metricas
covid
Buscar en
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge
Toda la web
Inicio Journal of Innovation & Knowledge Innovative interactive instruction to enhance learning behaviors
Journal Information
Vol. 10. Issue 1. (In progress)
(January - March 2025)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
50
Vol. 10. Issue 1. (In progress)
(January - March 2025)
Full text access
Innovative interactive instruction to enhance learning behaviors
Visits
50
Duen-Huang Huang
Center for Teacher Education, Chaoyang University of Technology, 168, Jifeng E. Rd., Wufeng District, Taichung, 413310, Taiwan, ROC
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Tables (9)
Table 1. Analysis results (all students)
Table 2. Analysis results (Department of Communication Arts)
Table 3. Analysis results (Department of Environment Engineering and Management)
Table 4. Analysis results (Department of Leisure Services Management)
Table 5. Analysis results (Department of Business Administration)
Table 6. Pair-wise comparisons of behaviors in technology acceptance
Table 7. All student paired sample statistics.
Table 8. All students paired samples t-test (Post-test score - Pre-test score)
Show moreShow less
Abstract

This study applies the Technology Acceptance Model to examine user acceptance of emerging technologies—specifically LINE and Google Translate—for language learning. A multimodal interactive teaching program, combining cooperative learning and problem-based learning, was implemented at a university in Taiwan. Upon completion, a survey was conducted among participating students. Factor loading analysis reveal strong correlations between the variables and their corresponding constructs. Reliability tests confirm the internal consistency of the questionnaire, while confirmatory factor analysis validates the convergent validity of all constructs. The study also uncovered departmental differences in technology acceptance behavior, and the results indicated significant improvements in both learning motivation and student attitudes.

Keywords:
Cooperative learning
Multimodel interactive teaching program
Problem based learning
Technology acceptance model
JEL classification:
I230
I210
Full Text
Introduction

In today's rapidly evolving educational landscape, traditional teaching methodologies are increasingly being challenged by the changing needs and preferences of students, particularly Generation Z learners. Conventional classroom instruction often falls short in engaging students and adapting to their shifting learning patterns. To address these challenges, integrating technology with innovative teaching strategies has become essential for enhancing both student engagement and academic performance. Notably, innovative teaching is increasingly recognized as part of universities’ social responsibility (de Moraes Abrahão et al., 2024; Shek et al., 2017).

One promising approach is multimodal interactive teaching, which combines various instructional methods to create a dynamic and engaging learning environment. For example, Song (2024) utilizes social network analysis to design interactive learning frameworks that significantly improve learning outcomes. Additionally, cooperative learning techniques and problem-based learning (PBL) are often integrated into multimodal teaching, fostering critical thinking and collaborative experiences (Hidayati et al., 2022; Saiful et al., 2020).

This study investigates how college students adopt new technologies in their learning processes and how these technologies influence their motivation and attitudes toward learning. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a framework for analyzing students’ acceptance of digital tools, including social media platforms (e.g., LINE) and learning tools (e.g., Google Translate), particularly in the context of language learning. Over the course of one year, multimodal interactive teaching was implemented for a group of college students. At the end of the study, a survey involving 202 participants was conducted. The empirical findings offer valuable insights into students’ perceptions and acceptance of technology within this innovative teaching framework.

To further examine the impact of innovative teaching on learning behaviors, this study addresses the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How do the perceived ease of use and usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools influence students’ attitudes toward language learning?

RQ2: Do students from different academic disciplines demonstrate varying levels of technology acceptance in a multimodal interactive learning environment?

RQ3: What roles do cooperative learning and problem-based learning play in enhancing students’ acceptance of technology?

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews relevant literature on various teaching methods and the TAM framework. Section 3 outlines the teaching design, focusing on guiding students to understand the impact of AI across different domains. Section 4 details the objectives, scope, participants, methods, and data analysis techniques used to evaluate the teaching approach's effectiveness. Section 5 presents findings related to students’ learning attitudes, motivations, and technology acceptance. Section 6 discusses implications for educators and students. Section 7 concludes the study and offers recommendations based on the key findings.

Research backgroundEvolution of teaching methods

Traditional classroom teaching, which relies heavily on teacher-led instruction, often struggles to maintain students’ attention despite significant effort. As learning resources expand beyond textbooks, Generation Z students exhibit evolving learning patterns. The advancement of information and communication technologies has diversified teaching tools, fostering enhanced interaction between educators and learners and making learning more engaging (Betihavas et al., 2016).

Blankesteijn et al. (2024) underscore the significance of experiential learning in science- and technology-based entrepreneurship education, identifying four core activities: incorporating real-world experiences into the classroom, recognizing the complexity of management and entrepreneurial challenges, engaging students in management interventions, and emphasizing the value of reflection. Similarly, Wu and Chen (2021) demonstrate the effectiveness of experiential and constructivist learning approaches in courses such as innovation management, knowledge management, project management, and risk management, particularly within business schools.

To improve academic performance and student satisfaction, Song (2024) introduces a multimodal interactive classroom strategy based on social network analysis. The findings indicate that this approach enhances academic outcomes and student satisfaction. In this context, that study applies cooperative learning, which Slavin (1987)) describes as a method where students work in small, mixed-ability groups to achieve common learning goals. Taghizadeh and Hajhosseini (2021) show that blended learning technologies positively influence student attitudes by enabling instructors to teach both theoretical and practical concepts effectively while fostering online discussions with constructive feedback. Cooperative learning structures group interactions to ensure active participation and accountability (Sharan & Sharan, 2021) while building collaborative learning environments (Johnson & Johnson, 2018).

