Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Modeling high school students’ acceptance of GenAI for physics learning via an extended technology acceptance model: Disciplinary beliefs as a distal antecedent

Jingbin Xue1,2, Wangyi Xu1,3,*, Yuyang Qi1,2, and Dechao Lu1,2

  • 1Chinese Education Modernization Research Institute of Hangzhou Normal University (Zhejiang Provincial Key Think Tank), Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311121, China
  • 2School of Physics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311121, China
  • 3Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311121, China

  • *Contact author: xwy@hznu.edu.cn

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020148 – Published 21 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/62m6-lkh7

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly used in physics classrooms, yet little is known about why high school students accept them for subject-specific learning. Prior technology-acceptance research, especially the technology acceptance model (TAM), shows that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use shape attitudes and behavioral intention toward a tool. However, this work has rarely examined whether students’ beliefs about the subject they are learning also shape those technology perceptions. Drawing on TAM and expectancy-value theory (EVT), we surveyed 340 Grade 10 students who had used DeepSeek in physics lessons and tested an extended structural equation model. Results showed that students were more willing to use DeepSeek when they perceived it as easy to use and useful and when they held positive attitudes toward using it for physics learning. Physics-specific beliefs helped explain these technology perceptions: students with stronger expectancy for success in physics perceived DeepSeek as easier to use; students who saw physics as useful for their future perceived DeepSeek as more useful; students who enjoyed physics held more positive attitudes; and perceived cost weakened both ease-of-use and attitude judgments. Students who regarded doing well in physics as personally important also tended to evaluate DeepSeek more favorably, partly because they saw it as useful for achieving physics-learning goals. Nested model comparisons clarified what the EVT extension added beyond the basic TAM framework. Adding physics-task values produced the largest incremental gain, especially for perceived usefulness (ΔR2=0.151). Supplementary follow-up evidence indicated that the same level of intention could reflect learning-oriented or shortcut-oriented use and that some students linked shortcut-oriented use to low confidence and topic difficulty rather than to disinterest alone. Overall, the findings suggest that GenAI acceptance in physics is shaped by both technology perceptions and students’ motivational relationship with physics, supporting a domain-sensitive extension of TAM for subject-specific GenAI learning.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (100)

  1. F. Kieser, P. Wulff, J. Kuhn, and S. Küchemann, Educational data augmentation in physics education research using ChatGPT, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020150 (2023).
  2. G. Kortemeyer, Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010132 (2023).
  3. M. N. Dahlkemper, S. Z. Lahme, and P. Klein, How do physics students evaluate artificial intelligence responses on comprehension questions? A study on the perceived scientific accuracy and linguistic quality of ChatGPT, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010142 (2023).
  4. G. Polverini, J. Melin, E. Önerud, and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on tasks involving physics visual representations: The case of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010154 (2025).
  5. D. Tong, B. Jin, Y. Tao, H. Ren, A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam, and L. Bao, Exploring the role of human-AI collaboration in solving scientific problems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010149 (2025).
  6. C. K. Lo, What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature, Educ. Sci. 13, 410 (2023).
  7. O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators?, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 16, 39 (2019).
  8. L. Ding, T. Li, S. Jiang, and A. Gapud, Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 63 (2023).
  9. C. K. Y. Chan and W. Hu, Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 43 (2023).
  10. S. Bisdas, C.-C. Topriceanu, Z. Zakrzewska et al., Artificial intelligence in medicine: A multinational multi-center survey on the medical and dental students’ perception, Front. Public Health 9, 795284 (2021).
  11. H. Crompton and D. Burke, Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 22 (2023).
  12. A. J. Buabbas, B. Miskin, A. A. Alnaqi, A. K. Ayed, A. A. Shehab, S. Syed-Abdul, and M. Uddin, Investigating students’ perceptions towards artificial intelligence in medical education, Healthcare 11, 1298 (2023).
  13. E. Kasneci et al., ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education, Learn. Individ. Differ. 103, 102274 (2023).
  14. F. G. K. Yilmaz, R. Yilmaz, and M. Ceylan, Generative artificial intelligence acceptance scale: A validity and reliability study, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 40, 8703 (2024).
