The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an established framework for understanding how individuals accept and use technologies (Davis, 1989). Two key factors in the TAM that influence the acceptance of learning technologies are their Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU). While PU refers to individuals’ belief in the ability of the technology to enhance their productivity, PEOU refers to their perception of the level of difficulty or simplicity associated with using the technology. Previous findings indicate that PEOU and PU are crucial precursors toward individuals accepting learning technologies (Granić & Marangunić, 2019). The TAM also shows that an individual intention to use a technology is also needed in order to progress toward actual use. In this study, we adapt the TAM to explore participants’ attitudes toward accepting and using the GAI2N in the context of GenAI use and adoption in education: Are there patterns in perception of the GAI2N across participants? Do these perceptions reflect challenges and benefits that indicate their acceptance of the GAI2N based on PU and PEOU? Do faculty who learn about the GAI2N express intent to use it in their practice?
This exploratory, IRB-approved, qualitative research study asks the question: how do higher education faculty perceive and engage with a reflective guide, the GAI2N, designed to help them consider implementations of GenAI in their syllabus?
The four GAI2N designers (also educational researchers) carefully structured a one-hour webinar with ISTE+ASCD to present the tool to a public, national audience in November, 2025. Invitations to participate in the webinar were shared with teacher education faculty from across the country through the ISTE+ASCD Alliance for Innovation in Teacher Education Pledge community as well as social media platforms. Built around the design of sharing the guide for maximum utility for the higher education participants, they then centered several moments and data elements. These include: (1) Individual virtual polling responses related to participants’ greatest concerns surrounding implementing GenAI at the course level, (2) After a presentation related to how to use the GAI2N, virtual polling responses related to concrete ways participants plan to use the GAI2N and their perceptions of challenges and benefits to using the tool, and (3) Chat responses related to questions participants still have about including GenAI in their syllabi. Given the public nature of the webinar, at its conclusion, participants will additionally had the opportunity to share anonymous feedback in a short survey. The survey included Likert scale questions adapted from the validated Basic Technology Adoption Model (TAM) Questionnaire, as well two open-ended questions for further feedback.
The quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the qualitative data collected from these data sources will be analyzed using reflective thematic analysis. This initial research is necessary due to the sense of urgency reported by faculty in requesting support in navigating the use of GenAI in their coursework.
When it came to concerns around integrating GenAI when entering the webinar, this study found that teacher education faculty were concerned about ethics and responsibility, academic integrity, and AI pedagogy. After the faculty members participated in the webinar about the GenAI Integration Navigator (GAI2N), they shared their perceptions through a shared whiteboard and an anonymous survey. 93% perceived the GAI2N as useful, 96% perceived the GAI2N as easy to use, and 86% reported intending to use the GAI2N in their practice. Themes around perceived usefulness included scaffolded decision making, promotion of thoughtfulness and new ideas, and Shared Meaning and support. Themes around perceived ease of use related to the structure, approachability even for beginners, and clear connections to current course design practices. Challenges to using the GAI2N included time, need for greater AI literacy, need to develop institutional buy-in, and desire for additional resources. Overall, teacher educators responded positively to the GAI2N and perceived it as a practical and accessible framework that can help teacher educators move from uncertainty toward intentional, ethical, and pedagogically sound use of Generative AI.
This paper has educational significance in elevating the conversation around the need to equip preservice and inservice teachers with the skills, knowledge, and practices to integrate GenAI into their teaching contexts. The examined tool (the GAI2N) filled a significant gap in scaffolded support for teacher education faculty who wanted to thoughtfully bring generative AI into their teacher education coursework. Sharing this research provides an example of the role that a tool such as the GAI2N can play in bridging the planning and implementation of GenAI in preservice and inservice teacher education. Gaining insight into the challenges, reflections, and perceptions of perceived use and usefulness of GAI2N may lead to a deeper understanding and intricacies related to the acceptance and use of GenAI. Furthermore, it can inform the development of additional resources and scaffolds to advance the responsible, reflective integration of generative AI as a learning tool and as new TPACK knowledge for preservice and inservice teachers.
Aniefuna, M. (2025). Transformational learning principles: Research annotation. https://aue2p2z1s3bnewcomedia.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/documents/Transformational_Learning_Principles_Research_Annotation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., Terry, G. (2019). Thematic Analysis. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Nickel, C. (2026). Designing faculty standards for technology integration in higher Education institutions: A design-based research study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 23(8), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00584-y
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319–340.
Eguchi, A., George, S., Fraga, L., Black, N. B., Blackwood, A., Dempsey, J. C., & Kasun, G. S. (2026). Integrating AI competencies into teacher education programs. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572-2593.
ISTE. (2025). ISTE Standards for Faculty. https://www.iste.org/standards/faculty
ISTE+ASCD. (2026). 8 Core Principles for Enhancing Student Success. https://iste-ascd.org/tlps
Kasun, G. S., Blackwood, A., Mak, J., & Black, N. B. (2025). The GAI2N: GenAI integration navigator—A reflective guide for educator preparation program faculty. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n9dmWGuSsJwvJQAilEt9USSs4mYR9ztU/view
Kelly, K. (2023). Excellent advice for living: Wisdom I wish I'd known earlier. Penguin Publishing Group.
Kubota, T. (2026, May 13). Stanford education experts put AI into perspective. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/05/education-experts-ai-risks-opportunities
Kudina, O., & Van De Poel, I. (2024). A sociotechnical system perspective on AI. Minds and
Machines, 34(3), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09673-5
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood (Vol. 24). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2(17-37), 25.
Other presentations in this group:
| Related exhibitors: | Microsoft Corporation |
Back
Trips and Tours
