Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Factors Influencing Preschool Teachers’ Continuous Intention to Use AI Generated Content in Education Cover

Factors Influencing Preschool Teachers’ Continuous Intention to Use AI Generated Content in Education

By:   
Open Access
|Feb 2026

References

  1. Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Ramos Farroñan, E. V., Villena Zapata, L. I., Mogollon Garcia, F. S., Rabanal-León, H. C., Angaspilco, J. E. M., & Bocanegra, J. C. S. (2024). Acceptance of artificial intelligence in university contexts: A conceptual analysis based on UTAUT2 theory. Heliyon, 10(19), e38315. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38315
  2. Aksoy, D. A., & Kursun, E. (2024). Behind the scenes: A critical perspective on GenAI and open educational practices. Open Praxis, 16(3), 457470. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.674
  3. Al-Nuaimi, M. N., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). Learning management systems and technology acceptance models: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 54995533. 10.1007/s10639-021-10513-3
  4. Al-Rahmi, A. M., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alturki, U., Aldraiweesh, A., Almutairy, S., & Al-Adwan, A. S. (2022). Acceptance of mobile technologies and M-learning by university students: An empirical investigation in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 78057826. 10.1007/s10639-022-10934-8
  5. Alshammari, S. H., & Babu, E. (2025). The mediating role of satisfaction in the relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and students’ behavioural intention to use ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 7169. 10.1038/s41598-025-91634-4
  6. Amyatun, R. L., & Kholis, A. (2023). Can artificial intelligence (AI) like QuillBot AI assist students’ writing skills? Assisting learning to write texts using AI. ELE Reviews: English Language Education Reviews, 3(2), 135154. 10.22515/elereviews.v3i2.7533
  7. Antonietti, C., Cattaneo, A., & Amenduni, F. (2022). Can teachers’ digital competence influence technology acceptance in vocational education? Computers in Human Behavior, 132, 107266. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107266
  8. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351370. 10.2307/3250921
  9. Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 110. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
  10. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Farrow, R., Bai, J. Y. H., Nerantzi, C., Moore, S., … Asino, T. I. (2024). The manifesto for teaching and learning in a time of generative AI: A critical collective stance to better navigate the future. Open Praxis, 16(4), 487513. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.4.777
  11. Brito, R., & Dias, P. (2017). Digital technologies, learning and school: Practices and perceptions of young children (under 8) and their parents. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 7(1), 6476. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/33285
  12. Burrough, P. A. (1989). Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. European Journal of Soil Science, 40(3), 477492. 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1989.tb01290.x
  13. Cheah, J.-H., Memon, M. A., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Ramayah, T. (2018). Assessing reflective models in marketing research: A comparison between PLS and PLSc estimates. International Journal of Business and Society, 19(1), 139160. https://www.ijbs.unimas.my/volume-11-20/volume-19-no-1-2018/435-assessing-reflective-models-in-marketing-research-a-comparison-between-pls-and-plsc-estimates
  14. Chen, J.-L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Computers & Education, 57(2), 15011511. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.009
  15. Cheng, Y.-M. (2021). Will robo-advisors continue? Roles of task-technology fit, network externalities, gratifications and flow experience in facilitating continuance intention. Kybernetes, 50(6), 17511783. 10.1108/K-03-2020-0185
  16. Chiu, Y.-P., & Chen, C.-C. (2023). Learning flow and continuous intention toward online remote learning: An integrated framework. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 9(2), 351364. 10.46328/ijres.3052
  17. Chuah, S. H.-W., Aw, E. C.-X., & Yee, D. (2021). Unveiling the complexity of consumers’ intention to use service robots: An fsQCA approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 123, 106870. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106870
  18. Cullen, T. A., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 2947. 10.2190/EC.45.1.b
  19. Dai, Y., Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Xu, X. (2023). Why technology-supported classrooms: An analysis of classroom behavior data from AIGC. In 2023 International Conference on Intelligent Education and Intelligent Research (IEIR) (pp. 117). IEEE. 10.1109/IEIR59294.2023.10391211
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340. 10.2307/249008
  21. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 9821003. 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  22. DiCerbo, K. (2021). Why not go all-in with artificial intelligence? In R. A. Sottilare & J. Schwarz (Eds.), Adaptive instructional systems: Design and evaluation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12792, pp. 361369). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-77857-6_25
