Home All Issues Issue articles Previous article

The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development

Jennifer R. Banas 1 * ,
Sandra Beyda-Lorie 1
1 Northeastern Illinois University, USA* Corresponding Author
Educational Point, 2(2), 2025, e132, https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319
Publication date: Oct 24, 2025
Research Article
Open Access Open Access
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

This study highlights that understanding how faculty adopt technology requires integrated theoretical frameworks rather than the single-theory models often seen in current research. Faculty responses to disruptive technologies, such as generative AI (GenAI), involve complex psychological processes that are frequently overlooked by traditional models. To address this, we developed the Mediated Message Model (MMM) by combining communication theory, behavioral prediction, and motivational psychology, targeting four gaps: fragmented focus, lack of contextual sensitivity, limited process understanding, and constraints. We utilized this framework to design and evaluate a faculty development program featuring a book club format, involving fifty-six faculty members across two cohorts during the 2024–2025 academic year. Data from surveys (n = 30), interviews (n = 6), and action plans (n = 28) supported our predictions, demonstrating that faculty responses depend on interactions between perceived efficacy and value, rather than solely on individual psychological factors. Our analysis identified four distinct cognitive-behavioral outcomes—engaged adoption, impassive acceptance, discouraged hesitation, and aversive rejection—that stem from specific efficacy-value combinations. Faculty members needed multiple stimuli—such as personal experiences, peer demonstrations, and authoritative readings—to effectively adopt GenAI, as no single approach was sufficient. The study also revealed goal orientation patterns indicating that intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation influences technology integration, opening avenues for future research. The MMM advances both theory and practice by aiding faculty development leaders in designing comprehensive, evidence-based strategies that consider the psychological complexity involved in the adoption of GenAI.

KEYWORDS

generative artificial intelligence faculty development

CITATION (APA)

Banas, J. R., & Beyda-Lorie, S. (2025). The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development. Educational Point, 2(2), e132. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319
Harvard
Banas, J. R., and Beyda-Lorie, S. (2025). The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development. Educational Point, 2(2), e132. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319
Vancouver
Banas JR, Beyda-Lorie S. The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development. Educational Point. 2025;2(2):e132. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319
AMA
Banas JR, Beyda-Lorie S. The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development. Educational Point. 2025;2(2), e132. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319
Chicago
Banas, Jennifer R., and Sandra Beyda-Lorie. "The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development". Educational Point 2025 2 no. 2 (2025): e132. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319
MLA
Banas, Jennifer R. et al. "The mediated message model: Understanding faculty GenAI adoption decision-making and guiding optimal faculty development". Educational Point, vol. 2, no. 2, 2025, e132. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17319

