A TAM-Based Study of Al-Assisted Lesson Planning Among Libyan EFL Instructors: Adoption and Ambivalence

Malak Abdullah Almukhtar Hudoud

doi:10.65405/nwx1bd29

المؤلفون

Malak Abdullah Almukhtar Hudoud Faculty of Arts and Languages, English Language Department,Tripoli University المؤلف

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65405/nwx1bd29

الكلمات المفتاحية:

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); artificial intelligence; EFL; lesson planning; Libya; teacher technology adoption; Creative Enhancement; AI ambivalence

الملخص

The increasing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into teaching and learning has emerged as a transformative force in education, calling for an understanding of how teachers adapt these technologies. This study investigates how Libyan EFL instructors in higher education perceive and adopt AI-assisted lesson planning, extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with Creative Enhancement as an additional construct. A questionnaire was administered to 60 Libyan EFL instructors. The questionnaire comprised 23 Likert-scale items operationalising five TAM constructs: Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Creative Enhancement (CE), Concerns/Ambivalence, and Behavioral Intention (BI), alongside a Verification Behaviour item and four open-ended qualitative questions. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, one-sample t-tests, Pearson correlations, independent-samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and deductive content analysis. All five constructs were rated significantly above the neutral midpoint, with BI recording the highest composite mean (M = 4.06) and verification behaviour the highest single item mean in the study (M = 4.40). Time-saving was the dominant perceived benefit (68.3% of open-ended responses), while over-reliance was the leading concern (48.3%). A positive correlation between Concerns and BI (r = .420, p < .001) indicated that ethical awareness and adoption intent coexist rather than conflict. No significant differences were found by gender or teaching experience. Libyan EFL instructors demonstrate a pattern of adoption with ambivalence, receptive to AI tools yet critically vigilant about their outputs. The study extends TAM by supporting the Creative Enhancement construct and challenges the assumption that concerns suppress adoption, proposing instead that ambivalence is constitutive of responsible professional AI use. Implications for AI-focused professional development and institutional policy in Libyan higher education are discussed.

التنزيلات

تنزيل البيانات ليس متاحًا بعد.

المراجع

Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K–12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7

Almansouri, M., Pitt, M., & Tucker, M. (2020). Developing and improving the practice of teaching and learning in Libyan higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2019-0143

Amofa, A. K., Boateng, F., & Mensah, P. (2025). Emerging technologies and inclusive instruction: Supporting novice teachers' transition to differentiated practices. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 28(1), 112–126.

Baroud, M., Elzawi, A., & Al-Sharif, H. (2024). Faculty perceptions of AI in curriculum development and content creation at the University of Zawia. Libyan Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 45–63.

Celik, I. (2023). Towards intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers' professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468

Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233

Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002

Chua, Y. P., Sathasivam, R. V., Mafarja, N., & Rahim, N. A. (2026). AI-supported lesson planning among preservice science teachers in Malaysia: Benefits, limitations, and instructional implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2026.

Chontal, M., Jiménez, A., & Reyes, F. (2026). Large language models for automating instructional planning tasks: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Espino, D., Torres, M., & García, P. (2026). AI in higher education didactics: A bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature. Computers & Education, 195, 104923. Advance online publication.

Farazouli, A., Cerratto-Pargman, T., & Bolander-Laksov, K. (2023). Hello GPT! Goodbye home examination? An exploratory study of AI chatbots and their implications for Swedish higher education. Education Inquiry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2241653

Fengchun, M., Tlili, A., Huang, R., & Jemni, M. (2023). Towards responsible artificial intelligence for education: An analysis of AI ethics in educational research. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221104520

Global Education Futures Report Index. (2026). Education futures readiness index 2026: Global and regional rankings. Global Education Futures.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10125/73474

Hadaga, M., & Elfalfal, M. (2025). Libyan EFL teachers' attitudes toward AI integration in language teaching: A case study of Benghazi University. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 22–38.

Han, S. (2003). Individual adoption of information systems in organisations: A literature review of technology acceptance model. Turku Centre for Computer Science Technical Report, No. 579.

Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2023). Facilitating synchronous online language learning through ChatGPT. RELC Journal, 54(3), 595–599.

Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7), 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.

Mansour, A., & Abubakar, M. (2025). Faculty perceptions of AI integration in Libyan higher education: Evidence from Sebha University. African Journal of Educational Studies, 12(2), 78–95.

Nuryadin, E., Karlimah, K., & Nugraha, F. (2026). Generative AI in instructional material development: Benefits, risks, and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Educational Innovation, 14(1), 33–48.

Perrotta, C., & Selwyn, N. (2020). Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational understanding of AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686017

Pinkwart, N. (2016). Another 25 years of AIED? Challenges and opportunities for intelligent educational technologies of the future. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0099-7

Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.

Ratumanan, T. G., & Krismiyati, K. (2025). Vocational teachers' behavioral intentions to use generative AI for lesson planning: A TAM-based analysis. Vocational Education & Training, 77(1), 56–72.

Rezaei, A., & Barber, W. (2021). Qualified adoption of online learning: Navigating ambivalence in higher education faculty perspectives. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 36(1), 1–18.

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers' adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009

Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers' intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001

Sekyi Acquah, B., Botchway, P. K., & Mensah, I. (2024). Preservice teachers' behavioral intentions toward AI in lesson planning: The roles of performance expectancy, social influence, trust, and perceived risk. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4611–4635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12180-2

Shalbag, A. (2026). Technology proficiency and professional development in Libyan university language instruction. Libyan Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 14–29.

Shrif, M., & Jamoum, N. (2025). AI in Libyan education: A national survey of benefits, barriers, and practitioner perspectives. Journal of North African Education, 3(2), 101–119.

Smart Co. for Technology Projects. (2025, March). Libya launches Libigpt: The first national generative AI model. Smart Co. for Technology Projects. https://smartco.ly/libigpt-launch

Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students' acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075

Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006

Trust, T., Whalen, J., & Mouza, C. (2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 1–23.

University World News. (2024, January 11). Libya sets ten-year plan to develop AI capabilities across universities. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240111

Van den Berg, G., & Du Plessis, E. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact teaching and learning in higher education? South African Journal of Higher Education, 37(4), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-4-5832

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0