  23. Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., García Marquéz, J. R., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J., Münkemüller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P. E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., Skidmore, A. K., Zurell, D., & Lautenbach, S. (2013). Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 36(1), 2746. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x
  24. Dul, J. (2016). Identifying single necessary conditions with NCA and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 15161523. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.134
  25. Eraslan Yalcin, M., & Kutlu, B. (2019). Examination of students’ acceptance of and intention to use learning management systems using extended TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 24142432. 10.1111/bjet.12798
  26. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393420. 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
  27. Grant, J. S., & Davis, L. L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3), 269274. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199706)20:3<;269::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
  28. Grassini, S., Aasen, M. L., & Møgelvang, A. (2024). Understanding university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT: Insights from the UTAUT2 model. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 38(1), 2371168. 10.1080/08839514.2024.2371168
  29. Guo, J., Ma, Y., Li, T., Noetel, M., Liao, K., & Greiff, S. (2024). Harnessing artificial intelligence in generative content for enhancing motivation in learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 116, 102547. 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102547
  30. Guo, Z., Xiao, L., Seo, C., & Lai, Y. (2012). Flow experience and continuance intention toward online learning: An integrated framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012) (Paper 6). https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/ISCurriculum/6
  31. Hamid, A. A., Razak, F. Z. A., Bakar, A. A., & Abdullah, W. S. W. (2016). The effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on continuance intention to use e-government. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 644649. 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00079-4
  32. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  33. Ho, J., Plewa, C., & Lu, V. N. (2016). Examining strategic orientation complementarity using multiple regression analysis and fuzzy set QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 21992205. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.030
  34. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 2334. 10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.003
  35. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 155. 10.1080/10705519909540118
  36. Hu, Y., Yu, X., Hu, Y., & Li, K. (2025). Determinants of continuance intention to use GAI in academic research among graduate students: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 2028920315. 10.1007/s10639-025-13565-x
  37. Huang, W., Wang, T., & Tong, Y. (2024). The effect of gamified project-based learning with AIGC in information literacy education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 115. 10.1080/14703297.2024.2423012
  38. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 1735. 10.1123/jsep.18.1.17
  39. Jin, J., Yang, M., Hu, H., Guo, X., Luo, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Empowering design innovation using AI-generated content. Journal of Engineering Design, 36(1), 118. 10.1080/09544828.2024.2401751
  40. Kaya, B., Abubakar, A. M., Behravesh, E., Yildiz, H., & Mert, I. S. (2020). Antecedents of innovative performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Journal of Business Research, 114, 278289. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.016
  41. Khan, M. I., & Saleh, M. A. (2023). Facebook users’ satisfaction and intention to continue using it: Applying the expectation confirmation model. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3), 9831000. 10.1177/08944393211066584
  42. Kim, Y. J., Chun, J. U., & Song, J. (2009). Investigating the role of attitude in technology acceptance from an attitude strength perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 29(1), 6777. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.011
  43. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 110. 10.4018/ijec.2015100101
  44. Li, W., Zhang, X., Li, J., Yang, X., Li, D., & Liu, Y. (2024). An explanatory study of factors influencing engagement in AI education at the K-12 level: An extension of the classic TAM model. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 13922. 10.1038/s41598-024-64363-3
  45. Li, X., Zhang, J., & Yang, J. (2024). The effect of computer self-efficacy on the behavioral intention to use translation technologies among college students: Mediating role of learning motivation and cognitive engagement. Acta Psychologica, 246, 104259. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104259
  46. Liang, C., Du, H., Sun, Y., Niyato, D., Kang, J., Zhao, D., & Imran, M. A. (2024). Generative AI-driven semantic communication networks: Architecture, technologies and applications. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 11(1), 2747. 10.1109/TCCN.2024.3435524