  15. F. D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Q. 13, 319 (1989).
  16. W. R. King and J. He, A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model, Inf. Manage. 43, 740 (2006).
  17. R. Scherer, F. Siddiq, and J. Tondeur, The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education, Comput. Educ. 128, 13 (2019).
  18. S. Y. Park, An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning, Educ. Technol. Soc. 12, 150 (2009).
  19. J. C. Roca, C.-M. Chiu, and F. J. Martínez, Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 683 (2006).
  20. T. Teo, Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test, Comput. Educ. 57, 2432 (2011).
  21. Y. Lin and Z. Yu, Extending technology acceptance model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 34 (2023).
  22. H. M. Alotaibi, S. S. Sonbul, and D. A. El-Dakhs, Factors influencing the acceptance and use of ChatGPT among English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12, 628 (2025).
  23. G. Liu and C. Ma, Measuring EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT in informal digital learning of English based on the technology acceptance model, Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 18, 125 (2024).
  24. L. Du and B. Lv, Factors influencing students’ acceptance and use of generative artificial intelligence in elementary education: An expansion of the UTAUT model, Educ. Inf. Technol. 29, 24715 (2024).
  25. J. Xu, Y. Li, R. Shadiev, and C. Li, College students’ use behavior of generative AI and its influencing factors under the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 19961 (2025).
  26. N. A. Dahri, N. Yahaya, W. M. Al-Rahmi, A. Aldraiweesh, U. Alturki, S. Almutairy, A. Shutaleva, and R. B. Soomro, Extended TAM-based acceptance of AI-powered ChatGPT for supporting metacognitive self-regulated learning in education: A mixed-methods study, Heliyon 10, e29317 (2024).
  27. R. Zhang and J. Wang, Perceptions, adoption intentions, and impacts of generative AI among Chinese university students, Curr. Psychol. 44, 11276 (2025).
  28. A. Ghimire and J. Edwards, Generative AI adoption in the classroom: A contextual exploration using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), in Proceedings of the 2024 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC) (IEEE, New York, 2024), pp. 129–134.
  29. M. F. Shahzad, S. Xu, and I. Javed, ChatGPT awareness, acceptance, and adoption in higher education: The role of trust as a cornerstone, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 21, 46 (2024).
  30. A. Strzelecki, To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology, Interact. Learn. Environ. 32, 5142 (2024).
  31. N. Saif, S. U. Khan, I. Shaheen, F. A. ALotaibi, M. M. Alnfiai, and M. Arif, Chat-GPT; validating technology acceptance model (TAM) in education sector via ubiquitous learning mechanism, Comput. Hum. Behav. 154, 108097 (2024).
  32. P. Shrivastava, Understanding acceptance and resistance toward generative AI technologies: A multi-theoretical framework integrating functional, risk, and sociolegal factors, Front. Artif. Intell. 8, 1565927 (2025).
  33. R. P. Bagozzi, The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 244 (2007).
  34. V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions, Decis. Sci. 39, 273 (2008).
  35. Y. Lee, K. A. Kozar, and K. R. T. Larsen, The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12, 752 (2003).
  36. D. R. Compeau and C. A. Higgins, Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test, MIS Q. 19, 189 (1995).
  37. V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, and X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2), MIS Q. 36, 157 (2012).
  38. E. F. Redish, Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics, Am. J. Phys. 62, 796 (1994).
  39. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  40. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  41. H. M. G. Watt, M. Bucich, and L. Dacosta, Adolescents’ motivational profiles in mathematics and science: Associations with achievement striving, career aspirations and psychological wellbeing, Front. Psychol. 10, 990 (2019).
  42. H. Gaspard, I. Häfner, C. Parrisius, U. Trautwein, and B. Nagengast, Assessing task values in five subjects during secondary school: Measurement structure and mean level differences across grade level, gender, and academic subject, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 48, 67 (2017).
  43. P. Wattanakasiwich, K. Kaewkhong, and D. Katwibun, Physics instructors’ acceptance and implementation of generative AI, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010155 (2025).
  44. A. S. Şimşek, G. Ş. Tepetaş Cengiz, and M. Bal, Extending the TAM framework: Exploring learning motivation and agility in educational adoption of generative AI, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 20913 (2025).
  45. A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles, Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 68 (2000).
