The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education has revolutionized learning environments, offering innovative solutions to enhance the educational outcomes. This study explores the application of AI within the higher education system in Oman, focusing on its practical implications and the factors influencing its adoption. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as reference theoretical framework, the research examines the impact of AI on knowledge sharing (KS) in higher education. Additionally, the study investigates the mediating roles of attitude towards use (ATU) and Behavior intention (BI), and the moderating effect of self-efficacy (SE). The findings indicate a positive relationship between AI in higher education and knowledge sharing, suggesting that the adoption of AI technologies enhances knowledge sharing among educators and students. Attitudes towards use and behavior intention were found to significantly mediate this relationship. Moreover, self-efficacy emerged as a significant moderator, implying that individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to embrace AI tools and engage in knowledge sharing. The study provides practical insights for policymakers and educational leaders, emphasizing the need to cultivate supportive attitudes and enhance self-efficacy among educators to maximize the benefits of AI integration. Future research should explore longitudinal effects and the impact of specific AI applications to further validate and expand these findings. Also, this research contributes to a better understanding of the impact of AI in education, offering a refined understanding of the dynamics at play in the adoption of AI in higher education systems, particularly in the educational institutions in Oman.
ChaiCSLinPYJongMSY, et al.Perceptions of and BIs towards learning artificial intelligence in primary school students. Educ Technol Soc2021; 24: 89–101.
2.
Al MatariASMukitAAl SaadiS, et al.Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching in higher education at A’Sharqiyah university (ASU) in Oman. Proceeding International Pelita Bangsa2023; 1: 182–200.
3.
KraishanOM. Features of applying artificial intelligence in the eighth grade science curriculum in the sultanate of Oman. J High Educ Theory Pract2023; 23: 143–163.
4.
Abdel FattahFAMMohamedAHHBashirMIA,et al.Determinants of knowledge-sharing behaviour among students at higher educational institutions in Oman: a planned behaviour theoretical perspective of knowledge sharing. Global knowledge. Memory and Communication2021; 70: 611–636.
5.
OnleyJNonnemanG. The journal of Arabian studies and the development of gulf and Arabian Peninsula studies. J Arabian Stud2020; 10: 1–50.
6.
SainiDKAl-MamriMRS. Investigation of technological tools used in education system in Oman. Soc Sci Humanit Open2019; 1: 100003.
7.
NaSHeoSHanS, et al.Acceptance model of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in construction firms: applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) in combination with the technology–organisation–environment (TOE) framework. Buildings2022; 12: 90.
8.
VenusamyKBashaRK. Design and implementation of FAQ chabot in higher education institutions web portal-sultanate of Oman. Int J Res Anal Rev (IJRAR)2021; 8: 858–861.
9.
KuletoVIlićMDumangiuM, et al.Exploring opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence and machine learning in higher education institutions. Sustainability2021; 13: 10424.
10.
RaffaghelliJERodríguezMEGuerrero-RoldánAE,et al.Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of an early warning system in higher education. Comput Educ2022; 182: 104468.
11.
ChatterjeeSBhattacharjeeKK. Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: a quantitative analysis using structural equation modelling. Educ Inf Technol2020; 25: 3443–3463.
12.
ChanCKYHuW. Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ2023; 20: 43.
13.
OjoO. Promoting Artificial Intelligence Education in K–12 through Pre-service Teachers’ Development (Master's thesis, Itä-Suomenyliopisto). 2024.
14.
Al-SharafiMAAl-EmranMIranmaneshM, et al.Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Inter Learn Environ2023; 31: 7491–7510.
KaurNAhmadM. Charting a sustainable future of ASEAN in business and social sciences. Springer Singapore, 2020.
17.
ZhangKAslanAB. AI Technologies for education: recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence2021; 2: 100025.
18.
MiltonJAl-BusaidiA. New role of leadership in AI era: Educational sector. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 156, p. 09005). EDP Sciences. 2023.