Critical thinking (CT) has been shown to significantly enhance academic performance, particularly for Master of Business Administration and undergraduate students (D'Alessio et al., 2019; Fong et al., 2017). CT skills are also instrumental in driving workplace effectiveness and innovation (Jafarigohar et al., 2016; Li, 2023). Problem-based learning (PBL) is a proven method for developing CT, as it emphasizes real-world problem-solving. By encouraging students to work in groups to address real-world challenges, PBL promotes critical thinking, collaboration, and self-directed learning (Akhdinirwanto et al., 2020; Foo et al., 2021).

Technology continues to play an increasingly central role in higher education, including the integration of social media (Aldahdouh et al., 2020; Tan & Hsu, 2018). Al-Qaysi et al. (2023) highlight the potential of social media to foster collaboration and communication. Likewise, Davidovitch and Belichenko (2018) find that the use of appropriate learning tools positively impacts learning and satisfaction, with group belongingness being a critical factor. A sense of belonging enhances interactions and alleviates the isolation often associated with distance learning environments (Callaghan & Fribbance, 2016; Sheeran & Cummings, 2018). Even passive interactions within online groups can strengthen course commitment, a key aspect of distance learning success (Giannikas, 2020; Moghavvemi et al., 2017; Moorthy et al., 2019).

Technology acceptance model

The TAM, developed by Davis et al. (1989), provides a theoretical framework for understanding how users adopt new technologies. It is centered on two key constructs: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU). PU refers to users’ belief that using a particular technology will enhance their performance, reflecting the technology's value in achieving their goals. PEOU, on the other hand, reflects users’ perception of how easy the technology is to use. Technologies perceived as both useful and easy to use are more likely to be adopted. These constructs influence users’ attitudes toward the technology, which, in turn, shape their intention to use it.

TAM has been widely applied and extended to predict technology adoption across various contexts. For example, Huang and Chueh (2021) expand TAM to develop a model predicting pet owners’ intentions to use chatbots for veterinary consultations, aiming to improve pet healthcare and disease management. Similarly, Yao et al. (2022) integrate TAM with the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine college students’ intentions to use online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kwangsawad and Jattamart (2022) also apply TAM to evaluate the adoption of chatbots for customer service.

Teaching designObjectives

The primary objective of this course is to help students understand the potential impact of AI on future life as technology continues to evolve and explore its applications across various fields. By using Google AI-powered translation tools for English vocabulary searches and pronunciation support, students learned to integrate these technologies into their professional English language studies.

Group discussions and collaborations on course-related assignments were facilitated through the LINE social media platform. Students applied foundational digital technology knowledge to gain a deeper understanding of modern industry development trends, while also enhancing their awareness of applied knowledge in areas such as AI, cloud computing, and big data.

Teaching methods

The course was structured into thematic units, integrating group cooperative learning and problem-based learning (PBL) discussions, guided by relevant theoretical principles. Each unit featured lectures on AI, with a focus on commonly used English vocabulary related to AI topics.

A combination of interactive teaching methods and experiential classroom activities enabled students to share diverse practical experiences in group settings. Instruction was tailored to align with the course objectives, students’ learning conditions, and contemporary educational needs. A key goal was to enhance students’ international perspectives, supporting the Taiwan government's vision of creating a bilingual nation by 2030.

The course also aimed to train students in the use of technological tools, such as Google Translate, for real-time vocabulary queries and voice playback. This approach fostered active learning and imitation, helping students acquire AI-related knowledge while strengthening their English vocabulary comprehension and retention. Through consistent practice, students improved their English language proficiency, expanded their international mobility, and enhanced their professional competence and future career prospects.

Post-class discussions were facilitated through the LINE platform, encouraging students to actively engage with peers and instructors. During class sessions, students were encouraged to use smartphones, tablets, or laptops to search for AI-related vocabulary using Google Translate. Formative assessments, in the form of group presentations, were conducted to evaluate students’ understanding and their ability to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

Research designResearch scope

This study focuses on integrating AI, a key component of cutting-edge global technological advancements, into the learning process. The course emphasized specialized English vocabulary related to AI, aiming to enhance students’ understanding of AI concepts within the context of their professional development.

In-class activities were designed to introduce students to commonly used AI-related English terms. The instructor facilitated these sessions by presenting questions and leading discussions around the vocabulary, encouraging active engagement. This approach aimed to strengthen students’ familiarity with AI terminology and concepts, equipping them with the linguistic and conceptual tools necessary for success in modern professional environments.

Research subjects and field

The course, titled Information and Communication Technology with AI Applications, was a compulsory 2-credit general education course. This research focused on students from various departments and grade levels across the university who enrolled in the course.

Prior to the start of the research, students were provided with a comprehensive overview of the course objectives, teaching regulations, syllabus, schedule, and detailed course procedures. This ensured that students had a clear understanding of what to expect and how the course would be conducted.

The course was conducted in two separate sessions, each spanning one academic semester.

First Session (September 2022–January 2023): Enrolled students were from the Department of Communication Arts and the Department of Environmental Engineering and Management.

Second Session (February 2023–July 2023): Enrolled students were from the Department of Leisure Services Management and the Department of Business Administration.

Each session consisted of two lecture-based courses designed to cater to the needs of students from these diverse academic disciplines.

Research framework

To address the research questions, this study employs the TAM as its theoretical foundation and develops the following hypotheses. For RQ1, we propose hypotheses H1 to H5.

H1: PEOU positively influences PU.

H2: PU positively influences UA toward technology.

H3: PEOU positively influences UA toward technology.

H4: PU positively influences UI to use the technology.

H5: UA positively influences UI to use the technology.

These relationships are depicted in Fig. 1, illustrating the interactions among the TAM constructs.

Fig. 1.

Research framework.

(0.18MB).

For RQ2, the study examines whether technology acceptance behaviors vary across academic disciplines. The hypothesis is:

H6: Different academic disciplines exhibit varying behaviors in relation to TAM.

For RQ3, the study investigates the impact of cooperative learning and PBL on students’ motivation and attitudes toward technology. The hypothesis is:

H7: Cooperative learning and PBL significantly enhance students’ learning motivation and attitudes toward technology.

Data collection

This study involved a total of 202 participants (N = 202) from various academic departments, distributed as follows:

60 students from the Department of Communication Arts,

54 students from the Department of Environmental Engineering and Management,

38 students from the Department of Leisure Services Management, and

50 students from the Department of Business Administration.

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire, which is provided in Appendix I. The responses were coded and analyzed using SPSS for Windows, enabling the examination of relationships between the variables identified in the research framework.

Empirical analysisTAM analysis

Following the implementation of the multimodal interactive teaching method, a survey was conducted to test the TAM by gathering and analyzing data. The analysis included factor analysis for factor loadings, reliability testing to measure consistency, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess convergent validity, and linear regression to evaluate path coefficients.

In factor analysis, factor loadings represent the correlation between observed variables and latent constructs. Factor loadings of 0.70 or higher indicate a strong correlation between a variable and its construct and signify a significant contribution of the variable to the construct.

Reliability testing measures internal consistency of the variables. Composite Reliability (CR) is used in factor analysis and structural equation modeling to assess reliability. A CR value of 0.70 or higher indicates good reliability.

In CFA the average variance extracted (AVE) assesses convergent validity. An AVE value of 0.50 or higher indicates that the construct explains a significant portion of the variance in its variables.

Table 1 presents the analysis results for all students, showing strong factor loadings (all above 0.7). For example, the loadings for PU1, PU2, and PU3 are 0.874, 0.870, and 0.871, respectively. The CR value for PU is 0.905, and its AVE is 0.760, demonstrating strong reliability and convergent validity. Across all students, the CR values exceed 0.8, and the AVE values are greater than 0.7, supporting the internal consistency and validity of the constructs.

Table 1.

Analysis results (all students)

  Variable  Factor loading  CR  AVE 
PU  PU1  0.874  0.9050.760
  PU2  0.870 
  PU3  0.871 
PEOU  PEOU1  0.855  0.9170.787
  PEOU2  0.929 
  PEOU3  0.877 
UA  UA1  0.812  0.8960.742
  UA2  0.911 
  UA3  0.859 
UI  UI1  0.795  0.9200.792
  UI2  0.942 
  UI3  0.927 
  Path  Coefficient  T value   
  PU -> UA  0.703  7.393***   
  PU -> UI  0.397  10.519***   
  PEOU -> PU  0.726  10.482***   
  PEOU -> UA  0.141  1.677   
  UA -> UI  0.389  10.519***   

Tables 2–5 present similar results for each department, with factor loadings predominantly exceeding 0.7, CR values surpassing 0.8, and AVE values above 0.5. These findings indicate that the model is robust for all students and each department.

Table 2.

Analysis results (Department of Communication Arts)

  Variable  Factor loading  CR  AVE 
PU  PU1  0.915  0.9420.844
  PU2  0.901 
  PU3  0.939 
PEOU  PEOU1  0.841  0.9530.872
  PEOU2  0.934 
  PEOU3  0.889 
UA  UA1  0.874  0.9180.790
  UA2  0.948 
  UA3  0.871 
UI  UI1  0.813  0.9380.835
  UI2  0.951 
  UI3  0.970 
  Path  Coefficient  T Value   
  PU -> UA  0.921  4.755**   
  PU -> UI  0.455  6.955***   
  PEOU -> PU  0.781  7.047***   
  PEOU -> UA  -0.251  -1.381   
  UA -> UI  0.419  6.955***   
Table 3.

Analysis results (Department of Environment Engineering and Management)

  Variable  Factor loading  CR  AVE 
PU  PU1  0.925  0.8830.718
  PU2  0.856 
  PU3  0.752 
PEOU  PEOU1  0.811  0.8780.707
  PEOU2  0.941 
  PEOU3  0.760 
UA  UA1  0.745  0.8700.692
  UA2  0.888 
  UA3  0.856 
UI  UI1  0.706  0.8870.726
  UI2  0.920 
  UI3  0.913 
  Path  Coefficient  T Value   
  PU -> UA  0.688  4.063**   
  PU -> UI  0.260  3.077**   
  PEOU -> PU  0.433  2.689**   
  PEOU -> UA  0.243  1.926   
  UA -> UI  0.254  3.077**   
Table 4.

Analysis results (Department of Leisure Services Management)

  Variable  Factor loading  CR  AVE 
PU  PU1  0.916  0.9520.870
  PU2  0.909 
  PU3  0.972 
PEOU  PEOU1  0.887  0.9530.872
  PEOU2  0.976 
  PEOU3  0.936 
UA  UA1  0.949  0.8320.820
  UA2  0.896 
  UA3  0.870 
UI  UI1  0.934  0.9670.907
  UI2  0.966 
  UI3  0.957 
  Path  Coefficient  T Value   
  PU -> UA  0.577  2.963**   
  PU -> UI  0.419  6.627***   
  PEOU -> PU  0.778  5.663***   
  PEOU -> UA  0.298  1.560   
  UA -> UI  0.442  6.627***   
Table 5.

Analysis results (Department of Business Administration)

  Variable  Factor loading  CR  AVE 
PU  PU1  0.751  0.8500.651
  PU2  0.849 
  PU3  0.818 
PEOU  PEOU1  0.903  0.9630.809
  PEOU2  0.898 
  PEOU3  0.897 
UA  UA1  0.646  0.8340.631
  UA2  0.834 
  UA3  0.883 
UI  UI1  0.798  0.8930.736
  UI2  0.926 
  UI3  0.846 
  Path  Coefficient  T Value   
  PU -> UA  1.312  4.323***   
  PU -> UI  0.438  5.745***   
  PEOU -> PU  0.881  6.396***   
  PEOU -> UA  -0.371  -0.062   
  UA -> UI  0.423  5.745***   

The regression analysis revealed consistent results across all students and departments (see Tables 1–5). Key paths, such as PU → UA, PU → UI, PEOU → PU, and UA → UI, were significantly positive. However, the path PEOU → UA showed no significance, with some coefficients being positive and others negative. Fig. 1 illustrates all paths and their respective coefficients, providing a visual representation of the relationships within the TAM framework.

Differences in technology acceptance by department

To evaluate Hypothesis 6, pairwise comparisons of path coefficients across departments were conducted. Table 6 summarizes the statistical findings. The results indicate that certain paths, such as PU → UA and PEOU → PU, exhibit no significant differences in path coefficients between departments, suggesting consistent behavior in these relationships across disciplines.

Table 6.

Pair-wise comparisons of behaviors in technology acceptance

PU -> UADepartment  Coefficient  P Value 
Business Administration  1.312  0.952
Communication Arts  0.921 
Business Administration  1.312  0.476
Environment Engineering and Management  0.688 
Business Administration  1.312  0.189
Leisure Services Management  0.577 
Communication Arts  0.921  0.498
Environment Engineering and Management  0.688 
Communication Arts  0.921  0.196
Leisure Services Management  0.577 
Environment Engineering and Management  0.688  0.518
Leisure Services Management  0.577 
PEOU -> UADepartment  Coefficient  P Value 
Business Administration  -0.371  0.277
Communication Arts  -0.251 
Business Administration  -0.371  0.105
Environment Engineering and Management  0.243 
Business Administration  -0.371  0.043*
Leisure Services Management  0.298 
Communication Arts  -0.251  0.024*
Environment Engineering and Management  0.243 
Communication Arts  -0.251  0.011*
Leisure Services Management  0.298 
Environment Engineering and Management  0.243  0.526
Leisure Services Management  0.298 
PEOU -> PUDepartment  Coefficient  P Value 
Business Administration  0.881  0.274
Communication Arts  0.781 
Business Administration  0.881  0.265
Environment Engineering and Management  0.433 
Business Administration  0.881  0.681
Leisure Services Management  0.771 
Communication Arts  0.781  0.069
Environment Engineering and Management  0.433 
Communication Arts  0.781  0.533
Leisure Services Management  0.778 
Environment Engineering and Management  0.433  0.178
Leisure Services Management  0.778 
PU -> UIDepartment  Coefficient  P Value 
Business Administration  0.438  0.018*
Communication Arts  0.455 
Business Administration  0.438  0.056
Environment Engineering and Management  0.260 
Business Administration  0.438  0.330
Leisure Services Management  0.419 
Communication Arts  0.455  0.474
Environment Engineering and Management  0.260 
Communication Arts  0.455  0.000***
Leisure Services Management  0.419 
Environment Engineering and Management  0.260  0.044*
Leisure Services Management  0.419 
UA -> UIDepartment  Coefficient  P Value 
Business Administration  0.423  0.010*
Communication Arts  0.419 
Business Administration  0.423  0.008**
Environment Engineering and Management  0.254 
Business Administration  0.423  0.645
Leisure Services Management  0.442 
Communication Arts  0.419  0.474
Environment Engineering and Management  0.254 
Communication Arts  0.419  0.000***
Leisure Services Management  0.442 
Environment Engineering and Management  0.254  0.005**
Leisure Services Management  0.442 

However, significant differences were observed in other paths. Specifically, students from the Department of Communication Arts and the Department of Leisure Services Management demonstrated notable variation in the following paths: PEOU → UA, PU → UI, and UA → UI.

These findings highlight that students’ academic disciplines can influence their technology acceptance behaviors, particularly in how ease of use and attitudes shape their intentions to adopt technology. This suggests that tailored instructional strategies may be necessary to accommodate these disciplinary differences.

Learning motivation and attitude

To evaluate the effectiveness of the innovative teaching method, the study employed a single-group pre-test/post-test design to assess changes in learning motivation and attitudes. Table 7 presents paired-sample statistics for pre-test and post-test scores across all students, while Table 8 shows the differences between the pre-test and post-test scores.

Table 7.

All student paired sample statistics.

    Mean  Number  Standard Deviation  Standard Error of the Mean 
Motivation: Self Efficacy  Pre-test score  3.445  202  .6006  .0423 
  Post-test score  3.638  202  .6271  .0441 
Motivation: Active Learning Strategy  Pre-test score  3.717  202  .5468  .0385 
  Post-test score  3.791  202  .5945  .0418 
Motivation: AI Learning Value  Pre-test score  3.740  202  .5165  .0363 
  Post-test score  3.834  202  .6778  .0477 
Motivation: Performance Goal  Pre-test score  3.069  202  .3714  .0261 
  Post-test score  3.147  202  .4370  .0307 
Motivation: Achievement Goal  Pre-test score  3.359  202  .4280  .0301 
  Post-test score  3.411  202  .4546  .0320 
Motivation: Learning Environment Stimulation  Pre-test score  3.200  202  .4355  .0306 
  Post-test score  3.345  202  .4668  .0328 
Attitude: Self Awareness  Pre-test score  2.891  202  .5456  .0384 
  Post-test score  3.174  202  .5609  .0395 
Attitude: Learning Desire  Pre-test score  3.521  202  .5789  .0407 
  Post-test score  3.559  202  .6248  .0440 
Attitude: Learning Method  Pre-test score  3.274  202  .4196  .0295 
  Post-test score  3.308  202  .4431  .0312 
Attitude: Learning Plan  Pre-test score  2.908  202  .4996  .0352 
  Post-test score  2.981  202  .5711  .0402 
Attitude: Learning Habit  Pre-test score  3.094  202  .5324  .0375 
  Post-test score  3.177  202  .5936  .0418 
Attitude: Learning Process  Pre-test score  3.598  202  .5353  .0377 
  Post-test score  3.649  202  .5680  .0400 
Table 8.

All students paired samples t-test (Post-test score - Pre-test score)

  Paired Differencesdf  Sig. (Two-Sided) p 
  Mean  Std Dev  Std Error Mean  95% Confidence Interval of the Difference     
        Lower  Upper       
Motivation: Self Efficacy  .1936  .5645  .0397  .1153  .2719  4.874  201  .000*** 
Motivation: Active Learning Strategy  .0738  .5815  .0409  -.0069  .1544  1.803  201  .073 
Motivation: AI Learning value  .0941  .6243  .0439  .0074  .1807  2.141  201  .033* 
Motivation: Performance Goal  .0777  .4597  .0323  .0139  .1415  2.403  201  .017* 
Motivation: Achievement Goal  .0515  .5048  .0355  -.0186  .1215  1.449  201  .149 
Motivation: Learning Environment Stimulation  .1446  .4970  .0350  .0756  .2135  4.134  201  .000*** 
Attitude: Self Awareness  .2832  .5876  .0413  .2016  .3647  6.849  201  .000*** 
Attitude: Learning Desire  .0381  .5426  .0382  -.0372  .1134  .998  201  .319 
Attitude: Learning Method  .0337  .4314  .0304  -.0262  .0935  1.109  201  .269 
Attitude: Learning Plan  .0733  .5476  .0385  -.0027  .1492  1.902  201  .059 
Attitude: Learning Habit  .0832  .5623  .0396  .0051  .1612  2.102  201  .037* 
Attitude: Learning Process  .0505  .5294  .0372  -.0229  .1239  1.356  201  .177 

Learning motivation was measured across six components: self-efficacy, proactive learning strategies, AI learning value, performance goals, achievement goals, and learning environment stimulation. The average pre-test score was 3.42 (SD = 0.48), and the post-test score was 3.53 (SD = 0.54). A paired-sample t-test reveals a significant improvement (t = 0.0000, p < 0.01).

Four components show significant improvements between pre- and post-test scores as noted below.

Self-efficacy: Pre-test 3.45, Post-test 3.64 (t = 4.87, p < 0.001).

AI learning value: Pre-test 3.74, Post-test 3.83 (t = 2.13, p < 0.05).

Performance goal orientation: Pre-test 3.07, Post-test 3.15 (t = 2.40, p < 0.05).

Learning environment stimulation: Pre-test 3.20, Post-test 3.35 (t = 4.13, p < 0.001).

Two components, proactive learning strategies and achievement goals, did not show significant differences, with t-values of 1.80 (p = 0.073) and 1.45 (p = 0.149), respectively. Regarding learning attitudes, which were assessed across six components (including self-awareness, learning desire, and learning habits), the average pre-test score was 3.21 (SD = 0.52), and the post-test score was 3.31 (SD = 0.56). A paired-sample t-test revealed a significant difference (t = 0.0000, p < 0.05).

Two components show significant improvements in learning attitudes as follows.

Self-awareness: Pre-test 2.89, Post-test 3.17 (t = 6.88, p < 0.001).

Learning habits: Pre-test 3.09, Post-test 3.18 (t = 2.10, p < 0.05).

Four components, including learning desire and learning process, did not show significant differences. However, the self-awareness component exhibited a highly significant improvement, indicating a deeper understanding of AI concepts and competencies. Further insights could be gained by calculating the effect size for these findings.

DiscussionsTheoretical implication

In educational theory, teaching is often divided into two core components: instructional materials and teaching methods. A significant challenge for educators lies in effectively enhancing students' learning motivation and attitudes. When facing difficulties during teaching, one strategic solution is to adjust either the instructional materials or the teaching methods. With the rapid pace of technological advancement and the widespread application of AI, introducing cutting-edge knowledge into the classroom and employing innovative teaching techniques have become even more crucial.

Based on the empirical findings of this study, most of the paths in the TAM were supported, except for the path PEOU → UA. This suggests that TAM remains to be a relevant framework for explaining technology acceptance within a multimodal interactive teaching environment at the university level. However, the lack of support for the path PEOU → UA, observed consistently across student groups and departments, can be explained by two potential reasons:

Higher Perceived Value: The students may perceive the combined use of LINE and Google Translate as so valuable that it outweighs any difficulties in ease of use, leading them to overcome any challenges in learning both applications.

Ease of Use Not Salient: Both LINE and Google Translate may already be perceived as easy to use, rendering perceived ease of use less relevant in influencing students’ attitudes toward the apps.

Furthermore, the study finds significant differences in the technology acceptance behaviors of students from different departments. This suggests that when applying diverse teaching methods, educators should be mindful of the distinct behaviors linked to students' academic backgrounds. Understanding these differences is key to customizing teaching approaches to maximize their effectiveness.

Finally, the significant improvements in learning motivation and attitude, as shown by the pre- and post-test results, affirm that the introduction of innovative teaching methods positively impacts students' learning outcomes. The results of this study highlight the value of utilizing innovative teaching techniques, such as multimodal interactive learning, in enhancing students' technology acceptance, motivation, and attitudes.

Practical implication

From a practical standpoint, emphasizing the importance of AI-related professional English and promoting interactive Q&A sessions offer significant benefits. By encouraging the use of tools like Google Translate and pronunciation apps on smartphones or tablets, students in this study became more inclined to practice reading English aloud, which contributed to improvements in their grades.

Instead of prohibiting the use of mobile phones in the classroom, instructors can incorporate technology as part of the learning process. By designing questions related to course content, students can be encouraged to use their phones for research, which not only makes the learning environment more dynamic and engaging but also gives them access to the latest information online.

The use of LINE groups for discussions, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when face-to-face interactions were limited, proved both economical and convenient. Students participated in problem-based learning (PBL) through LINE, collaborating on discussions and completing group projects remotely, which enhanced their ability to engage in collaborative learning even in challenging times.

In conclusion, the implementation of a multimodal interactive teaching method significantly enhances the teaching process and students’ learning experiences. It improves students’ motivation and attitudes, fostering a more dynamic, engaging, and effective learning environment.

Conclusion and recommendationsConclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many classes relied heavily on digital technologies, and this course was no exception. LINE groups were used to facilitate group discussions and keep students engaged, even when in-person attendance was not feasible. Despite these challenges, students remained focused and gained valuable insights through online interactions. Given the growing importance of AI and bilingual capabilities for future national competitiveness, the integration of AI-related content into the mandatory general education curriculum was vital in equipping students with skills that align with global advancements.

The use of Google Translate to support AI-related English vocabulary and pronunciation significantly enhanced students' learning motivation and attitudes. The course not only deepened their understanding of AI but also fostered skills that are relevant to international trends.

The empirical findings confirm that the TAM remains a reliable framework for understanding technology acceptance in a multimodal interactive teaching environment. Most of the model's paths exhibit significant positive relationships, except for the link between PEOU and UA. A possible explanation for this is that both LINE and Google Translate are inherently user-friendly, making ease of use less influential than other factors. The analysis also revealed variations in technology acceptance behaviors across students from different departments, emphasizing the need for educators to consider these differences when applying new teaching methods.

The course incorporated AI-related English vocabulary quizzes and interactive teaching methods, motivating students to use Google Translate for pronunciation assistance. By integrating a PBL approach and fostering collaborative learning through LINE group discussions, students became more actively engaged with the course content. The condensed course structure allowed them to explore a broad range of knowledge, significantly enriching their learning experience.

In conclusion, the AI-focused general education course successfully enhanced students' motivation, attitudes, and understanding of AI. The combination of technology integration and dynamic teaching methods contributed to creating a positive and impactful learning environment.

Future research

This study utilizes the TAM to investigate the acceptance of AI-related tools in education. TAM is favored for its simplicity compared to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The choice of TAM stems from its focused scope and ease of application, which makes it suitable for exploring the mediating effects of PEOU and PU in the relationship between system characteristics and technology acceptance (Legris et al., 2003). TAM has been widely validated in numerous studies and remains one of the most commonly used models for measuring technology acceptance (Ma & Liu, 2004). In contrast, UTAUT includes additional variables such as social influence, facilitating conditions, and hedonic motivation to predict user intentions and behaviors toward technology adoption (Harnadi et al., 2022). While UTAUT offers a more comprehensive framework, TAM provides a foundational approach that effectively addresses the key variables relevant to this study.

While TAM is useful for examining PU and PEOU, along with their impact on users' attitudes and intentions, future research could benefit from applying UTAUT to explore additional constructs, such as social influence and facilitating conditions. By incorporating these additional factors, UTAUT could offer more comprehensive insights into technology acceptance within educational settings, helping to better understand the complex factors that influence user behavior.

