Home All Issues Issue articles Previous article

From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0

Sun Joo Yoo 1 2 *
1 Design for Learning Lab (Independent Research Institute), SOUTH KOREA2 Sookmyung Women's University, SOUTH KOREA* Corresponding Author
Educational Point, 3(3), 2026, e184, https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161
Publication date: Aug 16, 2026
Research Article
Open Access Open Access
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

This study proposes an integrated, evidence-based model to explain the transition from artificial intelligence (AI)-related anxiety to acceptance and learning engagement in the context of Education 4.0. Drawing on a secondary data synthesis of four nationally representative South Korean datasets—KISTEP (2024), NIA (2024), KEEP (2024), and Statistics Korea (2024)—and grounded in Keller’s (1987) ARCS motivational model and Davis’s (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the study develops a multi-layered framework linking AI anxiety, AI literacy, AI acceptance, and learning engagement. The analysis tests four hypotheses using a pseudo-SEM approach. Because the study relies on secondary data, proxy indicators are employed to operationalize key constructs, with the Digital Competency Index (DCI) used as a proxy for AI literacy. The findings show that AI anxiety is significantly and negatively associated with AI acceptance, whereas AI literacy exerts a direct positive effect and also weakens the anxiety-acceptance relationship, functioning as a cognitive buffer (moderating effect, β = .23, p < .05). In turn, AI acceptance emerges as a strong predictor of learning engagement (R² = .34). Most notably, this study reframes AI literacy not merely as a technical skill, but as a resilience mechanism that helps reduce technology-related anxiety. The theoretical contribution has direct implications for instructional design and age-sensitive policy interventions. In addition, the pseudo-SEM approach offers a replicable framework for building macro-level theory from national administrative data.

KEYWORDS

AI anxiety AI literacy technology acceptance model ARCS model Education 4.0 learning engagement secondary data analysis pseudo-SEM South Korea

CITATION (APA)

Yoo, S. J. (2026). From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0. Educational Point, 3(3), e184. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161
Harvard
Yoo, S. J. (2026). From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0. Educational Point, 3(3), e184. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161
Vancouver
Yoo SJ. From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0. Educational Point. 2026;3(3):e184. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161
AMA
Yoo SJ. From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0. Educational Point. 2026;3(3), e184. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161
Chicago
Yoo, Sun Joo. "From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0". Educational Point 2026 3 no. 3 (2026): e184. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161
MLA
Yoo, Sun Joo "From Anxiety to Competence: A Secondary Data-Based Model of AI Acceptance and Learning Engagement in the Era of Education 4.0". Educational Point, vol. 3, no. 3, 2026, e184. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/19161

REFERENCES

  1. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-08589-000
  2. Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053
  3. Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Technophobia-The-Psychological-Impact-of-Information-Technology/Brosnan/p/book/9780203436707
  4. Chang, P.-C., Zhang, W., Cai, Q., & Guo, H. (2024). Does AI-driven technostress promote or hinder employees’ artificial intelligence adoption intention? A moderated mediation model of affective reactions and technical self-efficacy. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 17, 413–427. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S441444
  5. Cheung, M. W.-L. (2015). Meta-analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118957813
  6. Chua, S. L., Chen, D., & Wong, A. F. L. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00039-4
  7. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (create). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
  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
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
  10. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  11. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
  12. Hussin, A. A. (2018). Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(3), 92-98. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190812.pdf
  13. Igbaria, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449299008924239
  14. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780
  15. Korea Employment Information Service [KEIS]. (2024). Korea Education and Employment Panel (KEEP) user guide. https://survey.keis.or.kr
  16. Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning [KISTEP]. (2024). 2024 technology impact assessment: Safe and trustworthy AI. https://www.kistep.re.kr
  17. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
  18. Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009). Avoidance of information technology threats: A theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650279
  19. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
  20. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164
  21. National Information Society Agency [NIA]. (2024). Digital divide survey. https://www.nia.or.kr
  22. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
  23. OECD. (2021). OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0a36f841-en
  24. Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10020
  25. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  26. Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Miguéláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). MLearning and pre-service teachers: An assessment of the behavioral intention using an expanded TAM model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 644–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.061
  27. 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
  28. Statistics Korea. (2024). Social survey and ICT usage statistics. https://kosis.kr
  29. Tams, S., Thatcher, J. B., & Grover, V. (2018). Concentration, competence, confidence, and capture: An experimental study of age, interruption-based technostress, and task performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(9), 857–908. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00511
  30. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
  34. Yoo, S. J. (2025). Resilience and volatility in lifelong learning participation: A crisis-response analysis of South Korea's 18-year journey (2007–2024). Educational Point, 2(2), Article e130. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17291
  35. Yoo, S. J., & Choi, J. (2026). Digital learning engagement and career transitions across age cohorts: evidence from South Korea’s lifelong education system. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2026.2638851

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.