19.
LiKCLeeLY-KWongS-L, et al.Evaluation of the use of mobile devices for clinical practicum in nursing education. in International Conference on Blended Learning. 2018: Springer.
20.
WongBTM. Learning analytics in higher education: an analysis of case studies. Asian Assoc Open Univ J2017; 12: 215–226.
21.
Al-BadiAKhanA. Perceptions of learners and instructors towards artificial intelligence in personalized learning. Procedia Computer Science, 201, 445–451. Learning Environments, 2021. 29(2): p. 182–195. 2022.
22.
PalanisamyPThilarajahSChenZ. Providing equitable education through personalised adaptive learning and assessment, in Back to the Future.
23.
MannHBWhitneyDR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat1947; 8: 50–60.
24.
DavisFD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 1985.
25.
NaSHeoSHanS, et al.Acceptance model of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in construction firms: applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) in combination with the technology–organisation–environment (TOE) framework. Buildings2022; 12: 90.
26.
FathemaNShannonDRossM. Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. J Online Learn Teach2015; 11: 210–232.
ZhaoJ. Influence of KS on Students’ learning ability under the background of “5G+ AI”. Int J Emerg Technol Learn (iJET)2022; 17: 133–145.
29.
Al-KurdiOEl-HaddadehREldabiT. KS In higher education institutions: a systematic review. J Enterp Inf Manag2018; 31: 226–246.
30.
ChaiCSLinPYJongMSY, et al.Factors influencing students’ BI to continue artificial intelligence learning. In: 2020 International symposium on educational technology (ISET). Bangkok, Thailand: IEEE, 2020, pp.147–150.
31.
CummingsJNKieslerS. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci2005; 35: 703–722.
32.
BaronRMKennyDA. The moderator–mediator VariableDistinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and StatisticalConsiderations. J Pers Soc Psychol1986; 51: 1173–1182.
33.
NahapietJGhoshalS. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manage Rev1998; 23: 242–266.
ClarkBR. The occupational saga in higher education. Adm Sci Q1972; 17: 178–184.
36.
LiuSLiuXLeeSH,et al.Studying online in a globalized world: cross-cultural and general issues from international Students’ perspectives. In: E-Learn: world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education. USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2008, pp.2913–2918.
37.
HuysmanMWulfV. IT To support KS in communities, towards a social capital analysis. J Inf Technol2006; 21: 40–51.
38.
Al-GahtaniSS. Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: a structural equation model. Appl Comput Inform2016; 12: 27–50.
39.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB,et al.User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q2003; 27: 425–478.
40.
CabreraACollinsWCSalgadoJF. Determinants of individual engagement in KS. Int J Hum Resour Manag2006; 17: 245–264.
41.
AlaviMLeidnerDE. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q2001; 25: 107–136.
42.
HwangGJWuPH. Applications, impacts and trends of mobile technology-enhanced learning: a review of 2008–2012 publications in selected SSCI journals. Int J Mob Learn Org2014; 8: 83–95.
43.
AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior: frequently asked questions. Hum Behav Emerg Technol2020; 2: 314–324.
44.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behav Res Ther1978; 1: 139–161.
45.
ChengLAbrahamJZhuJ, et al.Record-setting ocean warmth continued in 2019. 2020.
46.
LiQGuanXWuP, et al.Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med2020; 382: 1199–1207.
47.
TeoT. Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: model development and test. Comput Educ2011; 57: 2432–2440.
48.
AlharbiSDrewS. Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. 2014.
49.
SteinJPMessingschlagerTGnambsT, et al.Attitudes towards AI: measurement and associations with personality. Sci Rep2024; 14: 2909.
50.
XuYXieLZhangX, et al.Pc-darts: Partial channel connections for memory-efficient architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05737. 2019.
51.
PeltoniemiA. Perceived effectiveness of privacy policy and its association with trust and BI to participate in a digital workplace wellness program. 2020.