REFERENCES

  1. Banas, J. R. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology: Considerations for designing preservice and practicing teacher instruction. Community & Junior College Libraries, 16(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763911003707552
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  3. Belt, E., & Lowenthal, P. (2020). Developing faculty to teach with technology: Themes from the literature. TechTrends, 64(2), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00447-6
  4. Boström, E., & Palm, T. (2020). Expectancy-value theory as an explanatory theory for the effect of professional development programmes in formative assessment on teacher practice. Teacher Development, 24(4), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1782975
  5. Bowen, J. A., & Watson, C. E. (2024). Teaching with AI: A practical guide to a new era of human learning. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.56021/9781421449227
  6. Cain, M., Campbell, C., & Fanshawe, M. (2024). What’s an innovation? Capitalising on disruptive innovation in higher education. Teachers and Teaching, 30(5), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2024.2365141
  7. Chan, C. K. Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). An expectancy value theory (EVT) based instrument for measuring student perceptions of generative AI. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00284-4
  8. Coffey, L. (2024). A new digital divide: Student AI use surges, leaving faculty behind. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificial-intelligence/2024/06/25/digital-divide-students-surge-ahead
  9. 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
  10. Duong, J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Using the extended parallel process model to examine teachers’ likelihood of intervening in bullying. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12046
  11. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. Model of Achievement-Related Choices. In Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). Guilford Publications.
  12. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
  13. Elsakova, R. Z., & Markus, A. M. (2024). Povysheniye kvalifikatsii prepodavateley vuza v oblasti iskusstvennogo intellekta: Sovremennoye sostoyaniye [Professional development of university educators in artificial intelligence: Current state]. Higher Education in Russia, 33(11), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-11-73-94
  14. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  15. Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x
  16. Galimova, E. G., Oborsky, A. Y., Khvatova, M. A., Astakhov, D. V., Orlova, E. V., & Andryushchenko, I. S. (2024). Mapping the interconnections: A systematic review and network analysis of factors influencing teachers’ technology acceptance. Frontiers in Education, Volume 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1436724
  17. Gkrimpizi, T., Peristeras, V., & Magnisalis, I. (2023). Classification of barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: Systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(7), Article 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070746
  18. Gomez, F. C., Trespalacios, J., Hsu, Y.-C., & Yang, D. (2022). Exploring teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy through the 2017 ISTE standards. TechTrends, 66(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00639-z
  19. Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
  20. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176–198.
  21. Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Kirschner, P. A., van Buuren, H., & Acker, F. V. (2013). Adopting the integrative model of behaviour prediction to explain teachers’ willingness to use ICT: A perspective for research on teachers’ ICT usage in pedagogical practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.754371
  22. Lamrabet, M., Fakhar, H., Echantoufi, N., Khattabi, K. E., & Ajana, L. (2025). Revolutionizing teachers’ professional development: The critical role of AI-based tools from initial training to lifelong learning—A case study. Journal of Information and Education Technology, 15(4), 696–715. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.4.2277
  23. Lee, I., Zhang, H., Moore, K., Zhou, X., Perret, B., Cheng, Y., Zheng, R., & Pu, G. (2022). AI book club: An innovative professional development model for AI education. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Vol. 1, pp. 202–208). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499318
  24. Lu, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2019). Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes of technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.056
  25. Mercader, C., & Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x
  26. Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856
  27. Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). Teachers’ trust in AI‐powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 914–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232
  28. Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B.-P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4221–4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
  29. Olari, V., Zoppke, T., Reger, M., Samoilova, E., Kandlhofer, M., Dagienė, V., Lucke, U., & Romeike, R. (2025). Professional development for teachers in artificial intelligence and data literacy. In M. Leahy, & C. Reffay (Eds.), Digitally Transformed Education: Are We There Yet? IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol. 734). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-88744-4_2
  30. Polly, D., Martin, F., & Guilbaud, T. C. (2021). Examining barriers and desired supports to increase faculty members’ use of digital technologies: Perspectives of faculty, staff, and administrators. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09259-7
  31. Prenger, R., & Schildkamp, K. (2018). Data-based decision making for teacher and student learning: A psychological perspective on the role of the teacher. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 734–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1426834
  32. Raman, R., Mandal, S., Das, P., Kaur, T., Sanjanasri, J. P., & Nedungadi, P. (2024). Exploring university students’ adoption of ChatGPT using the diffusion of innovation theory and sentiment analysis with gender dimension. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024(1), Article 3085910. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3085910
  33. Reid, P. (2017). Supporting instructors in overcoming self-efficacy and background barriers to adoption. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9449-6
  34. Roberto, A. J., Mattson, L. D., Von Feldt, P. A., & Zhou, X. (2023). “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”: Predicting college students’ voting behavior using the extended parallel process model. Social Sciences, 12(11), Article 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12110628
  35. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.
  36. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  37. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
  38. Sadeck, O. (2022). Technology adoption model: Is use/non-use a case of technological affordances or psychological disposition or pedagogical reasoning in the context of teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic period? Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.906195
  39. Saif, N., Khan, S. U., Shaheen, I., Alotaibi, F. A., Alnfiai, M. M., & Arif, M. (2024). Chat-GPT: Validating technology acceptance model (TAM) in the education sector via ubiquitous learning mechanism. Computers in Human Behavior, 154, Article 108097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108097
  40. 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
  41. Shachak, A., Kuziemsky, C., & Petersen, C. (2019). Beyond TAM and UTAUT: Future directions for HIT implementation research. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 100, Article 103315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103315
  42. 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
  43. Wang, J., Tigelaar, D. E. H., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Connecting rural schools to quality education: Rural teachers’ use of digital educational resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.009
  44. Wang, Q., & Xue, M. (2022). The implications of expectancy-value theory of motivation in language education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 992372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992372
  45. Wang, Y.-Y., & Chuang, Y.-W. (2024). Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4785–4808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w
  46. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). 35 years of research on students’ subjective task values and motivation: A look back and a look forward. Advances in Motivation Science, 7, 161–198. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.05.002
  47. Williams, M. K., Christensen, R., McElroy, D., & Rutledge, D. (2023). Teacher self-efficacy in technology integration as a critical component in designing technology-infused teacher preparation programs. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 228–259.
  48. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
  49. Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328
  50. Xue, L., Rashid, A. M., & Ouyang, S. (2024). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in higher education: A systematic review. SAGE Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229570
  51. Zhou, C., Wu, D., Li, Y., Yang, H. H., Man, S., & Chen, M. (2023). The role of student engagement in promoting teachers’ continuous learning of TPACK: Based on a stimulus-organism-response framework and an integrative model of behavior prediction. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 2207–2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11237-8

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.