Assessing Gender Differences in Technological Readiness and AI Adoption Intentions among Pre-Service Teachers

Oluwanife Segun Falebita, Petrus Jacobus KOK

Abstract

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly transforming instructional processes across educational settings, creating a need to understand the factors associated with its adoption among future educators, particularly across gender groups. 

Purpose: This study examined the relationships among technological readiness, attitude toward AI, and behavioural intention to adopt AI among pre-service teachers, and investigated whether gender moderates these relationships. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate the extent to which technological readiness is related to attitudes toward AI and behavioural intention to adopt AI, and whether these relationships vary between male and female pre-service teachers. 

Method: A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was employed, and data were collected from 378 undergraduate pre-service teachers enrolled in teacher education programmes at public universities in southwestern Nigeria using a structured online questionnaire administered through Google Forms. Data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4, including multigroup analysis to examine gender differences. 

Results: The findings indicate that technological readiness was not significantly associated with behavioural intention to adopt AI (β = .092, t = 1.945, p = .052), and no significant gender differences were found in this relationship (t = 0.479, p = .630). However, technological readiness showed a significant positive association with attitude toward AI (β = .075, t = 2.330, p < .05), with significant gender differences in the strength and direction of this relationship (t = 3.991, p < .05). The relationship was positive among female pre-service teachers but negative among male pre-service teachers. 

Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of strengthening technological confidence and promoting equitable AI integration initiatives in teacher education programmes. The study further highlights the need for teacher educators, informatics educators, and policymakers to create inclusive learning environments that support positive attitudes and engagement with AI technologies among future educators.


Keywords

Artificial Intelligence; Attitude; Intention; Pre-service Teacher; Technological Readiness.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adelana, O. P., Ayanwale, M. A., & Sanusi, I. T. (2024). Exploring pre-service biology teachers’ intention to teach genetics using an AI intelligent tutoring—Based system. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2310976. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2310976

Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003

Campos, D. G., & Scherer, R. (2024). Digital gender gaps in Students’ knowledge, attitudes and skills: An integrative data analysis across 32 Countries. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 655–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12272-9

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Falebita, O. S., & Kok, P. J. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Tools Usage: A Structural Equation Modeling of Undergraduates’ Technological Readiness, Self-Efficacy and Attitudes. Journal for STEM Education Research, 7, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-024-00132-1

Falebita, O. S., & Kok, P. J. (2025). Undergraduate Intentions of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Learning: Influence of Attitude and Perceived Behavioral Control. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 21(1), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v21i01/169-188

Falebita, O. S., Kok, P. J., Ayanwoye, O. K., & Ogunjobi, A. O. (2025). Virtual Reality in Education 4.0: Pre-Service Teachers’ Technology Readiness and Behavioral Intention. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 21(2), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v21i02/151-177

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Ghosh, R., & Khatun, A. (2022). Role of Technological Readiness on the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in the Accounting Profession: Evidence From a Developing Economy. In AI-Enabled Agile Internet of Things for Sustainable FinTech Ecosystems (pp. 170–189). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-4176-3.ch008

Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Evaluation of Reflective Measurement Models. In J. F. Hair Jr., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. P. Danks, & S. Ray (Eds), Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook (pp. 75–90). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_4

Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G., K. V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

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(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Holmes, W., Persson, J., Chounta, I.A., Wasson, B., & Dimitrova, V. (2022). Artificial intelligence and education: A critical view through the lens of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Council of Europe.

Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. L. (2015). An Updated and Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds), Handbook of Market Research (pp. 1–40). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009

Shahidi Hamedani, S., Aslam, S., Mundher Oraibi, B. A., Wah, Y. B., & Shahidi Hamedani, S. (2024). Transitioning towards Tomorrow’s Workforce: Education 5.0 in the Landscape of Society 5.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1041. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101041

Strielkowski, W., Grebennikova, V., Lisovskiy, A., Rakhimova, G., & Vasileva, T. (2025). AI‐driven adaptive learning for sustainable educational transformation. Sustainable Development, 33(2), 1921–1947. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3221

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Measuring the Moderating Effect of Gender and Age on E-Learning Acceptance in England: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach for An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.2.b

Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1672

Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A multi-group analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.641674

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why Don’t Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/ijie.v10i1.125382