52.
ElkasehAMWongKWFungCC. Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: a structural equation modeling analysis. Int J Inf Educ Technol2016; 6: 192.
53.
OuyangFJiaoP. Artificial intelligence in education: the three paradigms. Comput Educ: Artif Intell2021; 2: 100020.
54.
AfifiJA. Artificial intelligence and expert systems. Amjad for Publication and Distribution. Amman2014: 100020.
55.
Al-FaraniLAK. An educational scenario for using artificial intelligence in uncovering learners’ multiple intelligence. Arab J Lit Hum Stud2020; 4: 73–92.
56.
ZhangSYaoLSunA,et al.Deep learning based recommender system: a survey and new perspectives. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR)2019; 52: 1–38.
57.
HowardMCHair JrJF. Integrating the expanded task-technology fit theory and the technology acceptance model: a multi-wave empirical analysis. AIS Trans Hum-Comput Interact2023; 15: 83–110.
58.
LinCPBhattacherjeeA. Elucidating individual intention to use interactive information technologies: the role of network externalities. Int J Electron Commer2008; 13: 85–108.
59.
WangLHChenBHwangGJ, et al.Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. Int J STEM Educ2022; 9: 26.
60.
LongHLiuQYinH, et al.Prevalence trends of site-specific osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2019: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019. Arthritis & Rheumatol2022; 74: 1172–1183.
61.
AlbannaHAlalwanAAAl-EmranM. An integrated model for using social media applications in non-profit organizations. Int J Inf Manage2022; 63: 102452.
62.
LangerALParnesAKumarN, et al.A structured approach to medical student education in clinic to improve self-efficacy. Blood2023; 142: 2303.
63.
MarakasGMAguirre-UrretaMShojaA, et al.The computer self-efficacy construct: a history of application in information systems research. Found Trends® Inform Syst2022; 6: 94–170.
64.
LeeDWatsonSLWatsonWR. The relationships between self-efficacy, task value, and self-regulated learning strategies in massive open online courses. IRRODL2020; 21: 23–39.
65.
SunTWangC. College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System2020; 90: 102221.
66.
ChenGJinYLiangW,et al.Study on the influence of middle school students’ self-efficacy on the willingness to use online learning platform. Int J Electr Eng Educ2023; 60: 339–361.
67.
WangYLiuCTuYF. Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education. Educ Technol Soc2021; 24: 116–129.
SalamahEAlzubiAYinalA. Unveiling the impact of digitalization on supply chain performance in the post-COVID-19 era: the mediating role of supply chain integration and efficiency. Sustainability2024; 16: Article 1.
70.
AwwadRIAljuhmaniHYHamdanS. Examining the relationships between frontline bank Employees’ job demands and job satisfaction: a mediated moderation model. SAGE Open2022; 12: 215824402210798.
71.
HairJFHultGTMRingleC,et al.A primer on partial least squares structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017.
72.
SarstedtM, et al.Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychol Mark2022; 39: 1035–1064.
73.
RönkköMChoE. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ Res Methods2022; 25: 6–14.
74.
SoHJJongMSYLiuCC. Computational thinking education in the Asian pacific region. Asia-Pac Educ Res2020; 29: 1–8.
75.
BoubkerO. Does religion raise entrepreneurial intention and behavior of muslim university students? An extension of ajzen's theory of planned behavior (TPB). Int J Manag Educ2024; 22: 101030.
76.
CallumKMJeffreyLKinshuk. Comparing the role of ICT literacy and anxiety in the adoption of mobile learning. Comput Human Behav2014; 39: 8–19.
77.
YuenKMaWWK. Exploring teacher acceptance of eT learning technology. Asia Pac J Teach Educ2008; 36: 229–243.
78.
ParkSY. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ BI to use elearning. J Educ Technol Soc2009; 12: 150–162.