  47. López-Bonilla, L. M., & López-Bonilla, J. M. (2017). Explaining the discrepancy in the mediating role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 940949. 10.1111/bjet.12465
  48. Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), 8. 10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
  49. Lu, G., Hussin, N. B., & Sarkar, A. (2024). Navigating the future: Harnessing artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) for enhanced learning experiences in higher education. In 2024 International Conference on Advances in Modern Age Technologies for Health and Engineering Science (AMATHE) (pp. 112). IEEE. 10.1109/AMATHE61652.2024.10582123
  50. Ma, L. (2025). Investigation of the impact of cognitive load on EFL learners’ satisfaction with MOOCs: The mediating role of expectation confirmation and perceived usefulness. BMC Psychology, 13(1), 416. 10.1186/s40359-025-02735-8
  51. Ma, X., Ding, X., Tang, X., Zhang, S., & Diao, J. (2024). Risks, strategies, and prospects of generative artificial intelligence in digital education: A policy content analysis perspective. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Innovation and Multimedia Technology (EIMT 2024). EAI. 10.4108/eai.29-3-2024.2347645
  52. Michailidis, L., Balaguer-Ballester, E., & He, X. (2018). Flow and immersion in video games: The aftermath of a conceptual challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1682. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01682
  53. Molwus, J. J., Erdogan, B., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2013). Sample size and model fit indices for structural equation modelling (SEM): The case of construction management research. In ICCREM 2013: Construction and operation in the context of sustainability (pp. 338347). American Society of Civil Engineers. 10.1061/9780784413135.032
  54. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195206). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0018
  55. Ngo, T. T. A., An, G. K., Nguyen, P. T., & Tran, T. T. (2024). Unlocking educational potential: Exploring students’ satisfaction and sustainable engagement with ChatGPT using the ECM model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 23, 021. 10.28945/5344
  56. Pappas, I. O., Papavlasopoulou, S., Mikalef, P., & Giannakos, M. N. (2020). Identifying the combinations of motivations and emotions for creating satisfied users in SNSs: An fsQCA approach. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102128. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102128
  57. Philip, G. C., & Moon, S.-Y. (2013). An investigation of student expectation, perceived performance and satisfaction of e-textbooks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 287298. 10.28945/1903
  58. Purwanto, A., & Sudargini, Y. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: A literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 2(4), 114123. 10.7777/jiemar.v2i4.168
  59. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/9780226702797
  60. Rahi, S., Alghizzawi, M., & Ngah, A. H. (2023). Factors influence user’s intention to continue use of e-banking during COVID-19 pandemic: The nexus between self-determination and expectation confirmation model. EuroMed Journal of Business, 18(3), 380396. 10.1108/EMJB-12-2021-0194
  61. Ramlall, I. (2016). Model fit evaluation. In Applied structural equation modelling for researchers and practitioners: Using R and Stata for behavioral research (pp. 6174). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1108/978-1-78635-883-720161011
  62. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Olya, H. (2021). The combined use of symmetric and asymmetric approaches: Partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 15711592. 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1164
  63. Runhaar, P. (2017). How can schools and teachers benefit from human resources management? Conceptualising HRM from content and process perspectives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 639656. 10.1177/1741143215623786
  64. Salloum, S., Al Marzouqi, A., Alderbashi, K. Y., Shwedeh, F., Aburayya, A., Al Saidat, M. R., & Al-Maroof, R. S. (2023). Sustainability model for the continuous intention to use metaverse technology in higher education: A case study from Oman. Sustainability, 15(6), 5257. 10.3390/su15065257
  65. Salonen, A., Zimmer, M., & Keränen, J. (2021). Theory development in servitization through the application of fsQCA and experiments. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(5), 746769. 10.1108/IJOPM-08-2020-0537
  66. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R., & Hair, J. F. Jr.. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105115. 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002
  67. Sharma, L., & Srivastava, M. (2020). Teachers’ motivation to adopt technology in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(4), 673692. 10.1108/JARHE-07-2018-0156
  68. Shi, D., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2020). The effect of estimation methods on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(3), 421445. 10.1177/0013164419885164
  69. Shiau, W.-L., & Chau, P. Y. (2016). Understanding behavioral intention to use a cloud computing classroom: A multiple model comparison approach. Information & Management, 53(3), 355365. 10.1016/j.im.2015.10.004
  70. Song, Q., Zhang, J., Wang, H., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, Q. (2024). Configuring factors influencing science teachers’ intention to use virtual experiments in China: An fsQCA-based study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(3), 300315. 10.1007/s10956-023-10084-7
  71. Spreng, R. A., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1993). A desires congruency model of consumer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 169177. 10.1177/0092070393213001
  72. Streukens, S., & Leroi-Werelds, S. (2016). Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European Management Journal, 34(6), 618632. 10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.003
  73. Svetsky, S., & Moravcik, O. (2019). Some barriers regarding the sustainability of digital technology for long-term teaching. In K. Arai, R. Bhatia, & S. Kapoor (Eds.), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2018 (Vol. 1, pp. 950961). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-02686-8_71
  74. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53(3), 10001009. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017
  75. Thong, J. Y., Hong, S.-J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 799810. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001
  76. Tseng, H., Yi, X., & Cunningham, B. (2022). Learning technology acceptance and continuance intention among business students: The mediating effects of confirmation, flow, and engagement. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 7086. 10.14742/ajet.7219
  77. Tyagi, S. K., & Krishankumar, R. (2024). Examining interactions of factors affecting e-learning adoption in higher education: Insights from a fuzzy set qualitative and comparative analysis. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 15(6), 13871407. 10.1108/JSTPM-02-2023-0022
  78. Vafaei-Zadeh, A., Nikbin, D., Loo, J., & Hanifah, H. (2024). Unlocking Generation Y’s continuance intentions in personal cloud storage services: An extended expectation confirmation model analysis. The Electronic Library, 42(5), 827847. 10.1108/EL-03-2024-0097
  79. Van den Berg, G. (2024). Generative AI and educators: Partnering in using open digital content for transforming education. Open Praxis, 16(2), 130141. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.2.640
  80. Vega, J., Rodriguez, M., Check, E., Moran, H., & Loo, L. (2025). Duolingo evolution: From automation to artificial intelligence. In A. D. Orjuela-Cañón, J. A. Lopez, & O. J. Suarez (Eds.), Applications of computational intelligence: 7th IEEE Colombian Conference, ColCACI 2024, Pamplona, Colombia, July 17–19, 2024, revised selected papers (CCIS, Vol. 2212, pp. 5471). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-031-88854-0_5
  81. Wu, C.-H., Liu, C.-H., & Huang, Y.-M. (2022). The exploration of continuous learning intention in STEAM education through attitude, motivation, and cognitive load. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 35. 10.1186/s40594-022-00346-y
  82. Wu, J.-H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T.-L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155164. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
  83. Xia, Y. X., & Chae, S. W. (2021). Sustainable development of online group-buying websites: An integrated perspective of ECM and relationship marketing. Sustainability, 13(4), 2366. 10.3390/su13042366
  84. Xiong, Y., Shi, Y., Pu, Q., & Liu, N. (2024). More trust or more risk? User acceptance of artificial intelligence virtual assistant. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 34(3), 190205. 10.1002/hfm.21020
  85. Yang, X. (2024). Mobile learning application characteristics and learners’ continuance intentions: The role of flow experience. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 22592275. 10.1007/s10639-023-11910-6
  86. Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: A multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 49. 10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7
  87. Zhang, Y., Lu, X., Zhang, M., Ren, B., Zou, Y., & Lv, T. (2022). Understanding farmers’ willingness in arable land protection cooperation by using fsQCA: Roles of perceived benefits and policy incentives. Journal for Nature Conservation, 68, 126234. 10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126234
  88. Zheng, H., Qian, Y., Wang, Z., & Wu, Y. (2023). Research on the influence of e-learning quality on the intention to continue e-learning: Evidence from SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability, 15(6), 5557. 10.3390/su15065557
  89. Zwoliński, G., & Kamińska, D. (2024). Flowing through virtual realms: Leveraging artificial intelligence for immersive educational environments. In I. I. Bittencourt, O. C. Santos, A. I. Cristea, et al. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Posters and late-breaking results, workshops and tutorials, industry and innovation tracks, practitioners, doctoral consortium and blue sky (CCIS, Vol. 2150, pp. 4457). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-031-64315-6_4
Language: English
Page range: 27 - 51
Submitted on: Sep 7, 2025
Accepted on: Oct 14, 2025
Published on: Feb 24, 2026
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Yuxin Zhang, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.