Institutional digitalization and digital stress: a four-wave observational study of teacher-reported AI-collaborative teaching in physical education.

IF 3.8 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Frontiers in Psychology Pub Date : 2026-10-15 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1973587

Xiangyu Wang, Xiaoyun Wang

{"title":"Institutional digitalization and digital stress: a four-wave observational study of teacher-reported AI-collaborative teaching in physical education.","authors":"Xiangyu Wang, Xiaoyun Wang","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1973587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: How institutional digitalization relates to teachers' experience of work and subsequent artificial intelligence (AI)-supported practice remains unclear.Methods: Drawing on job demands-resources principles, we examined these relationships in a four-wave observational cohort of 961 physical education teachers from 120 Chinese institutions. We linked an organizational-source digitalization proxy to teacher questionnaires and a study-specific teacher-reported score of AI involvement in teaching tasks. Analyses adjusted for baseline practice and separated between-institution from teacher-relative associations.Results: Two of five primary tests met the Holm-adjusted criterion. The stress-related product of between-institution coefficients was negative (-0.099; pointwise 95% confidence interval [-0.184, -0.033]). The positive digitalization-stress association was weaker among teachers with higher digital self-efficacy relative to colleagues (interaction coefficient -0.101; [-0.168, -0.037]) but remained positive at the low, average, and high self-efficacy levels examined. The adjusted digitalization-practice association, appraisal-related coefficient product, and appraisal interaction did not meet the corrected criterion.Discussion: The findings connect the organization and experience of work with reported AI practice, emphasizing perceived digital work pressure and relative self-efficacy while complementing accounts centered on technology acceptance.","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"17 ","pages":"1973587"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13716614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1973587","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: How institutional digitalization relates to teachers' experience of work and subsequent artificial intelligence (AI)-supported practice remains unclear.

Methods: Drawing on job demands-resources principles, we examined these relationships in a four-wave observational cohort of 961 physical education teachers from 120 Chinese institutions. We linked an organizational-source digitalization proxy to teacher questionnaires and a study-specific teacher-reported score of AI involvement in teaching tasks. Analyses adjusted for baseline practice and separated between-institution from teacher-relative associations.

Results: Two of five primary tests met the Holm-adjusted criterion. The stress-related product of between-institution coefficients was negative (-0.099; pointwise 95% confidence interval [-0.184, -0.033]). The positive digitalization-stress association was weaker among teachers with higher digital self-efficacy relative to colleagues (interaction coefficient -0.101; [-0.168, -0.037]) but remained positive at the low, average, and high self-efficacy levels examined. The adjusted digitalization-practice association, appraisal-related coefficient product, and appraisal interaction did not meet the corrected criterion.

Discussion: The findings connect the organization and experience of work with reported AI practice, emphasizing perceived digital work pressure and relative self-efficacy while complementing accounts centered on technology acceptance.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机构数字化与数字化压力：体育教学中教师报告人工智能协同教学的四波观察研究

导读：机构数字化如何与教师的工作经验和随后的人工智能（AI）支持的实践相关联尚不清楚。方法：利用工作需求-资源原则，对来自中国120所高校的961名体育教师进行了四波观察队列研究。我们将组织来源的数字化代理与教师问卷和特定研究的教师报告的人工智能参与教学任务的分数联系起来。分析根据基线实践进行调整，并将机构间与教师相关协会分开。结果：5项主要试验中有2项符合holm调整标准。机构间系数的压力相关积为负（-0.099；逐点95%置信区间[-0.184,-0.033]）。在数字化自我效能感较高的教师中，数字化与压力的正向关联较弱（交互系数为-0.101;[-0.168,-0.037]），但在低、中、高自我效能水平的教师中，数字化与压力的正向关联仍为正。调整后的数字化与实践关联、评价相关系数积、评价交互均不符合调整后的标准。讨论：研究结果将工作的组织和经验与报告的人工智能实践联系起来，强调感知到的数字工作压力和相对自我效能感，同时补充了以技术接受度为中心的描述。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Frontiers in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

13.20%

发文量

7396

审稿时长

14 weeks

期刊介绍： Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.