Acceptance of AI in Semi-Structured Decision-Making Situations Applying the Four-Sides Model of Communication—An Empirical Analysis Focused on Higher Education
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22042292 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Christian Greiner (0000-0002-8184-7128, Munich University of Applied Sciences, corresponding author), Thomas C Peisl (0000-0001-5571-2089, Munich University of Applied Sciences), Felix Höpfl (0000-0002-1499-4945, Munich University of Applied Sciences), Olivia Beese (Munich University of Applied Sciences) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 9 |
| Pages | 865 |
| Publication date | 2023-08-24 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Education Sciences (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2227-7102 • E-ISSN: 2227-7102 |
| Publisher | MDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT) |
| DOI | 10.3390/educsci13090865 |
| OpenAlex | W4386142459 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 18 |
This study investigates the impact of generative AI systems like ChatGPT on semi-structured decision-making, specifically in evaluating undergraduate dissertations. We propose using Davis’ technology acceptance model (TAM) and Schulz von Thun’s four-sides communication model to understand human–AI interaction and necessary adaptations for acceptance in dissertation grading. Utilizing an inductive research design, we conducted ten interviews with respondents having varying levels of AI and management expertise, employing four escalating-consequence scenarios mirroring higher education dissertation grading. In all scenarios, the AI functioned as a sender, based on the four-sides model. Findings reveal that technology acceptance for human–AI interaction is adaptive but requires modifications, particularly regarding AI’s transparency. Testing the four-sides model showed support for three sides, with the appeal side receiving negative feedback for AI acceptance as a sender. Respondents struggled to accept the idea of AI, suggesting a grading decision through an appeal. Consequently, transparency about AI’s role emerged as vital. When AI supports instructors transparently, acceptance levels are higher. These results encourage further research on AI as a receiver and the impartiality of AI decision-making without instructor influence. This study emphasizes communication modes in learning-ecosystems, especially in semi-structured decision-making situations with AI as a sender, while highlighting the potential to enhance AI-based decision-making acceptance
Appeal · Communication source · Empirical research · Knowledge management · Mirroring · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Computer Science · Engineering · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI · Psychology · Social Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education
ChatGPT in Teaching and Learning
A systematic literature review on the application of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in teaching within higher education
An AI-assisted critical thinking intervention to enhance undergraduate EFL learners’ writing proficiency
Understanding the intention to use artificial intelligence chatbots in education
Human- versus Artificial Intelligence
Real conversations with artificial intelligence
Research and scholarly methods
A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020
Developing a model for AI Across the curriculum
User Acceptance of Information Technology
Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology
The Discovery of Grounded Theory
The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition
Praxishandbuch berufliche Schlüsselkompetenzen
Grounded theory research
| Citations per year | 2.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |