Factors Influencing the Use of Ubiquitous Learning in Higher Education in Sichuan, China in the Aftermath of Covid-19 Pandemic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/abacodijournal.2021.20Keywords:
ubiquitous learning, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditionsAbstract
This research aims to investigate factors for adoption of ubiquitous learning (u-learning) in higher education in China in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Literature and theoretical models for adoption of ubiquitous learning were examined to find the key factors that would influence ubiquitous learning adoption which include performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, intention to use and actual use. The research uses a quantitative, survey-based research design, employing online data collection. The study applied multistage sampling. First, a non-probability sampling method, judgmental sampling was used to draw a population of Chinese higher education students in Sichuan, China at three institutions: – Sichuan Normal University Fine Arts College, Sichuan University of Arts and Sciences Academy of Art and Design, and Dazhou Vocational and Technical College Art Department. Second, stratified random sampling was applied to calculate the number of students to represent each program. Lastly, a sample size of 420 was determined based on the ratio of the number of students in each institution to the total number of populations, were selected through convenience sampling. For analysis of data, Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were utilized. The analysis showed that intention to use has the strongest effect on actual system use. Furthermore, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and social influence except performance expectancy were found to positively affect the intention to use u-learning. Hence, policymakers, universities executives, and educators are recommended to consider these factors to ensure technology adoption success.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process, 50, 179–211.
Araújo, R. D., Brant-Ribeiro, T., Mendonça, I. E. S., Mendes, M. M., Dorça, F. A., & Cattelan, R. G. (2017). Social and collaborative interactions for educational content enrichment in ULEs. Educational Technology and Society, 20(3), 133–144.
Arbuckle, J. J. (1995). AMOS user's guide. SmallWaters.
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.136–162). Sage.
Chen, J. L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1501–1511.
Chen, M., Wang, X., Wang, J., Zuo, C., Tian, J., & Cui, Y. (2021). Factors Affecting College Students’ Continuous Intention to Use Online Course Platform. SN Computer Science. 2(114). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00498-8
Chao, C. (2019). Factors Determining the Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Learning: An Application and Extension of the UTAUT Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652.
Cho, V., Cheng, T. C. E., & Lai, W. M. J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers and Education, 53(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.014
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral Dissertation). http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15192
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Diep, N. A., Cocquyt, C., Zhu, C., & Vanwing, T. (2016). Predicting adult learners’ online participation: Effects of altruism, performance expectancy, and social capital. Computers and Education, 101, 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.002
Elster, J. (1989). Social Norms and Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 3(4), 99-117.
Fakhoury, R., & Aubert, B. (2017). The impact of initial learning experience on digital services usage diffusion: A field study of e-services in Lebanon. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.004
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Hair, J. F., Black., W. C., Babin., B. J., Anderson., R. E., & L.Tatham., R. (2006). Multivariant Data Analysis. Pearson International Edition.
Honarpisheh, B., & Zualkernan, I. (2013). How do researchers in ubiquitous learning view adoption of their technology? Proceedings - 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2013, 457–458. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2013.141
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 81–91.
Hwang, Y. (2016). Understanding social influence theory and personal goals in e-learning. Information Development, 32(3), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666914556688
Isaac, R., Zerbe, W., & Pitt, D. (2001). Leadership and Motivation: The Effective Application of Expectancy Theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212.
Joo, Y. J., Joung, S., Shin, E. K., Lim, E., & Choi, M. (2014). Factors Influencing Actual Use of Mobile Learning Connected with E-Learning. SAI, CDKP, ICAITA, NeCoM, SEAS, CMCA, ASUC, Signal - 2014, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.5121/csit.2014.41116
Kuciapski, M. (2016). Students acceptance of m-Learning for higher education-UTAUT model validation. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 264, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46642-2_11
Leaper, C. (2011). More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of social development?: a plea for theory bridging. Advances in child development and behavior. 40, 337-378.
Moreno, V., Cavazotte, F., & Alves, I. (2017). Explaining university students’ effective use of e-learning platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12469
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers and Education, 109, 56–73. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005
Ogata, H., Matsuka, Y., El-Bishouty, M. M., & Yano, Y. (2009). LORAMS: linking physical objects and videos for capturing and sharing learning experiences towards ubiquitous learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 3(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2009.027452
Olasina, G. (2019). Human and social factors affecting the decision of students to accept e-learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474233
Raja Yusof, R. J., Qazi, A., & Inayat, I. (2017). Student real-time visualization system in classroom using RFID based on UTAUT model. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(3), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2017-0018
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Eds). http://lst-iiep.iiep-unesco.org/cgi-bin/wwwi32.exe/[in=epidoc1.in]/?t2000=020241/(100).
Salloum, S. A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Factors Affecting Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning System in Higher Education Using UTAUT and Structural Equation Modeling Approaches. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 845, pp. 469–480). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99010-1_43
Shin, D. H., Shin, Y. J., Choo, H., & Beom, K. (2011). Smartphones as smart pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2207–2214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.017
Soper, D. (2020). Free statistical calculators. Danielsoper.com. www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/default.aspx.
Sung, H. N., Jeong, D. Y., Jeong, Y. S., & Shin, J. I. (2015). The Relationship among Self-Efficacy, Social Influence,Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Behavioral Intention in Mobile Learning Service. International Journal of U- and e- Service, Science and Technology, 8(9), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2015.8.9.21
Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the use of english e-learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013503837
Tarhini, A., Deh, R. M., Al-Busaidi, K. A., Mohammed, A. B., & Maqableh, M. (2017). Factors influencing students’ adoption of e-learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of International Education in Business, 10(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-09-2016-0032
Textor, C. (2020). Number of colleges and universities in China 2009-2019. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/226982/number-of-universities-in-china/
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 24, 115–139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q, 27, 425–478.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Wang, Y., Liu, X., & Zhang, Z. (2018). An overview of e-learning in China: History, challenges and opportunities. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918763421.
Westland, C. J. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
Wu, J., & Lederer, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information techonlogy acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419–432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/20650298
