Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Exploring Faculty Adoption of Natural Language Processing Tools in Teaching: An Exploratory Study in a Private University Context

Zhian Shen ORCID ,  Azhar Bin Md Adnan ORCID ,  Shaohua Ben ORCID ,  Yi Lyu ORCID ,  Zhuo Bi ORCID ,  Chang Liu ORCID

    Received: 17 September 2025; Revised: 29 October 2025; Accepted: 26 November 2025; Published: 2 December 2025

    Abstract

    Natural Language Processing (NLP) interfaces are becoming more common in higher education, but adoption by faculty is inconsistent in private universities with limited resources. Drawing on a study of a private university in Shanghai, we investigate institutional and individual determinants of how instructors adopt NLP tools (such as ChatGPT, Doubao and Kimi) for feedback, assessment, summarization, question generation, and instructional drafting. We employed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design involving six interviews, as well as a survey (n = 195; ≈28% of faculty). Building on a TAM model enriched by Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC), University Facilitating Conditions (UFC), and Social Attitudes (SA), we tested a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM). Findings indicate that UFC is by far the most powerful predictor of adoption intentions and perceived control, while SA exerts a weaker but statistically significant influence which partially operates through PBC. PBC not only directly influences intention but also moderates the effects of UFC, indicating a central role of self-efficacy in instructor-focused interventions. These pathways are fleshed out by qualitative evidence that points to enabling policies, training, and aligned use cases as levers, and challenges around digital literacy, policy misalignment, and uneven infrastructure. We suggest professional development, incentives linked to pedagogical outputs, and ongoing resourcing for the integration of text-focused AI. The results extend TAM to the context of a private university setting by introducing institutional support and perceived control, which may be applied to similar institutions that are experiencing digital transformation.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Lan, Y.; Li, X.; Du, H.; et al. Survey of NLP for Education: Taxonomy, Systematic Review, and Future Trends. arXiv preprint 2024, arXiv:2401.07518. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07518
    2. 2. Guo, X. Evaluation Method of English-Speaking Self-Learning System Based on NLP Technology. J. Electr. Syst. 2023, 19, 49–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.623
    3. 3. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
    4. 4. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; et al. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
    5. 5. Scherer, R.; Siddiq, F.; Tondeur, J. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explaining Teachers’ Adoption of Digital Technology in Education. Comput. Educ. 2019, 128, 13–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
    6. 6. Ma, J.; Wang, P.; Li, B.; et al. Exploring user adoption of ChatGPT: A technology acceptance model perspective. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2024, 41, 1431–1445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2314358
    7. 7. Okstad, J.J.; Dahlk, K.C. Developing an Interprofessional Research Infrastructure at a Mid-Sized Liberal Arts University. J. Interprof. Care 2021, 35, 39–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2021.1981262
    8. 8. Ertürk, R. The Effect of Teacher Autonomy on Teachers’ Professional Dedication. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 2023, 10, 494–507.
    9. 9. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2006, 108, 1017–1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
    10. 10. Hew, K.F.; Brush, T. Integrating Technology into K–12 Teaching and Learning: Current Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations for Future Research. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2007, 55, 223–252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
    11. 11. Gao, R.; Merzdorf, H.E.; Anwar, S.; et al. Automatic Assessment of Text-Based Responses in Post-Secondary Education: A Systematic Review. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2024, 6, 100206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100206
    12. 12. Celik, I.; Dindar, M.; Muukkonen, H.; et al. The Promises and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence for Teachers: A Systematic Review of Research. TechTrends 2022, 66, 616–630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y
    13. 13. Zhang, Y. Design of an Intelligent Q&A System for Online Education Platform Based on NLP Technology. J. Electr. Syst. 2024, 20, 2135–2145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.3128
    14. 14. Oraif, I. NLP and EFL Learning: A Case Study Based on Deep Learning. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2024, 15, 201–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1501.22
    15. 15. Huang, R. Design and Implementation of English Writing Aids Based on NLP. J. Electr. Syst. 2024, 20, 2178–2187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.3132
    16. 16. Tu, L.; Nie, Y. Application of NLP Technology in Student Evaluation and Feedback in Teaching Quality Assurance System. J. Electr. Syst. 2024, 20, 2908–2922.
    17. 17. Campino, J. Unleashing the Transformers: NLP Models Detect AI Writing in Education. J. Comput. Educ. 2024, 12, 645–673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-024-00325-y
    18. 18. Chary, M.; Parikh, S.; Manini, A.F.; et al. A Review of NLP in Medical Education. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 20, 78–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2018.11.39725
    19. 19. Kharis, M.; Laksono, K.; Suhartono. Utilization of NLP Technology in Current Applications for Education and Research by Indonesian Student, Teacher, and Lecturer. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract. 2022, 22, 170–178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v22i14.5544
    20. 20. Stoehr, F.; Kämpgen, B.; Müller, L.; et al. NLP for Automatic Evaluation of Free-Text Answers—A Feasibility Study Based on the European Diploma in Radiology Examination. Insights Imaging 2023, 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01507-5
    21. 21. Bai, H. Design and Application of Decision Support System for Educational Management Based on Big Data. J. Electr. Syst. 2024, 20, 1645–1655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.3084
    22. 22. Yessimova, S.; Rakhymzhanov, Y.; Spanova, B.; et al. Strengthening the Nexus: Policy and Legislative Reforms for University–Industry Collaboration in Kazakhstan. Theor. Pract. Res. Econ. Fields 2024, 15, 136–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v15.1(29).13
    23. 23. Al-Zahrani, A.M.; Alasmari, T.M. Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Higher Education: The Dynamics of Ethical, Social, and Educational Implications. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03432-4
    24. 24. Abedi, E.A.; Ackah-Jnr, F.R. First-Order Barriers Still Matter in Teachers’ Use of Technology: An Exploratory Study of Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives of Technology Integration Barriers. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using ICT 2023, 19, 148–165.
    25. 25. Lu, G.; Liu, Q.; Xie, K.; et al. Quality or Quantity: How Do Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs Persuade Them to Engage in Technology Integration in a Massive Government-Led Training Programme? Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2023, 32, 459–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00668-z
    26. 26. Kuo, Y.C.; Kuo, Y.T.; Abi-El-Mona, I. Mobile Learning: Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating iPads into Future Teaching. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 6209–6230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11340-w
    27. 27. Belda-Medina, J.; Kokošková, V. Integrating Chatbots in Education: Insights from the Chatbot-Human Interaction Satisfaction Model (CHISM). Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2023, 20, 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00432-3
    28. 28. Nazaretsky, T.; Ariely, M.; Cukurova, M.; et al. Teachers’ Trust in AI-Powered Educational Technology and a Professional Development Program to Improve It. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2022, 53, 914–931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232
    29. 29. García-Alonso, E.M.; León-Mejía, A.C.; Sánchez-Cabrero, R.; et al. Training and Technology Acceptance of ChatGPT in University Students of Social Sciences: A Netcoincidental Analysis. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14070612
    30. 30. Eze, S.C.; Chinedu-Eze, V.C.; Okike, C.K.; et al. Factors Influencing the Use of E-Learning Facilities by Students in a Private Higher Education Institution in a Developing Economy. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2020, 7, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00624-6
    31. 31. Teng, M.F. Understanding teacher autonomy, teacher agency, and teacher identity: Voices from four EFL student teachers. Engl. Teach. Learn. 2019, 43, 189–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00024-3
    32. 32. Zhang, X.; Duan, X.; Wang, W.; et al. The relationship between organizational climate and teaching innovation among preschool teachers: The mediating effect of teaching efficacy. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14070516
    33. 33. Salmanpour, O.; Tabatabaei, O.; Salehi, H.; et al. Impact of the online Stoodle software program on Iranian EFL teachers' autonomy, creativity, and work engagement. Asia Pac. J. Second Foreign Lang. Educ. 2024, 9, 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00227-z
    34. 34. Mohammadi, Y.; Vinnervik, P.; Khodadad, D. The possible impact of department teaching culture on teaching styles of new teachers: A case study of a Swedish university department focused on engineering education. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060631
    35. 35. Shaheen, F.; Mahmood, N. Burnout and its predictors: Testing a model among public school teachers. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 2020, 35, 355–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2020.35.2.19
    36. 36. Lewis, B.; Smith, R.; Massey, C. Mirroring the networked society: Government policy, higher education, and telelearning technology in Canada. Can. J. Commun. 1999, 24, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.1999v24n3a1109
    37. 37. Pishghadam, R.; Shayesteh, S. Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) for Language Teachers: Revalidation of an NLP Scale. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2014, 4, 2096–2104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.10.2096-2104
    38. 38. Al-Hafdi, F.S.; AlNajdi, S.M. The effectiveness of using chatbot-based environment on learning process, students' performances and perceptions: A mixed exploratory study. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024, 29, 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12671-6
    39. 39. Zainal, M.A.; Mohd Matore, M.E.E. The influence of teachers' self-efficacy and school leaders' transformational leadership practices on teachers' innovative behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126423
    40. 40. Joshi, A.; Kale, S.; Chandel, S.; et al. Likert scale: Explored and explained. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2015, 7, 396–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
    41. 41. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th ed.; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
    42. 42. Daher, W. Saturation in qualitative educational technology research. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020098
    43. 43. Park, K. Social sciences and health. In Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine; Park, K., Ed.; Bhanot Publishers: Jabalpur, India, 2013.
    44. 44. Culbertson, H.M. What is an Attitude? J. Ext. 1968, 6, 9. Available online: https://open.clemson.edu/joe/vol6/iss2/9/
    45. 45. Li, W.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; et al. An explanatory study of factors influencing engagement in AI education at the K-12 level: An extension of the classic TAM model. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64363-3
    46. 46. Gastaldello, G.; Streletskaya, N.; Rossetto, L. Glass half-full? A comprehensive PLS-SEM approach to explore the pandemic's effect on wine tourism intentions. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2023, 35, 322–345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-03-2022-0011
    47. 47. Tukiran, M.; Sunaryo, W.; Wulandari, D.; et al. Optimizing education processes during the COVID-19 pandemic using the technology acceptance model. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 903572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.903572
    48. 48. Henseler, J.; Schuberth, F. Should PLS become factor-based or should CB-SEM become composite-based? Both! Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2024, 34, 551–563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2024.2357123
    49. 49. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101.
    50. 50. Legris, P.; Ingham, J.; Collerette, P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 191–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
    51. 51. Masrom, M. Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technol. 2007, 21, 81–85.
    52. 52. Lee, Y.; Kozar, K.A.; Larsen, K.R. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2003, 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01250
    53. 53. Pett, M.A.; Lackey, N.R.; Sullivan, J.J. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984898
    54. 54. Swisher, L.L.; Beckstead, J.W.; Bebeau, M.J. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis using a professional role orientation inventory as an example. Phys. Ther. 2004, 84, 784–799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/84.9.784
    55. 55. Thompson, B. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10694-000
    56. 56. Henson, R.K.; Roberts, J.K. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 393–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
    57. 57. Taherdoost, H.; Sahibuddin, S.; Jalaliyoon, N. Exploratory factor analysis; concepts and theory. Adv. Appl. Pure Math. 2014, 27, 375–382.
    58. 58. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; et al. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
    ×