Information Technology & People37(1): 328–355.
61.
QashouA (2021) Influencing factors in M-learning adoption in higher education. Education and Information Technologies26(2): 1755–1785.
62.
*RaghebMATantawiPFaroukN, et al. (2022) Investigating the acceptance of applying chat-bot (Artificial intelligence) technology among higher education students in Egypt. International Journal of Higher Education Management8(2): 1–13.
63.
*RahimNIMIahadNAYusofAF, et al. (2022) AI-Based chatbots adoption model for higher-education institutions: A hybrid PLS-SEM-Neural network modelling approach. Sustainability14(19): 12726.
64.
RahmanMMingTHBaighTA, et al. (2023) Adoption of artificial intelligence in banking services: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Emerging Markets18(10): 4270–4300.
65.
RodríguezJMRMontoyaMSRFernándezMB, et al. (2023) Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research12(2): 323–339.
66.
RoyRBabakerkhellMDMukherjeeS, et al. (2022) Evaluating the intention for the adoption of artificial intelligence-based robots in the university to educate the students. IEEE Access10: 125666–125678.
67.
ShuklaS (2021) M-learning adoption of management students’: A case of India. Education and Information Technologies26(1): 279–310.
68.
SidikDSyafarF (2020) Exploring the factors influencing student’s intention to use mobile learning in Indonesia higher education. Education and Information Technologies25(6): 4781–4796.
69.
*SingCCTeoTHuangF, et al. (2022) Secondary school students’ intentions to learn AI: Testing moderation effects of readiness, social good and optimism. Educational Technology Research and Development70(3): 765–782.
70.
Sitar-TautDAMicanD (2021) Mobile learning acceptance and use in higher education during social distancing circumstances: An expansion and customization of UTAUT2. Online Information Review45(5): 1000–1019.
71.
*StrzeleckiA (2023) To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments: 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881.
72.
ŠumakBHeričkoMPušnikM (2011) A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior27(6): 2067–2077.
73.
SuurmondRvan RheeHHakT (2017) Introduction, comparison and validation of Meta Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods8(4): 537–553.
74.
*TiwariCKBhatMAKhanST, et al. (2023) What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-04-2023-0061.
75.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
76.
*WangYLiuCTuYF (2021) Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education. Educational Technology & Society24(3): 116–129. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27032860.
77.
*WuWZhangBLiS, et al. (2022) Exploring factors of the willingness to accept AI-assisted learning environments: an empirical investigation based on the UTAUT model and perceived risk theory. Frontiers in Psychology13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870777.
78.
WuX (2024) Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies29: 425–458.
79.
*YilmazHMaxutovSBaitekovA, et al. (2023) Student attitudes towards Chat GPT: A technology acceptance model survey. International Educational Review1(1): 57–83.
80.
YousafzaiSYFoxallGRPallisterJG (2007) Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management2(3): 281–304.
81.
Zawacki-RichterOMarínVIBondM, et al. (2019) Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education16(1): 1–27.
82.
*ZhangCSchießlJPlößlL, et al. (2023) Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: a multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education20: 49.
83.
ZhangKAslanAB (2021) AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025.
84.
*ZhangXTliliAShubeckK, et al. (2021) Teachers’ adoption of an open and interactive e-book for teaching K-12 students Artificial Intelligence: a mixed methods inquiry. Smart Learning Environments8: 1–20.
85.
ZhouHLiuJCuiX (2021) Research on influencing factors of adoption behavior of mobile readers based on meta-analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2021: 1–13.
86.
ZhuZHuangW (2023) A meta-analysis of mobile learning adoption using extended UTAUT. Information Development: 02666669231176428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231176428.
