Preservice Special Education Teachers' Acceptance of an AI-Based Microteaching Evaluation and Feedback System: A Pre-Post UTAUT Mixed-Methods Study.
- 1Department of Special Education, Baekseok University, Cheonan 31065, Republic of Korea.
- 2Office of Educational Innovation, Pai Chai University, Daejeon 35345, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
We examined preservice special education teachers' acceptance of an AI system that supports the evaluation of, and feedback on, their own teaching demonstrations. The system analyzes recorded demonstrations against a structured rubric with time-stamped behavioral evidence, allows users to review and revise the AI evaluation through chatbot dialogue, and then generates personalized feedback. We used a convergent mixed-methods design informed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and interpreted through an expectation-confirmation lens. Undergraduate students at a private university in South Korea completed a 23-item UTAUT-based questionnaire before and after a semester of use of the system in two required courses (valid pre-use responses N = 42; posttest N = 65; matched pairs n = 33), and 20 students were interviewed across the semester's two demonstration cycles. Acceptance was uniformly high before use (composite means 4.22-4.63 on a 5-point scale) and did not decline after a semester of use; post hoc, exploratory one-sided non-inferiority tests rejected a decline of d = -0.35 or larger for every factor (all p ≤ 0.007). Performance expectancy increased modestly (d = 0.36; t-test p = 0.047, Wilcoxon p = 0.055, Holm-adjusted p = 0.282), a change that is best read as suggestive rather than established. At posttest, a regression of intention on the four UTAUT factors accounted for 62% of the variance, but effort expectancy (β = 0.37) showed the most consistent evidence of association with intention across classical, heteroscedasticity-robust, bootstrap, and influence-adjusted specifications; the association for social influence (β = 0.39 under classical estimation) was not robust to the estimator, performance expectancy was significant only when one influential case was excluded, and facilitating conditions were nonsignificant throughout. Facilitating conditions were, as the original model specifies, strongly associated with use behavior (β = 0.65) rather than with intention. In interviews, participants described their sustained acceptance in terms of evidence-grounded, time-stamped feedback, score discrepancies that prompted questioning and reflection, uptake into lesson planning and re-teaching, and the system's role as an accessible complement to scarce instructor feedback, and they located the limits of that acceptance in context-recognition errors, feedback inconsistency, and interface friction. Taken together, the findings suggest that high pre-use expectations of AI-supported evaluation need not erode over a semester of sustained use when the system continuously displays the grounds of its judgments, and that ease of use, rather than perceived usefulness, is the factor showing the most consistent evidence of association with continued-use intention.
Related
- Vibe coding with preservice teachers: a single-group pretest-posttest pilot study of programming self-efficacy and intentions to use generative AI in education
- Technology acceptance mediates associations between pre-service physical education teachers’ AI-TPACK and study engagement and behavioral intentions in digital teaching
- Independent judgment before viewing generative AI recommendations reduces susceptibility to misleading advice: a randomized scenario-based experiment with preservice teachers
- Changes in Reading Attitudes and Attitudes Toward Book-Reading Habits Following Literature Circles Among Preservice Turkish Language Teachers: An Embedded Mixed-Methods Study
- Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking Disposition, and Mathematical Creativity Self-Efficacy: A Cross-Sectional Path Analytic Study
BibTeX
@article{lee2026preservice,
title = {{Preservice Special Education Teachers' Acceptance of an AI-Based Microteaching Evaluation and Feedback System: A Pre-Post UTAUT Mixed-Methods Study.}},
author = {Gayoung Lee and Youngjin Yoo and Seolhee Lee},
journal = {Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/bs16101818},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42938537},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Preservice Special Education Teachers' Acceptance of an AI-Based Microteaching Evaluation and Feedback System: A Pre-Post UTAUT Mixed-Methods Study.
AU - Gayoung Lee
AU - Youngjin Yoo
AU - Seolhee Lee
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/04
JO - Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)
DO - 10.3390/bs16101818
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42938537
AB - We examined preservice special education teachers' acceptance of an AI system that supports the evaluation of, and feedback on, their own teaching demonstrations. The system analyzes recorded demonstrations against a structured rubric with time-stamped behavioral evidence, allows users to review and revise the AI evaluation through chatbot dialogue, and then generates personalized feedback. We used a convergent mixed-methods design informed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and interpreted through an expectation-confirmation lens. Undergraduate students at a private university in South Korea completed a 23-item UTAUT-based questionnaire before and after a semester of use of the system in two required courses (valid pre-use responses N = 42; posttest N = 65; matched pairs n = 33), and 20 students were interviewed across the semester's two demonstration cycles. Acceptance was uniformly high before use (composite means 4.22-4.63 on a 5-point scale) and did not decline after a semester of use; post hoc, exploratory one-sided non-inferiority tests rejected a decline of d = -0.35 or larger for every factor (all p ≤ 0.007). Performance expectancy increased modestly (d = 0.36; t-test p = 0.047, Wilcoxon p = 0.055, Holm-adjusted p = 0.282), a change that is best read as suggestive rather than established. At posttest, a regression of intention on the four UTAUT factors accounted for 62% of the variance, but effort expectancy (β = 0.37) showed the most consistent evidence of association with intention across classical, heteroscedasticity-robust, bootstrap, and influence-adjusted specifications; the association for social influence (β = 0.39 under classical estimation) was not robust to the estimator, performance expectancy was significant only when one influential case was excluded, and facilitating conditions were nonsignificant throughout. Facilitating conditions were, as the original model specifies, strongly associated with use behavior (β = 0.65) rather than with intention. In interviews, participants described their sustained acceptance in terms of evidence-grounded, time-stamped feedback, score discrepancies that prompted questioning and reflection, uptake into lesson planning and re-teaching, and the system's role as an accessible complement to scarce instructor feedback, and they located the limits of that acceptance in context-recognition errors, feedback inconsistency, and interface friction. Taken together, the findings suggest that high pre-use expectations of AI-supported evaluation need not erode over a semester of sustained use when the system continuously displays the grounds of its judgments, and that ease of use, rather than perceived usefulness, is the factor showing the most consistent evidence of association with continued-use intention.
SN - 2076-328X
ER -