Investigation of Product Design Students' Attitudes and Behavioral Intention of Online Learning at Sichuan University of Media and Communications in Sichuan Province, China
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to determine 1) the influencing factors of the attitude and behavioral intention of students majoring in product design to online learning, 2) determine what actions should be taken by students, teachers, teaching managers and university in the process of online learning, and 3) put forward suggestions that affect the attitude and behavioral intention of students in online learning.
Based on the theories of TAM, TAM3 and UTAUT, this study constructed a research model of students' attitudes and behavioral intentions towards online learning. This research takes the students majoring in product design as the research sample, and the participants are all learning experience online learning. The research instrument is the questionnaire, with a total of 33 survey questions. A total of 450 valid questionnaire survey data were collected. Statistics used in data analysis were frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and hypotheses testing.
The results showed that 1) PEOU has a significant impact on PU, 2) PEOU has a significant impact on ATU, 3) PU has a significant impact on ATU, 4) ATU has a significant impact on BI, 5) SI has a significant impact on BI, 6) PE has a significant impact on BI, 7) SE has a significant impact on PEOU. The main conclusions of this study are 1) to ensure that online learning is easy to operate and use, 2) enhance students' sense of self-efficacy, 3) make students aware of the important role of online learning, 4) enable students to feel the importance and positive role of online learning from the external world.
Article Details
References
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological bulletin, 82(2), 261.
Alenezi, A. R., & Karim, A. (2010). An empirical investigation into the role of enjoyment, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy and internet experience in influencing the students' intention to use e-learning: A case study from Saudi Arabian governmental universities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(4), 22-34.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588−606.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS quarterly, 145-158.
Davis, F. D. (1989).Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3),318-341.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P.R (1992).Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to user computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14),1111-1132.
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), 982-1004.
Diaz, M. C., & Loraas, T. (2010). Learning new uses of technology while on an audit
engagement: Contextualizing general models to advance pragmatic understanding. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11(1), 61-77.
Hair, J. F, Anderson, R. E, Babin, B. J, & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis : a global perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River (N.J.): Pearson education.
Hair, E., Halle, T., Terry-Humen, E., Lavelle, B., & Calkins, J. (2006). Children's school readiness in the ECLS-K: Predictions to academic, health, and social outcomes in first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 431-454.
Hiltz, S. R. (1994) The Virtual Classroom - Learning without limits via computer networks. Ablex Publishing. Norwood, NY.
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the UTAUT model. Information & management, 48(1), 1-8.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
Lin, H. F. (2006). Understanding behavioral intention to participate in virtual communities. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 540-547.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information systems research, 2(3), 173-191.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Inf. Syst. Res., 2, 192-222.
Mtebe, J., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Investigating students’ behavioural intention to adopt and use mobile learning in higher education in East Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 10(3),4-20.
Pedroso, R., Zanetello, L., Guimarães, L., Pettenon, M., Gonçalves, V., Scherer, J., ... & Pechansky, F. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the crack use relapse scale (CURS). Archives of Clinical Psychiatry (São Paulo), 43, 37-40.
Plouffe, C. R., Hulland, J. S., & Vandenbosch, M. (2001). Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions—understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Information systems research, 12(2), 208-222.
Ramayah, T., & Aafaqi, B. (2004). Role of self-efficacy in e-library usage among students of a public university in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 9(1), 39-57.
Setiyani, L., Effendy, F., & Slamet, A. A. (2021). Using Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) at Selected Private Technical High School: Google Drive Storage in E-Learning. Utamax: Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, 3(2), 80-89.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS quarterly, 125-143.
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.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Wang, Q., Zhu, Z., Chen, L., & Yan, H. (2009). E-learning in China. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(2), 77-81.
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.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS quarterly, 201-226.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 14(4), 490-495.