THE FACTORS INFLUENCING OF THE MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION FOR ENHANCING LIFELONG LEARNING PROCESS BASE ON SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN THE ERA OF NEW NORMAL
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigates the components of mobile technology: smartphone that suite to lifelong learning process base on self-directed learning in the era of new normal setting. Integrating model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Task-Technology Fit model (TTF) to understanding and explaining the mobile technology adoption for enhancing lifelong learning process base on self-directed learning. In exploratory study, from a semi-structured interview with a sample of 55 participants with convenience sampling method, it was found that wireless communication, processor, and battery life are considered to be important components of mobile technology that promote the mobile technology adoption for enhancing lifelong learning process base on self-directed learning. Based on the findings from the exploratory study and related theoretical, three sets of questionnaires were used to collect data. This research conducted data analysis with EFA, CFA and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Afterwards, this research proposed a research model and the empirical data were collected from 687 participants to test the hypothesis. It was found that the multimedia usage group and TTF have a direct effect on Performance Expectancy (PE) with a path coefficient of 0.13 and the R-square value is 0.148. On the other hand, the electronic usage group and TTF do not positively affect the PE with a path coefficient of -0.07 and the R-square value is 0.298. This shows the important of TTF where variations may arise from the use of different learning materials and ultimately affect PE. According to the results, it could be concluded that the use of mobile technology with learning material, especially those that rely primarily on reading, may not be suitable for lifelong learning processes based on self-directed learning despite the fact that it can enhance learners’ motivation. This is because the screen size may affect the perception of the digital learning media.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
"The opinions and contents including the words in papers are responsibility by the authors."
"ข้อคิดเห็น เนื้อหา รวมทั้งการใช้ภาษาในบทความถือเป็นความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียน"
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Alasmari, T., & Zhang, K. (2019). Mobile learning technology acceptance in Saudi Arabian higher education: An extended framework and A mixed-method study. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2127-–2144.
Alawadhi, S., & Morris, A. (2008). The use of the UTAUT model in the adoption of e-government services in Kuwait. In R. H. Sprahue, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008) (pp. 219-229). IEEE.
Ambra, J. D., Wilson, C. S., & Akter, S. (2013). Application of the task-technology fit model to structure and evaluate the adoption of e-books by academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Archive, 64(1), 48-64.
Bergman, E. (Ed.). (2000). Information appliances and beyond: Interaction design for consumer products. Morgan Kaufmann.
Brunner, M., & SÜβ, H. M. (2005). Analyzing the reliability of multidimensional measures: An example from intelligence research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(2), 227–240.
CEPAL, N. (2021). Digital technologies for a new future. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/46817
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Gierdowski, D. C. (2019). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2019. ECAR Research Report. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2019/5/ecar-study-of-community-college-students-and-information-technology
Gonvalve, M. A., Moreira, B. L., Fox, E. A., & Watson, L. T. (2007). What is a good digital library? - A quality model for digital libraries. Information Processing & Management, 43(5), 1416–1437.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babi, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Interaction Design Foundation. (2020). What you need to know about smartphones vs. tablet use of the mobile internet. https://www.interaction-design.org.
Isaac, O., Aldholay, A., Abdullah, Z., & Ramayah, T. (2019). Online learning usage within Yemeni higher education: The role of compatibility and task-technology fit as mediating variables in the IS success model. Computers and Education, 136, 113-129.
Isabwe, G. M. N. (2010). Investigating the usability of iPad mobile tablet in formative assessment of a mathematics course. Proceeding of the International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2012) (pp. 39-44). IEEE.
Issa, L. F., Alqurashi, K. A., Althomali, T., Alzahrani, T. A., Aljuaid, A. S., & Alharthi, T. M. (2021). Smartphone use and its impact on ocular health among university students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 1-7.
Jing, Z., Jinghua, H., & Junquan, C. (2010). Empirical research on use acceptance of mobile search. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 15(2), 235-245.
Kiat, T. Y., Jumintono, Kriswanto, E. S., Sugiri, Handayani, E., Anggarini, Y., & Rofik, M. (2020). The effectiveness of multimedia learning on academic achievement in reproduction topic science subject. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3625-3629.
Lieberman, M. (2019). ‘Students are using mobile even if you aren’t.’ Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/02/27/mobile-devices-transform-classroom-experiences-and
Molina, N. A., Mahan, R. P., & Illingworth, A. J. (2014). Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus nonmobile devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 124-138.
Munir, H. A., Saad, N., Junid, S. A. A. S., Zaidi, A. M. A., Yusoff, M. Z., & Ponniran, A. (2010). Data transfer rate, central processing unit usage and read access memory usage in networked control system via industrial ethernet. In I. Musirin (Ed.), 2010 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (pp. 318–323). IEEE.
Nayak, R., Sharma, K. A., Mishra, K. S., Bhattrai, S., Sah, K. N., & Sanyam, D. S. (2020). Smartphone induced eye strain in young and healthy individuals. Journal of Kathmandu Medical College, 9(34), 201-206.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
O’Connor, S., & Andrews, T. (2018). Smartphones and mobile applications (apps) in clinical nursing education: A student perspective. Nurse Education Today, 69, 172-178.
OECD. (2021). Data portability, interoperability and digital platform competition, OECD Competition Committee Discussion Paper. http://oe.cd/dpic
Park, C. W., Kim, D., Cho, S., & Han, H. J. (2019). Adoption of multimedia technology for learning and gender difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 288-296.
Pattuelli, M. C., & Rabina, D. L. (2010). Forms, effects, function: Lis students’ attitudes toward portable e-book readers. ASLIB Proceedings: New information perspectives, 62(3), 228–244.
Singaram, V. S., Naidoo, K. L., & Singh, S. (2022). Self-directed learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of south African final-year health professions students. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 13, 1–10.
Sun, S., Xiong, C., & Chang, V. (2018). Acceptance of information and communication technologies in education: An investigation into University’s students’ intentions to use mobile educational apps. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 15(1), 24-44.
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers and Education, 94, 252-275.
Thong, J. Y. L., Venkatesh, V., Xu, X., Hong, S. J., & Tam, K.Y. (2011). Consumer acceptance of personal information and communication technology service. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(4), 613-625.
Vanduhe, V. Z., Nat, M., & Hasan, H. F. (2020). Continuance intentions to use gamification for training in higher education: Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), social motivation, and Task Technology Fit (TTF). IEEE Access, 8, 21473-21484.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
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), 245–478.
Venkatesh V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Yen, D. C., Wu, C. S. Cheng, F. F., & Huang, Y. W. (2010). Determinants of user's intention to adopt wireless technology: An empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Computer in Human Behavior, 26(5), 906–915.