STUDY ON THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE BEHAVIORAL INTENTION OF STUDENTS MAJORING IN ART DESIGN TO USE AIGC AIDED DESIGN
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
This study aims to discuss the factors affecting the behavioral intention of students majoring in Art Design at the College of Chinese & ASEAN Arts, Chengdu University to use AIGC aided design. Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), this paper identifies five factors that affect the willingness of students majoring in art design to use Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) aided design, and analyzes their relationship with the Behavioral Intention (BI). A model containing five latent variables, including Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Social Influence (SI), Facilitating Condition (FC) and Attitude (ATT), is constructed to test the significant impact of students on Behavioral Intention (BI). By adopting the mature scale design questionnaire and quota sampling method, 500 questionnaires were distributed among 818 students majoring in art design in three directions (Visual Communication, Environmental Art Design and Product Design) from four grades (grades 2020-2023) at a rate of 61%, and 476 valid questionnaires were recovered, and corresponding data were analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results of data analysis show that all independent and mediating variables have a significant impact on the Behavioral Intention (BI) of the dependent variable, in which Social Influence (SI) and Performance Expectancy (PE) have the greatest impact. Therefore, the teaching management institutions in the field of art design should evaluate and improve the current teaching mode of AIGC aided design based on the results of this study and strengthen the application of AIGC in art and design courses in order to obtain more ideal teaching results.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
“ข้าพเจ้าและผู้เขียนร่วม (ถ้ามี) ขอรับรองว่า บทความที่เสนอมานี้ยังไม่เคยได้รับการตีพิมพ์และไม่ได้อยู่ระหว่างกระบวนการพิจารณาลงตีพิมพ์ในวารสารหรือแหล่งเผยแพร่อื่นใด ข้าพเจ้าและผู้เขียนร่วมยอมรับหลักเกณฑ์การพิจารณาต้นฉบับ ทั้งยินยอมให้กองบรรณาธิการมีสิทธิ์พิจารณาและตรวจแก้ต้นฉบับได้ตามที่เห็นสมควร พร้อมนี้ขอมอบลิขสิทธิ์บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ให้แก่สถาบันการจัดการปัญญาภิวัฒน์หากมีการฟ้องร้องเรื่องการละเมิดลิขสิทธิ์เกี่ยวกับภาพ กราฟ ข้อความส่วนใดส่วนหนึ่งและ/หรือข้อคิดเห็นที่ปรากฏในบทความข้าพเจ้าและผู้เขียนร่วมยินยอมรับผิดชอบแต่เพียงฝ่ายเดียว”
References
Abbad, M. M. M. (2021). Using the UTAUT model to understand students’ usage of e-learning systems in developing countries. Educ. Inf. Technol, 26, 7205-7224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10573-5
Agrim, G., Lijun, Y., Kihyuk, Soh., Xiuye, G., Meera, H., Li, F. F., Irfan, E., Lu, J., & José, L. (2023). Photorealistic video generation with diffusion models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.06662
Al-Momani, A. M., Mahmoud, M. A., & Ahmad, M. S. (2019). A review of factors influencing customer acceptance of internet of things services. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 11, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJISSS.2019010104
Browne, W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing suuctural equation models (pp. 97-98). Sage.
Cao,Y., Li, S., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Dai, Y., Philip, Y., & Sun, L. (2018). A comprehensive survey of AI-Generated Content (AIGC): A history of generative AI from GAN to ChatGPT. Association for Computing Machinery, 37(4), 111.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Banita, L. C., Michael, D. W. D., & Marc, C. E. (2017). An empirical validation of a Unified Model of Electronic Govemment Adoption (UMEGA). Government Information Quartedy, 2, 211-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001
Hair, J, F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. (2006). Multivariant data analysis. Pearson International Edition, 1, 113-114.
Halabí, V., & Miore, E. R. (2017). Sample siusing structural equation modeling with latent variables. A Practical Method Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 1, 1-34.
Huang, J. R., & Cao, L. (2021). Research on the characteristics and influencing factors of effective learning behavior in the network environment. Education and Teaching Research, 4, 41-52.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies infducation and the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Edits Publishers Press.
Liebenberg, J., Benade, T., & Ellis, S. (2018). Acceptance of ICT: Applicability of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model tosouth african students. The African Journal of Information Systems, 10, 160-173.
Lim, M. (2020). A study on the direction of technical education in the age of artificial intelligence. The Korean Association of Practical Arts Education, 33, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.24062/kpae.2020.33.4.81
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.
Mostafizer, R., & Yutaka, W. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13, 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
Panigrahi, A., & Joshi, V. (2020). Use of artificial intelligence in education. The Management Accoimtant Journal, 55, 64-67.
Rovinelli, J., & Hambleton, K. (1997). On the use of content specialists in assessment of criterion referenced test ltem validity. Dutch Journal of Education Research, 2, 49-60.
Tahiru, F. (2021). AI in education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 23, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.2021010101
Uchenna, E. O., & Oluchukwu, N. U. (2022). An appraisal of students’ adoption of e-learning communication tools: A SEM analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 10239-10260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10975-z
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Hall, M., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D., & Walton, S. M. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view 1. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Wang, X., Pang, H., Wallace, M., Wang, Qi., & Chen, W. (2022). Learers’perceived alpresenees in al-supported language learning: A study of Al as a humanized agent from community of inquiry. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9, 1-27.
Wang, Y. (2023). A study on the factors influencing college students’ behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence technology to assist mobile learning of English vocabulary. Modern Distance Education, 209(4), 72-80.
Wu, C. Y., & Cao, W. X. (2024). What has artificial intelligence brought to the education industry. Shanghai Informatization, 7, 21-24.
Wu, W., Zhang, B., Li, S., & Liu, H. (2022). Exploring factors of the willingness to accept ai-assisted learning environments: An empirical investigation based on the UTAUT model and perceived risk theory. Educational Psychology, 13, 13-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870777
Yang, B., Yao, Z., Lu, H., Zhou, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). In-classroom learning analytics based on student behavior, topic and teaching characteristic mining. Pattern Recognit, Lett, 129, 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2019.11.023