Empirical study evaluates AI-assisted aesthetic education in adult learners, suggesting pivotal roles for technology in lifelong learning.
Within the framework of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4: Quality Education), adult aesthetic education faces challenges related to the sustainability of access, personalisation, and humanistic values. This study examines levels of acceptance regarding generative AI-assisted aesthetic education in the Open University of China. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and lifelong learning theory, we surveyed 518 adult learners and used descriptive analysis (based on the full sample) alongside binary logistic regression and PLS-SEM (based on the 355 learners who had prior aesthetic education experience) to analyse adoption readiness, functional preferences, and influencing factors. Our main findings are as follows: (1) 91.5% of learners recognised the importance of aesthetic education, yet the actual participation rate was only 68.5%; (2) 50% of respondents expressed clear willingness to use AI-assisted aesthetic learning, with the most desired functions being “personalised art interpretation” and “creative inspiration support”; (3) no significant age-related differences were found in AI adoption readiness; (4) logistic regression identified aesthetic cognition and learning experience as significant predictors of AI adoption willingness; and (5) SEM showed that learning experience had the strongest direct effect on AI adoption readiness (β = 0.62) and partially mediated the relationship between aesthetic cognition and AI adoption readiness. We conclude that generative AI should be positioned not as a “substitute” but as a “personalised interpreter and creative partner” in adult aesthetic education. These findings provide practical implications for the digital transformation of The Open University of China and the design of AI-based educational products.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2026 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: