Exploring the User Acceptance of Online Interactive Mechanisms for Live-Streamed Teaching in Higher Education Institutions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. Theoretical Basis
2.2. Research Hypotheses
2.2.1. Interactive Functionalities of the Platform and Online Teaching Interactions
2.2.2. Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Mediate the Relationship between the Platform’s Interactive Functionalities and Online Teaching Interactions
2.2.3. Students’ Personality Traits and Online Teaching Interactions
2.2.4. The Mediating Role of Interaction Motivation between Students’ Personality Traits and Online Teaching Interactions
3. Method
3.1. Participants
3.2. Instrument Development
4. Results
4.1. Analysis of Reliability and Validity
4.2. Structural Model and Testing of the Hypotheses
5. Discussion
5.1. Discussion of the Results
5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Studies
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tang, Y.M.; Chen, P.C.; Law, K.M.Y.; Wu, C.H.; Lau, Y.-y.; Guan, J.; He, D.; Ho, G.T.S. Comparative analysis of Student’s live online learning readiness during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the higher education sector. Comput. Educ. 2021, 168, 104211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y. Application of Internet of Things in Online Teaching of Adult Education Based on Android Voice Assistant. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2022, 2022, 8915889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, G.; Wang, L. Teaching Effect Analysis and Behavior Detection of an Online Dance Learning Platform in the Context of COVID-19. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Serv. Sect. 2022, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Zhao, C.; Li, H.; Hu, P.; Huang, Y. Influencing factors of online learners’ satisfaction: A comparative study on live situation and record situation. Open Educ. Res 2017, 23, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, M.; Kim, D.-A.; Kwon, M. A Comparison of Two Forms of Instruction: Pre-Recorded Video Lectures vs. Live ZOOM Lectures for Education in the Business Management Field. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mac Domhnaill, C.; Mohan, G.; McCoy, S. Home broadband and student engagement during COVID-19 emergency remote teaching. Distance Educ. 2021, 42, 465–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Querol-Julián, M. How does digital context influence interaction in large live online lectures? The case of English-medium instruction. Eur. J. Engl. Stud. 2021, 25, 297–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Samarraie, H. A scoping review of videoconferencing systems in higher education: Learning paradigms, opportunities, and challenges. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2019, 20, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mu’awanah, N.; Sumardi, S.; Suparno, S. Using Zoom to support English learning during Covid-19 pandemic: Strengths and challenges. J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar 2021, 5, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correia, A.-P.; Liu, C.; Xu, F. Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the educational experience. Distance Educ. 2020, 41, 429–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, C.; Zhao, W.; Siau, K. COVID-19 Pandemic: A Usability Study on Platforms to Support Elearning. In Proceedings of the HCI International 2020–Late Breaking Posters: 22nd International Conference, HCII 2020, Proceedings, Part II 22. Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; pp. 333–340. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.; Liu, X.; Tang, J. Tsinghua University Online Teaching Survey: Diversified Live Broadcast Platforms and Preferences between Teachers and Students. Available online: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/153342223 (accessed on 2 July 2020).
