Research Article

An investigation of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of generative artificial intelligence using an instrument based on expectancy-value theory and an evaluation of their learning anxiety

Abeer Aidh Alshwiah 1 * , Lamees Abdulrahman Alaulamie 1
More Detail
1 Department of Educational Technologies, Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAUDI ARABIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(1), January 2026, ep635, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17982
Published: 26 February 2026
OPEN ACCESS   51 Views   58 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to determine the extent and effects of pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) knowledge of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) techniques, and to identify their perceptions of the benefits and potential challenges of GenAI. It also sought to determine PSTs’ anxiety over GenAI learning and the risk of job replacement. Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence were therefore gathered to help ascertain the changes necessary for integrating GenAI into their courses. To achieve these aims, a mixed methods approach was adopted. Thus, a survey (quantitative method) was conducted to discover the relationship between PSTs’ knowledge of GenAI and the following variables: (1) willingness to use GenAI, (2) concerns regarding the use of GenAI, (3) anxiety about learning, and (4) anxiety about job replacement. A sample of 170 PSTs participated in this survey, with results indicating moderate knowledge of GenAI. Moreover, positive correlations were found between the participants’ knowledge of GenAI and their willingness to use it, concern over its uses, and anxiety about learning and job replacement. Interviews (a qualitative method) were subsequently carried out with 10 survey participants to explore the potential benefits and challenges associated with using GenAI in learning, and to validate the survey results. GenAI technologies can provide users with instantly accessible feedback and suggestions for assignments. However, the interviewees mentioned a number of challenges, like a lack of training courses, presence of bias and discrimination in the data, and ignorance of the University’s rules for GenAI use.
Keywords: generative artificial intelligence, expectancy-value theory, anxiety, pre-service teachers

CITATION (APA)

Alshwiah, A. A., & Alaulamie, L. A. (2026). An investigation of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of generative artificial intelligence using an instrument based on expectancy-value theory and an evaluation of their learning anxiety. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(1), ep635. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17982

