The decline of enrollees for industrial engineering during the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing demand for professional industrial engineers should be explored. The purpose of this study was to determine the preference of industrial engineering students of different educational levels on online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this study utilized conjoint analysis with orthogonal design considering seven attributes: delivery type, layout, term style, final requirements, Coursera requirements, seatwork and practice sets, and platforms. Among the attributes, 20 stimuli were created through SPSS and were answered voluntarily by 126 respondents utilizing a 7-point Likert Scale. The respondents were comprised of 79 undergraduate, 30 fully online master’s degree, and 17 master’s and doctorate degree students collected through purposive sampling. One university from the two available universities that offer all educational levels of IE in the Philippines was considered. The results showed that undergraduate students considered the final requirements with multiple-choice as the highest preference, followed by non-modular term style, and no seatwork and practice sets. In addition, fully online master’s degree students considered delivery type with the mix as the highest preference, followed by layout, and no seatwork and practice sets. Finally, master’s and doctorate degree students considered final requirements with publication as the highest preference, followed by no seatwork and practice sets, and mix delivery type. The students are technologically inclined, want to learn at their own pace, know where and how to get additional online learning materials, but still need the guidance of teachers/professors. The results would help contribute to the theoretical foundation for further students’ preference segmentation, specifically on online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. Moreover, the design created could be utilized for other courses in measuring students’ preference for online learning even after the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 contact-tracing mobile applications have been some of the most important tools during the COVID-19 pandemic. One preventive measure that has been incorporated to help reduce the virus spread is the strict implementation of utilizing a COVID-19 tracing application, such as the MorChana mobile application of Thailand. This study aimed to evaluate the factors affecting the actual usage of the MorChana mobile application. Through the integration of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), latent variables such as performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), facilitating conditions (FC), hedonic motivation (HM), habit (HB), perceived risk (PCR), self-efficacy (SEF), privacy (PR), trust (TR), and understanding COVID-19 (U) were considered to measure the intention to use MorChana (IU) and the actual usage (AU) of the mobile application. This study considered 907 anonymous participants who voluntarily answered an online self-administered survey collected via convenience sampling. The results show that IU presented the highest significant effect on AU, followed by HB, HM, PR, FC, U, SEF, PE, EE, TR, and SI. This is evident due to the strict implementation of using mobile applications upon entering any area of the vicinity. Moreover, PCR was not seen to be a significant latent factor affecting AU. This study is the first to have evaluated mobile contact tracing in Thailand. The integrated framework can be applied and extended to determine factors affecting COVID-19 tracing applications in other countries. Moreover, the findings of this study could be applied to other health-related mobile applications worldwide.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.