Relationship of Technology Acceptance and Behavioural Intention Toward AI-Based Educational Assessment among Lecturers in Saudi Arabia

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational assessment has intensified the need to understand the factors that shape lecturers’ willingness to adopt AI-supported assessment practices. While prior studies have widely examined technology acceptance in education, fewer studies have focused specifically on the relationship between technology acceptance and behavioural intention toward AI-based educational assessment among lecturers in Saudi higher education. This study examined the extent to which technology acceptance constructs predict lecturers’ behavioural intention to use, continue using, and recommend AI-based educational assessment tools. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was employed using an extended UTAUT-based questionnaire administered to lecturers in Saudi higher education institutions. The result was based on 412 usable responses. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and hierarchical multiple regression were used to examine the relationships among performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, perceived trust in AI, perceived threat to professional autonomy, job security concern, and behavioural intention. The results indicated that performance expectancy, perceived trust in AI, facilitating conditions, effort expectancy, and social influence were positively associated with behavioural intention, while perceived threat to professional autonomy and job security concern were negatively associated with behavioural intention. The hierarchical regression model explained 65.2% of the variance in behavioural intention, with performance expectancy and perceived trust in AI emerging as the strongest positive predictors. The findings suggest that lecturers’ intention to adopt AI-based assessment is shaped not only by perceived usefulness and institutional support, but also by trust and professional concerns related to academic judgment and job relevance. The study contributes to technology acceptance research by offering a relationship-focused explanation of AI-based assessment adoption in Saudi higher education.

AI-based educational assessment; behavioural intention; higher education; Saudi Arabia; technology acceptance; UTAUT

1. Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Ramos Farroñan, E. V., Villena Zapata, L. I., Mogollon Garcia, F. S., Rabanal-León, H. C., Morales Angaspilco, J. E., & Saldaña Bocanegra, J. C. (2024). Acceptance of artificial intelligence in university contexts: A conceptual analysis based on UTAUT2 theory. Heliyon, 10, Article e38315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38315 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., ... Williams, M. D. (2019). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, Article 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/153756 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Huggins-Manley, A. C., Booth, B. M., & D'Mello, S. K. (2022). Toward argument-based fairness with an application to AI-enhanced educational assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 59(3), 362-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kizilcec, R. F., & Lee, H. (2022). Algorithmic fairness in education. In W. Holmes & K. Porayska-Pomsta (Eds.), The ethics of artificial intelligence in education: Practices, challenges, and debates (pp. 174-202). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329067-10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). Teachers' trust in AI-powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 914-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers' intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432-2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. U.S. Department of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328-376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252, Article 124167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marin, 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, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Development and Validation of an Extended UTAUT-Based Instrument for Measuring Lecturers' Acceptance and Behavioral Intention Toward AI-Based Educational Assessment in Saudi Higher Education
• Reconceptualising Learning Approach Adoption through Assessment Perceptions: Evidence from Ghanaian Colleges of Education