- Quadir, B.; Zhou, M. Students Perceptions, System Characteristics and Online Learning During the COVID-19 Epidemic School Disruption. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. 2021, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.-M. Roles of interactivity and usage experience in e-learning acceptance: A longitudinal study. Int. J. Web Inf. Syst. 2014, 10, 2–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, Y.; Reeves, T.C. Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet High. Educ. 2007, 10, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trentin, G. The quality-interactivity relationship in distance education. Educ. Technol. 2000, 40, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
- Kwon, K.; Liu, Y.-H.; Johnson, L.P. Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Comput. Educ. 2014, 78, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, N.; Gong, J. The application of virtual reality technology in the efficiency optimisation of students’ online interactive learning. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life-Long Learn. 2022, 32, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqudah, I.; Barakat, M.; Muflih, S.M.; Alqudah, A. Undergraduates’ perceptions and attitudes towards online learning at Jordanian universities during COVID-19. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2021, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roque-Hernandez, R.V.; Diaz-Roldan, J.L.; Lopez-Mendoza, A.; Salazar-Hernandez, R. Instructor presence, interactive tools, student engagement, and satisfaction in online education during the COVID-19 Mexican lockdown. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 2841–2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, N.; Pu, Q. Factors influencing learners’ continuance intention toward one-to-one online learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 1742–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Zhang, N.; Wang, M. The impact of interaction on continuous use in online learning platforms: A metaverse perspective. Internet Res. 2023; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, C.-M. Factors Determining the Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Learning: An Application and Extension of the UTAUT Model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, D.Y.; Lehto, M.R. User acceptance of You Tube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Comput. Educ. 2013, 61, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, T.; Lin, X.; Sun, Y.; Liu, T. An Empirical Study of the Factors Influencing Users’ Intention to Use Automotive AR-HUD. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alassafi, M.O. E-learning intention material using TAM: A case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Nanomaterials (ICRAMEN), Pune, India, 19–20 February 2022; pp. 873–877. [Google Scholar]
- Sukendro, S.; Habibi, A.; Khaeruddin, K.; Indrayana, B.; Syahruddin, S.; Makadada, F.A.; Hakim, H. Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of e-learning during COVID-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon 2020, 6, E05410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burnes, B. Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 977–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasser, T.; Ryan, R.M. Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 22, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, C. Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2003, 34, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdous, M.h.; Yoshimura, M. Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousef, A.M.F.; Chatti, M.A.; Schroeder, U. The state of video-based learning: A review and future perspectives. Int. J. Adv. Life Sci. 2014, 6, 122–135. [Google Scholar]
- Rovai, A.P. Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet High. Educ. 2007, 10, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, Y.-C.; Walker, A.E.; Schroder, K.E.E.; Belland, B.R. Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. Internet High. Educ. 2014, 20, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, T.K.F. Student engagement in K-12 online learning amid COVID-19: A qualitative approach from a self-determination theory perspective. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2021, 31, 3326–3339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sayad, G.; Md Saad, N.H.; Thurasamy, R. How higher education students in Egypt perceived online learning engagement and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Comput. Educ. 2021, 8, 527–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulut, İ.H.; Delialioğlu, Ö. An engagement and motivation model for online learning technologies. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Lee, Y. Personality Types and Learners’ Interaction in Web-Based Threaded Discussion. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2006, 7, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
- Boroujeni, A.A.J.; Roohani, A.; Hasanimanesh, A. The impact of extroversion and introversion personality types on EFL learners’ writing ability. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2015, 5, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewar, T.; Whittington, D. Online Learners and Their Learning Strategies. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2000, 23, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.Y. An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2009, 12, 150–162. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, J.-C.; Cao, W.; Liu, X.; Tai, K.-H.; Zhao, L. Personality traits predict the effects of Internet and academic self-efficacy on practical performance anxiety in online learning under the COVID-19 lockdown. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2023, 55, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schredl, M.; Goeritz, A.S. Social Media, Dreaming, and Personality: An Online Study. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2019, 22, 657–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alemayehu, L.; Chen, H.-L. Learner and instructor-related challenges for learners’ engagement in MOOCs: A review of 2014–2020 publications in selected SSCI indexed journals. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 3172–3194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarrinabadi, N.; Haidary, T. Willingness to communicate and identity styles of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 98, 2010–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, A.; Ziapour, A.; Lebni, J.Y.; Mehedi, N. Prediction of Academic Motivation Based on Variables of Personality Traits, Academic Self-Efficacy, Academic Alienation and Social Support in Paramedical Students. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 2021, 43, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eysenck, S.B.G.; Barrett, P.T.; Saklofske, D.H. The Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 169, 109974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çebi, A.; Güyer, T. Students’ interaction patterns in different online learning activities and their relationship with motivation, self-regulated learning strategy and learning performance. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 3975–3993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liaw, S.-S.; Huang, H.-M.; Chen, G.-D. Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Comput. Educ. 2007, 49, 1066–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, J.W.; Kim, Y.G. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiertz, C.; de Ruyter, K. Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organ. Stud. 2007, 28, 347–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Chen, X. Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 67, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosnjak, M.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Selected Recent Advances and Applications. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 352–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Childers, T.L.; Carr, C.L.; Peck, J.; Carson, S. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 511–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabholkar, P.A.; Bagozzi, R.P. An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30, 184–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Venkatesh, V. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 1996, 45, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lust, G.; Elen, J.; Clarebout, G. Students’ tool-use within a web enhanced course: Explanatory mechanisms of students’ tool-use pattern. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 2013–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giesbers, B.; Rienties, B.; Tempelaar, D.; Gijselaers, W. A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2014, 30, 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Barba, P.G.; Kennedy, G.E.; Ainley, M.D. The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2016, 32, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiser, O.; Blau, I.; Eshet-Alkalai, Y. How do medium naturalness, teaching-learning interactions and Students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous E-learning? Internet High. Educ. 2018, 37, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Construct | Scale Items | Source |
---|---|---|
PU | PU1: In-platform online interactive functionalities enhance my learning efficiency. PU2: In-platform online interactive functionalities improve my learning outcomes. PU3: In-platform interactions help me solve learning problems or make the process of problem solving easier. | [36,52] |
PEOU | PEOU1: I can quickly find the required features and applications in the platform. PEOU2: The platform’s operation is very clear and easy to understand. PEOU3: Using Tencent Meeting for interaction is very easy for me. | [36,52] |
AU | AU1: I am willing to use interactive functionalities such as typing, voice, and video during online classes. AU2: I find it very enjoyable to use interactive functionalities such as typing, voice, and video during online classes. AU3: The likelihood of me recommending my classmates/friends/team members to use interactive functionalities in Tencent Meeting is very high. | [35,51] |
IF | IF1: The chat window communication feature is highly user-friendly. IF2: The voice communication feature is highly user-friendly. IF3: The platform’s video interaction feature is highly user-friendly. | [30] |
PP | PP1: I am willing to actively answer the teacher’s questions. PP2: I consider myself always very actively engaged in the classroom. | [49,53] |
IM | I am often proactive during online interactions. | [39] |
IB | I frequently participate in various forms of online interactions, including typing, voice chat, and video on the platform. | [50,54] |
Construct | Number of Items | Cronbach’s Alpha | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|
PU | 3 | 0.876 | 0.877 | 0.705 |
PEOU | 3 | 0.818 | 0.820 | 0.604 |
AU | 3 | 0.834 | 0.834 | 0.627 |
IB | 1 | - | - | - |
IF | 3 | 0.773 | 0.778 | 0.542 |
IM | 1 | - | - | - |
PP | 2 | 0.851 | 0.850 | 0.740 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. PP | 0.860 | ||||
2. PU | 0.433 | 0.840 | |||
3. PEOU | 0.331 | 0.440 | 0.777 | ||
4. AU | 0.547 | 0.632 | 0.522 | 0.792 | |
5. IF | 0.335 | 0.391 | 0.447 | 0.523 | 0.736 |
Dependent Variable | Hypothesis | Path | β | p Value | Hypothesis Supported |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PU | H1 | IF → PU | 0.586 | <0.001 *** | Supported |
PEOU | H2 | IF → PEOU | 0.634 | <0.001 *** | Supported |
AU | H3 | PU → AU | 0.384 | <0.001 *** | Supported |
H4 | PEOU → AU | 0.311 | <0.001 *** | Supported | |
H5 | AU → IB | 0.532 | <0.001 *** | Supported | |
H6 | PP → AU | 0.244 | <0.001 *** | Supported | |
H9 | IM → AU | 0.273 | <0.001 *** | Supported | |
IM | H7 | PP → IM | 0.651 | <0.001 *** | Supported |
IB | H8 | IM → IB | 0.244 | <0.001 *** | Supported |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huang, Y.; Pan, L.; Wang, Y.; Yan, Z.; Chen, Y.; Hao, X.; Xia, T. Exploring the User Acceptance of Online Interactive Mechanisms for Live-Streamed Teaching in Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813529
Huang Y, Pan L, Wang Y, Yan Z, Chen Y, Hao X, Xia T. Exploring the User Acceptance of Online Interactive Mechanisms for Live-Streamed Teaching in Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813529
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuang, Yaxi, Li Pan, Yiran Wang, Ziting Yan, Yifei Chen, Xin Hao, and Tiansheng Xia. 2023. "Exploring the User Acceptance of Online Interactive Mechanisms for Live-Streamed Teaching in Higher Education Institutions" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813529
APA StyleHuang, Y., Pan, L., Wang, Y., Yan, Z., Chen, Y., Hao, X., & Xia, T. (2023). Exploring the User Acceptance of Online Interactive Mechanisms for Live-Streamed Teaching in Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability, 15(18), 13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813529