REFERENCES

  1. Akanzire, B. N., Nyaaba, M., & Nabang, M. (2025). Generative AI in teacher education: Teacher educators’ perception and preparedness. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 5(1), Article ep2508. https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/15887
  2. Almaiah, M. A., Alfaisal, R., Salloum, S. A., Hajjej, F., Thabit, S., El-Qirem, F. A., Lutfi, A., Alrawad, M., Al Mulhem, A., Alkhdour, T., Awad, A. B., & Al-Maroof, R. S. (2022). Examining the impact of artificial intelligence and social and computer anxiety in e-learning settings: Students’ perceptions at the university level. Electronics, 11(22), Article 3662. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11223662
  3. Almaraz-López, C., Almaraz-Menéndez, F., & López-Esteban, C. (2023). Comparative study of the attitudes and perceptions of university students in business administration and management and in education toward artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 13(6), Article 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060609
  4. Amani, S., White, L., Balart, T., Arora, L., Shryock, D. K. J., Brumbelow, D. K., & Watson, D. K. L. (2023). Generative AI perceptions: A survey to measure the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students on generative AI tools in academia. arXiv.‏ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.14415
  5. Bonsu, E. M., & Baffour-Koduah, D. (2023). From the consumers’ side: Determining students’ perception and intention to use ChatGPT in Ghanaian higher education. Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism, 4(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2023-0001
  6. Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
  7. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
  8. Chan, C. K. Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). Deconstructing student perceptions of generative AI (GenAI) through an expectancy value theory (EVT)-based instrument. arXiv.‏ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.01186
  9. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278.‏ https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
  10. COMEST. (2019). Preliminary study on the ethics of artificial intelligence. World Commission on Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology.
  11. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddie (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). SAGE.
  12. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
  13. Eccles, J. Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. I., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). W. H. Freeman and Company.
  14. Gamlem, S. M., McGrane, J., Brandmo, C., Moltudal, S., Sun, S. Z., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2025). Exploring pre-service teachers’ attitudes and experiences with generative AI: A mixed methods study in Norwegian teacher education. Educational Psychology.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2528663
  15. Haensch, A.-C., Ball, S., Herklotz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2023). Seeing ChatGPT through students’ eyes: An analysis of TikTok data. In Proceedings of the 2023 Big Data Meets Survey Science (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1109/BigSurv59479.2023.10486710
  16. Howley, I., & Rosé, C. (2018). Empirical evidence for evaluation anxiety and expectancy-value theory for help sources. In J. Kay, & R. Luckin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.
  17. Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasniski, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(3), 25‐37. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110302
  18. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  19. Lecocq, X., Warnier, V., Demil, B., & Plé, L. (2024). Using artificial intelligence (AI) generative technologies for business model design with IDEATe process: A speculative viewpoint. Journal of Business Models, 12(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.54337/jbm.v12i1.8402
  20. Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. E., & Futing Liao, T. (2003). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589
  21. McKinsey Consultant. (2023). What is generative AI? McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-generative-ai
  22. Nyaaba, M., Shi, L., Nabang, M., Zhai, X., Kyeremeh, P., Ayoberd, S. A., & Akanzire, B. N. (2024). Generative AI as a learning buddy and teaching assistant: Pre-service teachers’ uses and attitudes. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.11983
  23. Ofem, U. J., & Chukwujama, G. (2024). Sustainable artificial intelligence-driven classroom assessment in higher institutions: Lessons from Estonia, China, the USA, and Australia for Nigeria. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 5(2), Article e02403. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/15265
  24. Pallathadka, H., Ramirez-Asis, E. H., Loli-Poma, T. P., Kaliyaperumal, K., Ventayen, R. J. M., & Naved, M. (2023). Applications of artificial intelligence in business management, e-commerce and finance. Materials Today: Proceedings, 80, 2610-2613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.06.419
  25. Park, C.-W., Seo, S. W., Kang, N., Ko, B., Choi, B. W., Park, C. M., Chang, D. K., Kim, H., Kim, H., Lee, H., Jang, J., Ye, J. C., Jeon, J. H., Seo, J. B., Kim, K. J., Jung, K.-H., Kim, N., Paek, S., Shin, S.-Y., … Yoon, H.-J. (2020). Artificial intelligence in health care: Current applications and issues. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 35(48), Article e425. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e379
  26. Putri, K. Y., & Naf’ihima, F. A. R. (2025). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of generative AI: Dependency, effect, and ethics. Education and Linguistics Knowledge Journal, 7(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.32503/edulink.v7i1.6834
  27. Ranellucci, J., Rosenberg, J. M., & Poitras, E. G. (2020). Exploring pre-service teachers’ use of technology: The technology acceptance model and expectancy-value theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12459
  28. Söğüt, S. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in EFL writing: A pedagogical stance of pre-service teachers and teacher trainers. Focus on ELT Journal, 6(1), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.6.1.5
  29. Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy-value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), Article 763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470
  30. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Feather, N. T. (2005). Understanding unemployed people’s job search behaviour, unemployment experience and well-being: A comparison of expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X17641
  31. Wang, F., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., & Zhou, Y. (2023). University students’ intentions to learn artificial intelligence: The roles of supportive environments and expectancy-value beliefs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00417-2
  32. Wang, K., Ruan, Q., Zhang, X., Fu, C., & Duan, B. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ GenAI anxiety, technology self-efficacy, and TPACK: Their structural relations with behavioral intention to design GenAI-assisted teaching. Behavioral Sciences, 14(5), Article 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14050373
  33. Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2022). Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674887
  34. 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), Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7
  35. Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025
  36. Zhuang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2025). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ perceptions of using GenAI for practicing teacher questioning: A semester-long study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(9), Article em2689.‏ https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16764