This research findings show how psychological safety and trust boost AI tool adoption in primary education, suggesting essential improvements in emotional support.
Despite AI tools hold significant potential to enhance English language teaching in primary education, their sustained adoption by teachers remains inconsistent. A key gap in current research is the lack of understanding of how psychological factors influence teachers' long-term usage intentions. This study aims to investigate the impact of psychological safety, trust, anxiety, satisfaction, and expectations on primary English teachers' decisions to adopt and continue using AI tools in classrooms. Specifically, this study examines how psychological safety and trust promote continuance intentions, how anxiety particularly regarding technical failures and privacy concerns hinders adoption, and the role of satisfaction and outcome expectations in reinforcing continuance intentions. Additionally, the moderating effect of perceived risk was explored. Findings suggest that psychological safety and trust significantly enhance long-term AI tool usage, whereas anxiety acts as a major barrier. Teacher satisfaction and positive expectations, especially those tied to student learning outcomes, further strengthen adoption intentions. However, perceived risks can weaken these effects if not properly addressed. The study underscores the need for educational technology developers to prioritize teachers' psychological and emotional concerns by ensuring reliable technical support, transparent privacy policies, and risk-mitigation strategies. By fostering trust and reducing anxiety, schools and policymakers can facilitate more effective AI integration, ultimately improving teaching quality and student outcomes. This research contributes both theoretical insights and practical recommendations for advancing AI adoption in primary education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: