Micro-Dissatisfaction Accumulation: How Small AI Frustrations Shape Major Pedagogical Concept Changes

Abstract: This conceptual dissertation elaborates on and refines the Micro-Dissatisfaction Accumulation Model (MDAM), a theoretical framework that redefines the significance of frustration in the integration of artificial intelligence into teacher education. Unlike traditional models that focus on ease of use and seamless integration, MDAM contends that small, recurring micro-frustrations act as cognitive triggers for creativity, innovation, and pedagogical evolution. The dissertation is divided into six structured chapters, synthesizing existing literature on technology adoption, frustration tolerance, cognitive dissonance, and creativity to propose a five-stage process: micro-irritation encounters, frustration accumulation, threshold breakthroughs, creative reconfiguration, and conceptual solidification. Applications in real teaching scenarios reveal how minor AI-related frustrations can stimulate assumption examination, systemic thinking, and identity reconstruction among educators. This framework has profound implications for teacher education programs, professional development, AI tool design, and institutional leadership. The study concludes that educational contexts should not seek to eliminate all frustrations but should strategically manage them to enhance resilience, creativity, and sustainable pedagogical change.

artificial intelligence, teacher educators, micro-dissatisfaction, creativity, pedagogical innovation, educational technology, frustration-tolerance

1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chen, L., Roberts, J., & Davis, M. (2023). Neural mechanisms of frustration tolerance and problem-solving. Cognitive Neuroscience Review, 45(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2023.1123456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Foster, J., & Davis, M. (2024). Hormesis and adaptation: Stress as a driver of growth. Journal of Psychological Science, 29(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231123456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Johnson, T., & Brown, A. (2024). Motivational dynamics under frustration: The paradox of productive struggle. Journal of Educational Change, 25(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09562-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kumar, S., & Lee, J. (2024). Cognitive flexibility and creative problem-solving under technological stress. Journal of Creativity Research, 36(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.1124567 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Lally, P., Gardner, B., & van Jaarsveld, C. H. M. (2024). Small steps, lasting change: Habit formation in everyday life. British Journal of Psychology, 115(2), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Peterson, H., Chang, Y., & Rodriguez, M. (2024). Friction as pedagogy: How teachers transform technological struggles into innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Rosenzweig, S. (1944). An outline of frustration theory. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (pp. 379–388). Ronald Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Torres, K., & Anderson, P. (2023). Creativity through constraint: Frustration as a driver of divergent thinking. Creativity Studies, 16(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.15942 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Advanced Techniques for Fake News Detection on Twitter Using NLP and AI: A Comprehensive Review
• Review of Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Slag Sand as Fine Aggregate
• Performance of Local Construction Contractors – Case Study of Registered Contractors in Monrovia, Liberia
• Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Innovation Management in Multinational Organizations
• Modeling of Reaction Between Dissolved Oxygen (DO) And Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in Degradation River