Moreover, gamification and game-based learning are emerging technologies that educators are increasingly adopting to enhance student engagement and skill development (Emihovich, 2024). The global sales revenue from gamification is expected to reach $32 billion by 2025, while the game-based learning market is projected to be valued at $25.7 billion (O'Neill, 2022). As these methods gain traction in educational settings, future research could examine how they affect technology acceptance and learning outcomes. In terms of learning outcomes, maintaining focus and immersion can significantly enhance a student's learning experience (Dahalan et al., 2024). For example, Green and Bavelier (2003) find that video game players improved their visual attention, while Anderson and Bavelier (2011) show that fast-paced action games enhanced perception, attention, and cognitive processes. Similarly, Karle et al. (2010) observe that computer game players had significantly faster reaction times on complex perceptual tasks. Understanding the role of gamification in technology acceptance could provide valuable insights for future educational technologies and instructional strategies.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C. for its partial financial support to this study, under Project Number PGE1110076.

Appendix 1. Question Items of TAM

Variable  Item 
PU (Perceived Usefulness) 
  • PU1: I believe using AI-powered Google Translate enhances my English vocabulary.

  • PU2: I believe using AI-powered Google Translate helps me understand my English vocabulary deficiencies.

  • PU3: I believe using AI-powered Google Translate assists me in strengthening my English vocabulary.

 
PEOU (Perceived Ease of Use) 
  • PEOU1: I think AI-powered Google Translate is easy to use.

  • PEOU2: I think the operational process of AI-powered Google Translate is simple.

  • PEOU3: I think the interface menu of AI-powered Google Translate is clear.

 
UA (Attitude Toward Use) 
  • UA1: I believe I should use AI-powered Google Translate to help improve my English vocabulary.

  • UA2: I think AI-powered Google Translate is a good tool for enhancing my English vocabulary.

  • UA3: I think using AI-powered Google Translate is a good method for addressing my English vocabulary deficiencies.

 
UI (Usage Intention) 
  • UI1: I am willing to regularly use AI-powered Google Translate to help improve my English vocabulary.

  • UI2: I am willing to recommend my classmates use AI-powered Google Translate to help with their English vocabulary.

  • UI3: I am willing to recommend my friends and family use AI-powered Google Translate to help with their English vocabulary.

 

References
[Akhdinirwanto et al., 2020]
R.W. Akhdinirwanto, R. Agustini, B. Jatmiko.
Problem-based learning with argumentation as a hypothetical model to increase the critical thinking skills for junior high school students.
Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9 (2020), pp. 340-350
[Aldahdouh et al., 2020]
T.Z. Aldahdouh, P. Nokelainen, V. Korhonen.
Technology and social media usage in higher education: The influence of individual innovativeness.
[Al-Qaysi et al., 2023]
N. Al-Qaysi, A. Granić, M. Al-Emran, T. Ramayah, E. Garces, T.U. Daim.
Social media adoption in education: A systematic review of disciplines, applications, and influential factors.
[Anderson and Bavelier, 2011]
A.F. Anderson, D. Bavelier.
Action game play as a tool to enhance perception, attention and cognition.
Computer games and instruction, pp. 307-330
[Betihavas et al., 2016]
V. Betihavas, H. Bridgman, R. Kornhaber, M. Cross.
The evidence for flipping out: A systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education.
Nurse Education Today, 38 (2016), pp. 15-21
[Blankesteijn et al., 2024]
M.L.M. Blankesteijn, J. Houtkamp, B. Bossink.
Towards transformative experiential learning in science-and technology-based entrepreneurship education for sustainable technological innovation.
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9 (2024),
[Callaghan and Fribbance, 2016]
G. Callaghan, I. Fribbance.
The use of Facebook to build a community for distance learning students: A case study from the Open University.
Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 31 (2016), pp. 260-272
[Dahalan et al., 2024]
F. Dahalan, N. Alias, M.S.N. Shaharom.
Gamification and game based learning for vocational education and training: A systematic literature review.
Education and Information Technologies, 29 (2024), pp. 1279-1317
[D'Alessio et al., 2019]
F.A. D'Alessio, B.E. Avolio, V. Charles.
Studying the impact of critical thinking on the academic performance of executive MBA students.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31 (2019), pp. 275-283
[Davidovitch and Belichenko, 2018]
N. Davidovitch, M. Belichenko.
Facebook tools and digital learning achievements in higher education.
Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 5 (2018), pp. 8-14
[Davis et al., 1989]
F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw.
User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Management Science, 35 (1989), pp. 982-1003
[de Moraes Abrahão et al., 2024]
V. de Moraes Abrahão, M. Vaquero-Diego, R. Currás Móstoles.
University social responsibility: The role of teachers.
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9 (2024),
[Emihovich, 2024]
B. Emihovich.
Game-based learning and systems thinking: An innovative instructional approach for the 21st century.
TechTrends, 68 (2024), pp. 174-185
[Fong et al., 2017]
C.J. Fong, Y. Kim, C.W. Davis, T. Hoang, Y.W. Kim.
A meta-analysis on critical thinking and community college student achievement.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26 (2017), pp. 71-83
[Foo et al., 2021]
C.C. Foo, B. Cheung, K.M. Chu.
A comparative study regarding distance learning and the conventional face-to-face approach conducted problem-based learning tutorial during the COVID-19 pandemic.
BMC Medical Education, 21 (2021), pp. 1-6
[Giannikas, 2020]
C. Giannikas.
Facebook in tertiary education: The impact of social media in e-learning.
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17 (2020), pp. 3
[Green and Bavelier, 2003]
C.S. Green, D. Bavelier.
Action video game modifies visual selective attention.
Nature, 423 (2003), pp. 534-537
[Harnadi et al., 2022]
B. Harnadi, F.H. Prasetya, A.D. Widiantoro.
Understanding Behavioral Intention to Use Social Media Technology: Two Comparing Model, TAM and UTAUT.
2022 6th International Conference on Information Technology (InCIT), pp. 352-357 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/InCIT56086.2022.10067645
[Hidayati et al., 2022]
N. Hidayati, S. Zubaidah, S. Amnah.
The PBL vs. digital mind maps integrated PBL: Choosing between the two with a view to enhance learners’ critical thinking.
Participatory Educational Research, 9 (2022), pp. 330-343
[Huang and Chueh, 2021]
D.-H. Huang, H.-E. Chueh.
Chatbot usage intention analysis: Veterinary consultation.
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6 (2021), pp. 135-144
[Jafarigohar et al., 2016]
M. Jafarigohar, F. Hemmati, A. Rouhi, H. Divsar.
Instructors' attitudes towards the reflection of critical thinking in course syllabi: Evidence from an expanding circle.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (2016), pp. 59
[Johnson and Johnson, 2018]
D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson.
Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning.
Active learning - Beyond the future, pp. 59-70 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81086
[Karle et al., 2010]
J.W. Karle, S. Watter, J.M. Shedden.
Task switching in video game players: Benefits of selective attention but resistance to proactive interference.
Acta Psychologica, 134 (2010), pp. 70-78
[Kwangsawad and Jattamart, 2022]
A. Kwangsawad, A. Jattamart.
Overcoming customer innovation resistance to the sustainable adoption of chatbot services: A community-enterprise perspective in Thailand.
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7 (2022), pp. 100211
[Legris et al., 2003]
P. Legris, J. Ingham, P. Collerette.
Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, 40 (2003), pp. 191-204
[Li, 2023]
L. Li.
Critical thinking from the ground up: Teachers’ conceptions and practice in EFL classrooms.
Teachers and Teaching, 29 (2023), pp. 571-593
[Ma and Liu, 2004]
Q. Ma, L. Liu.
The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 16 (2004), pp. 59-72
[Moghavvemi et al., 2017]
S. Moghavvemi, T. Paramanathan, N. Rahin, M. Sharabati.
Student's perceptions towards using e-learning via Facebook.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 36 (2017), pp. 1081-1100
[Moorthy et al., 2019]
K. Moorthy, L.C. T'ing, K.M. Wei, P.T.Z. Mei, C.Y. Yee, K.L.J. Wern, Y.M. Xin.
Is Facebook useful for learning? A study in private universities in Malaysia.
Computers & Education, 130 (2019), pp. 94-104
[O'Neill, 2022]
O'Neill, S. (2022). Gamification in marketing: Stats and trends for 2023. LXA, learning experience alliance. https://www.martechalliance.com/stories/gamification-in-marketing-stats-and-trends-for-2022.
[Saiful et al., 2020]
A.M.I.N. Saiful, S. Utaya, S. Bachri, S. Sumarmi, S. Susilo.
Effect of problem based learning on critical thinking skill and environmental attitude.
Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8 (2020), pp. 743-755
[Sharan and Sharan, 2021]
Y. Sharan, S. Sharan.
Design for change: A teacher education project for cooperative learning and group investigation in Israel.
Pioneering perspectives in cooperative learning: Theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to cl, pp. 165-182
[Sheeran and Cummings, 2018]
N. Sheeran, D. Cummings.
An examination of the relationship between Facebook groups attached to university courses and student engagement.
Higher Education, 76 (2018), pp. 937-955
[Shek et al., 2017]
D.T.L. Shek, A.W.K. Yuen-Tsang, E.C.W. Ng.
USR network: A platform to promote university social responsibility.
University social responsibility and quality of life: A global survey of concepts and experiences, pp. 11-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3877-8_2
[Slavin, 1987]
R.E. Slavin.
Cooperative learning and the cooperative school.
Educational Leadership, 45 (1987), pp. 7-13
[Song, 2024]
B. Song.
Multimodal interactive classroom teaching strategies based on social network analysis.
International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 30 (2024), pp. 70-81
[Taghizadeh and Hajhosseini, 2021]
M. Taghizadeh, F. Hajhosseini.
Investigating a blended learning environment: Contribution of attitude, interaction, and quality of teaching to satisfaction of graduate students of TEFL.
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30 (2021), pp. 459-469
[Tan and Hsu, 2018]
P.J.B. Tan, M.H. Hsu.
Designing a system for English evaluation and teaching devices: A PZB and TAM model analysis.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14 (2018), pp. 2107-2119
[Wu and Chen, 2021]
Y.J. Wu, J.C. Chen.
Stimulating innovation with an innovative curriculum: A curriculum design for a course on new product development.
The International Journal of Management Education, 19 (2021),
[Yao et al., 2022]
Y. Yao, P. Wang, Y.J. Jiang, Q. Li, Y. Li.
Innovative online learning strategies for the successful construction of student self-awareness during the COVID-19 pandemic: Merging TAM with TPB.
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7 (2022),
Download PDF
Article options