Artificial Intelligence Tools: Technology Acceptance and Psychological Resilience for Sustainable Mathematics Learning
Mona Khalifah Aladil, Azza Ali Gameil
Source abstract
Mathematics education is being reshaped by artificial intelligence tools, which tailor instruction to individual learners through adaptive guidance and instant feedback, and in doing so can deepen conceptual understanding and build problem-solving capacity. Whether students accept such tools and keep using them, however, rests on a combination of cognitive, behavioral, and psychological conditions. The present study investigated how first-year female undergraduate students (N = 125) at a university in Saudi Arabia accept AI tools, and how psychologically resilient they are, within a mathematics learning environment supported by AI. A further aim was to determine how psychological resilience relates to both technology acceptance and learning engagement in that environment. A model was therefore constructed integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), learning engagement, and psychological resilience. Data was gathered through a quantitative cross-sectional survey at the end of the semester and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Participants reported high technology acceptance and psychological resilience. Model fit was satisfactory, and the proposed hypotheses were supported. Psychological resilience was positively associated with both technology acceptance and learning engagement, and was indirectly associated with behavioral intention through the model’s mediating constructs, of which perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the first links. By adding psychological resilience and learning engagement to TAM, these findings may broaden the model and help clarify how these constructs relate to AI acceptance in AI-supported mathematics learning.
Evidence graph
No public relationships recorded yet.
Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.