  46. E. Q. Rosenzweig, A. Wigfield, and J. S. Eccles, Expectancy-value theory and its relevance for student motivation and learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Motivation and Learning, edited by K. A. Renninger and S. E. Hidi (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2019), p. 617.
  47. J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, Motivational beliefs, values, and goals, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 109 (2002).
  48. A. Wigfield and J. Cambria, Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective, in The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement, Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16, edited by T. C. Urdan and S. A. Karabenick (Emerald, Bingley, 2010), p. 35.
  49. B. J. Zimmerman, Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 82 (2000).
  50. P. R. Pintrich and E. V. De Groot, Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 33 (1990).
  51. C. S. Hulleman and J. M. Harackiewicz, Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes, Science 326, 1410 (2009).
  52. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  53. J. K. Flake, K. E. Barron, C. Hulleman, B. D. McCoach, and M. E. Welsh, Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 41, 232 (2015).
  54. M.-T. Wang and J. Degol, Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields, Dev. Rev. 33, 304 (2013).
  55. P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model, Inf. Manage. 40, 191 (2003).
  56. B. Šumak, M. Heričko, and M. Pušnik, A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user type and e-learning technology type, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 2067 (2011).
  57. F. Abdullah and R. Ward, Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors, Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 238 (2016).
  58. D. Purwandari, Students’ intentions to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended technological acceptance model (TAM) approach, J. SISFOKOM (Sist. Inf. Komput.) 13, 110 (2024).
  59. M. Mailizar, D. Burg, and S. Maulina, Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model, Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 7057 (2021).
  60. V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies, Manage. Sci. 46, 186 (2000).
  61. R. I. M. Amir, I. H. Mohd, S. Saad, S. A. Abu Seman, and T. B. H. Tuan Besar, Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention: The acceptance of crowdsourcing platform by using TAM, in Charting a Sustainable Future of ASEAN in Business and Social Sciences (Springer, Singapore, 2020), pp. 403–410.
  62. J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61, 101859 (2020).
  63. K. E. Barron and C. S. Hulleman, Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., edited by J. D. Wright (Elsevier, Oxford, 2015), p. 503.
  64. Y. Jiang and L. Zhang, High school students’ expectancy, value, and cost profiles and their relations with engagement and achievement in math and English, Learn. Individ. Differ. 101, 102252 (2023).
  65. C. J. Fong, K. P. Kremer, C. Hill-Troglin Cox, and C. A. Lawson, Expectancy–value profiles in math and science: A person-centered approach to cross-domain motivation with academic and STEM-related outcomes, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 65, 101962 (2021).
  66. E. Q. Rosenzweig and X.-Y. Chen, Which STEM careers are most appealing? Examining high school students’ preferences and motivational beliefs for different STEM career choices, Int. J. STEM Educ. 10, 40 (2023).
  67. J. Guo, H. W. Marsh, P. D. Parker, A. J. S. Morin, and T. Dicke, Extending expectancy-value theory predictions of achievement and aspirations in science: Dimensional comparison processes and expectancy-by-value interactions, Learn. Instr. 49, 81 (2017).
  68. Y. Li and C. Singh, Do female and male students’ physics motivational beliefs change in a two-semester introductory physics course sequence?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010142 (2022).
  69. J. Han, T. Kelley, and J. G. Knowles, Factors influencing student STEM learning: Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, 21st century skills, and career awareness, J. STEM Educ. Res. 4, 117 (2021).
  70. Y. Li and C. Singh, Inclusive learning environments can improve student learning and motivational beliefs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020147 (2022).
  71. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Longitudinal analysis of women and men’s motivational beliefs in a two-semester introductory physics course sequence for students on the bioscience track, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020111 (2022).
  72. S. Cwik and C. Singh, How perception of learning environment predicts male and female students’ grades and motivational outcomes in algebra-based introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020143 (2021).
  73. C. K. Y. Chan and W. Zhou, An expectancy value theory (EVT) based instrument for measuring student perceptions of generative AI, Smart Learn. Environ. 10, 64 (2023).
  74. C.-M. Chiu and E. T. G. Wang, Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value, Inf. Manage. 45, 194 (2008).
  75. Y. J. Joo, K. Y. Lim, and J. Kim, Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context, Comput. Educ. 62, 149 (2013).
  76. A. A. Alanazi, B. B. Frey, C. Niileksela, S. W. Lee, A. Nong, and F. Alharbi, The role of task value and technology satisfaction in student performance in graduate-level online courses, TechTrends 64, 922 (2020).
  77. Y. Zhang, X. Zheng, and B. Shen, Impacts of task value belief and relational quality on hMOOC learner satisfaction in the post-pandemic era: The mediating roles of learner engagement and knowledge sharing, Educ. Inf. Technol. 29, 21891 (2024).
  78. S.-L. Cheng, L. Lu, K. Xie, and V. W. Vongkulluksn, Understanding teacher technology integration from expectancy-value perspectives, Teach. Teach. Educ. 91, 103062 (2020).
  79. S. Cheng, Teaching with technology requires high expectancies and high values, Educ. Inf. Technol. 29, 23415 (2024).
  80. S. X. Yin and D. H.-L. Goh, Expectancy–value beliefs as predictors of student intentions in AI learning and application, in Sustainability and Empowerment in the Context of Digital Libraries (ICADL 2024), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited by G. Oliver, V. Frings-Hessami, J. T. Du, and T. Tezuka (Springer, Singapore, 2025), Vol. 15493, p. 137.
  81. Y. Jiang, E. Q. Rosenzweig, and H. Gaspard, An expectancy-value-cost approach in predicting adolescent students’ academic motivation and achievement, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 54, 139 (2018).
  82. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/62m6-lkh7 for measurement-model details (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity), the exploratory saturated structural model, pure-TAM baseline model, nested-model figures, a glossary of structural equation modeling terms, and materials, protocols, coding procedures, and exploratory evidence from the supplementary follow-up survey and interviews.
  83. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed. (Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2016).
  84. J. F. Hair, Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. (Cengage Learning, Hampshire, 2019).
  85. R. W. Brislin, Back-translation for cross-cultural research, J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1, 185 (1970).
  86. S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models, Inf. Syst. Res. 6, 144 (1995).
  87. A. Bhattacherjee and C. Sanford, Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model, MIS Q. 30, 805 (2006).
  88. J. S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21, 215 (1995).
  89. T. Teo, A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context, Interact. Learn. Environ. 18, 65 (2010).
  90. J. E. Jacobs, S. Lanza, D. W. Osgood, J. S. Eccles, and A. Wigfield, Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve, Child Dev. 73, 509 (2002).
  91. K. Muenks, J. E. Miller, B. A. Schuetze, and T. A. Whittaker, Is cost separate from or part of subjective task value? An empirical examination of expectancy–value versus expectancy–value–cost perspectives, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 72, 102149 (2023).
  92. H. Gaspard, A.-L. Dicke, B. Flunger, B. Schreier, I. Häfner, U. Trautwein, and B. Nagengast, More value through greater differentiation: Gender differences in value beliefs about math, J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 663 (2015).
  93. N. Seetee, C. Chi, A. Dhir, and S. Chen, Validation of the science, mathematics, and English task value scales based on longitudinal data, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 19, 443 (2021).
  94. Y. Rosseel, Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling, J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1 (2012).
  95. L. T. Hu and P. M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1 (1999).
  96. J. B. Schreiber, A. Nora, F. K. Stage, E. A. Barlow, and J. King, Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review, J. Educ. Res. 99, 323 (2006).
  97. C. Or, Thirty-five years of the technology acceptance model: Insights from meta-analytic structural equation modelling, OTESSA J. 4, 1 (2024).
  98. T. Xia, X. Pan, M. Cao, and J. Guo, An investigation of college students’ acceptance of AI-assisted reading tools: An expansion of the TAM and SDT, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 18031 (2025).
  99. E. Ibili, D. Resnyansky, and M. Billinghurst, Applying the technology acceptance model to understand maths teachers’ perceptions towards an augmented reality tutoring system, Educ. Inf. Technol. 24, 2653 (2019).
  100. S. Balaskas, V. Tsiantos, S. Chatzifotiou, and M. Rigou, Determinants of ChatGPT adoption intention in higher education: Expanding on TAM with the mediating roles of trust and risk, Information 16, 82 (2025).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation