Determinants of Intention to Use ChatGPT for Professional Development among Omani EFL Pre-service Teachers


  • Amal Mohammad Husein Alrishan


ChatGPT; EFL pre-service teachers; professional development; structural equation modelling; technology acceptance model (TAM)


The integration of ChatGPT within the workplace holds the promise of enhancing professional communication, streamlining task automation, and expediting access to information and assistance. However, the ultimate success of this endeavour hinges on the proactive adoption and utilisation of ChatGPT by professionals. This study endeavours to illuminate the utilisation of ChatGPT for professional development by pre-service teachers specialising in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Oman. To this end, it employs an extended conceptual framework rooted in the technology accceptance model (TAM), incorporating critical exogenous factors such as instructor support, personal innovativeness, and perceived learning value. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity and reliability of the model's components. Utilising a cross-sectional research design, a structured questionnaire was administered to a sample comprising 280 EFL pre-service teachers in Oman.  The structural model elucidated that external factors—namely, instructor support, personal innovativeness, and perceived learning value—exerted a statistically significant influence on the EFL pre-service teachers' perceptions of the utility and ease of use of ChatGPT. Moreover, it emerged that the perceived utility and ease of use of ChatGPT were instrumental in shaping the intention of Omani EFL pre-service teachers to embrace this AI-powered tool for their professional development endeavours. Collectively, the model effectively accounted for 63% of the variance in the intention of EFL pre-service teachers in Oman to adopt ChatGPT for their professional growth. These results have practical implications for educators and institutions seeking to enhance the integration of innovative technologies like ChatGPT in language education and professional development programs.


Abbas, N., Whitfield, J., Atwell, E., Bowman, H., Pickard, T., & Walker, A. (2022). Online chat and chatbots to enhance mature student engagement in higher education. Information Systems Research, 41(3), 308–326.

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215.

Ain, N., Kaur, K., & Waheed, M. (2016). The influence of learning value on learning management system use: An extension of UTAUT2. Information Development, 32(5), 1306–1321.

Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students' acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(2), 4-18.

Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology acceptance model in m-learning con- text: A systematic Review. Computers & Education, 125, 389-412.

Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155.

Alkawsi, G., Ali, N., & Baashar, Y. (2021). The moderating role of personal innovativeness and users experience in accepting the smart meter technology. Applied Sciences, 11(8), 3297.

Al-Sharafi, M. A., Al-Emran, M., Iranmanesh, M., Al-Qaysi, N., Iahad, N. A., & Arpaci, I. (2022). Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–20.

Brusch, I., & Rappel, N. (2020). Exploring the acceptance of instant shopping–An empirical analysis of the determinants of user intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 101936.

Byrne, B. M. (2000). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Psychology Press: New York.

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278.

Cheng, Y. M. (2014). Exploring the intention to use mobile learning: The moderating role of personal innovativeness. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 16(1), 40–61.

Dajani, D., & Hegleh, A. S. A. (2019). Behaviour intention of animation usage among university students. Heliyon, 5(10), e02536.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

Drueke, B., Mainz, V., Lemos, M., Wirtz, M., & Boecker, M. (2021). An Evaluation of Forced Distance Learning and Teaching Under Pandemic Conditions Using the Technology Acceptance Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I can’t? Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on situational interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 104–118.

Elkaseh, A.M., Wong, K.W., & Fung, C.C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural equation modelling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6 (3), 192-199.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (4th ed) Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. A. (2021). Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

Hew, K.F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C.K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3): 956–971.

Hong, J., Tai, K., Luo, W., Sher, Y., & Kao, Y. (2022). Comparing the Taiwanese learning effects of Shaking-On and Kahoot. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 892–905.

Huang, H.-M., & Liaw, S.S. (2018). An Analysis of Learners’ Intentions Toward Virtual Reality Learning Based on Constructivist and Technology Acceptance Approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).

Hung, M. L., &Chou, C. (2015). Students’ Perceptions of Instructors ‘Role in blended and Online learning environments: A Comparative Study. Computers &Education,81, 315-325.

Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-Y. (2021). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environment, 31(7), 1–14.

Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2023) Reciprocal issues of artificial and human intelligence in education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(1), 1–6.

Iranmanesh, M., Foroughi, B., Nunkoo, R., & Shan, C. L. (2022). Travelers’ loyalty toward Airbnb: The moderating effect of relative attractiveness of the reward program. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(22), 3623-3639.

Jeon, J. (2022). Exploring AI chatbot affordances in the EFL classroom: Young learners’ experiences and perspectives. (Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–27.

Jianlin, W., & Qi, D. (2010). Moderating effect of personal innovativeness in the model for e-store loyalty. International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, 2065–2068.

Kabra, G., Ramesh, A., Akhtar, P., & Dash, M. K. (2017). Understanding behavioural intention to use information technology: Insights from humanitarian practitioners. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1250– 1261.

Khanh, N., & Gim, G. (2014). Factors Influencing Mobile-Learning Adoption Intention: An Empirical Investigation in High Education. Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 51-62.

Khazaei, H., & Tareq, M. A. (2021). Moderating effects of personal innovativeness and driving experience on factors influencing adoption of BEVs in Malaysia: An integrated SEM–BSEM approach. Heliyon, 7(9), e08072.

Kline, R. B. (2008). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling (5th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023). Interacting with educational Chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 973–1018.

Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Larsen, K. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12.

Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2022). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 26-29.

Mazman, A. S. (2019). Does it matter being innovative: Teachers’ technology acceptance. Education and Information Technologies, 4, 3415-3432.

Metheny, J., McWhirter, E. H., & O’Neil, M. E. (2008). Measuring Perceived Teacher Support and Its Influence on Adolescent Career Development. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 218–237.

Mijwil, M., & Aljanabi, M. (2023). Towards artificial intelligence-based cybersecurity: The practices and ChatGPT generated ways to combat cybercrime. Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics, 4(1), 65–70.

Mousa, A., Mousa, S., Mousa, S., & Obaid, H. (2020). Advance Acceptance Status Model for E-learning Based on University Academics and Students. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 671.

Ngubelanga, A., & Duffett, R. (2021). Modeling Mobile Commerce Applications’ Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction among Millennials: An Extended TAM Perspective. Sustainability, 13(11), 5973.

Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioural intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56–73.

Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., Metri, B., & Kaushik, N. (2023). Students’ adoption of AI-based teacher-bots (T-bots) for learning in higher education. Information Technology & People, 1–25.

Rahman, S., Taghizadeh, S., Ramayah, T., & Alam, M. (2017). Technology acceptance among micro-entrepreneurs in marginalized social strata: The case of social innovation in Bangladesh. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 236-245.

Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11(6),887.

Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, F. N., Abdul-Rahim, N. F. A., Khoshkam, M., & Mirzaei, M. (2023). Determinants of intention to use e-Wallet: Personal innovativeness and propensity to trust as moderators. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(12), 2361–2373.

Qureshi, M.A., Sharif, A., & Afshan, S. (2018). Acceptance of learning management system in university students: An integrating framework of modified UTAUT2 and TTF theories. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(2), 201–229.

Singh, S. (2023). The moderating role of privacy concerns on intention to use smart wearable technologies: An integrated model combining UTAUT2 theoretical framework and privacy dimensions. Journal of Global Marketing, 36(2), 93–111.

Sitar-Taut, D.A., & Mican, D. (2021). Mobile learning acceptance and use in higher education during social distancing circumstances: An expansion and customization of UTAUT2. Online Information Review, 45(5), 1000–1019.

Shodipe, T., & Ohanu, I. (2021). Electrical/electronic technology education teachers’ attitude, engagement, and disposition towards actual usage of Mobile learning in higher institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1023-1042.

Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020). Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Computers & Education, 151, 103862. compedu.2020.103862

Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2020). An investigation of the influence of intrinsic motivation on students’ intention to use mobile devices in language learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1181–1198.

Taecharungroj, V. (2023). “What can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing early reactions to the innovative AI Chatbot on Twitter. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(1), 35.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D.A. (2000). Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),186-204.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2023). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.

Wang, Y., Wang, S., Wang, J., Wei, J., & Wang, C. (2020). An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model. Transportation, 47, 397-415.

Yin, J., Goh, T.-T., Yang, B., & Xiaobin, Y. (2021). Conversation technology with micro-learning: The impact of chatbot-based learning on students’ learning motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 154–177.

Zacharis, G., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2022). Factors predicting University students’ behavioural intention to use eLearning platforms in the post-pandemic normal: An UTAUT2 approach with ‘Learning Value. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12065–12082.

Zogheib, B., Rabaa’i, A., Zogheib, S., & Elsaheli, A. (2015). University student perceptions of technology use in mathematics learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 417-438.

Zwain, A. A. A. (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of users’ acceptance of learning management system: An expansion of UTAUT2.2019. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3), 239–254.