Next Article in Journal
Adaptive Energy–Gradient–Contrast (EGC) Fusion with AIFI-YOLOv12 for Improving Nighttime Pedestrian Detection in Security
Previous Article in Journal
Fusing Historical Records and Physics-Informed Priors for Urban Waterlogging Susceptibility Assessment: A Framework Integrating Machine Learning, Fuzzy Evaluation, and Decision Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Models for Classifying Cognitive Load Using Physiological Data in Healthcare Context: A Scoping Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Academic Level as a Moderator in University Students’ Acceptance of Educational AI Chatbots: An Extended TAM3 Model

Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(19), 10603; https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910603
Submission received: 2 September 2025 / Revised: 26 September 2025 / Accepted: 29 September 2025 / Published: 30 September 2025

Abstract

AI chatbots have the potential to facilitate students’ academic progress and enhance knowledge accessibility in higher education, yet learners’ attitudes toward these technologies vary amid AI-driven disruptions, with factors influencing acceptance remaining debated. The current study constructs an integrated model based on Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3), an extension of the original TAM, incorporating factors including Self-Efficacy, Perceived Enjoyment, Anxiety, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Output Quality, Social Influence, and Behavioral Intention, to explore determinants and mechanisms influencing learners’ acceptance of AI chatbots. This addresses key challenges in AI-augmented learning, such as personalization benefits versus risks like information inaccuracy and ethical concerns. Results from the questionnaire survey analysis with 265 valid responses reveal significant relationships: (1) self-efficacy significantly predicts perceived ease of use; (2) both perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use positively influence perceived usefulness; and (3) self-efficacy, perceived usefulness, and social influence collectively exert significant effects on behavioral intention. Measurement invariance tests further indicate significant differences in acceptance between undergraduate and graduate students, suggesting academic level moderates behavioral intentions. Findings offer principled guidance for designing inclusive AI tools that mitigate accessibility barriers and promote equitable adoption in educational environments.
Keywords: technology acceptance model; artificial intelligence; chatbots; higher education; knowledge accessibility; AI disruption technology acceptance model; artificial intelligence; chatbots; higher education; knowledge accessibility; AI disruption

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiao, J.; Pan, D.; Gong, R.; Xia, T.; Zhang, X.; Yao, D. Academic Level as a Moderator in University Students’ Acceptance of Educational AI Chatbots: An Extended TAM3 Model. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910603

AMA Style

Xiao J, Pan D, Gong R, Xia T, Zhang X, Yao D. Academic Level as a Moderator in University Students’ Acceptance of Educational AI Chatbots: An Extended TAM3 Model. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(19):10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910603

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiao, Jiaxin, Duohui Pan, Ruining Gong, Tiansheng Xia, Xiaochen Zhang, and Dan Yao. 2025. "Academic Level as a Moderator in University Students’ Acceptance of Educational AI Chatbots: An Extended TAM3 Model" Applied Sciences 15, no. 19: 10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910603

APA Style

Xiao, J., Pan, D., Gong, R., Xia, T., Zhang, X., & Yao, D. (2025). Academic Level as a Moderator in University Students’ Acceptance of Educational AI Chatbots: An Extended TAM3 Model. Applied Sciences, 15(19), 10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910603

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop