The information technology and the university: use of educational applications by students

Abstract

This research aimed to identify what are the factors that lead university students to the intention of using applications offered by educational institutions, through a study of students who already have the educational application installed. The applications offer facilities such as the search of collections, reservations and loans in the library, access to class schedule, among other options. A survey was performed with 133 students who used the educational application studied and the analysis was developed by structural equation models. The results show that the aid in the daily academic activities, the provided hedonic motivations and the habit positively influence the intention of use. The technical part involved in this procedure (download, installation and search for information) and the influence of other people did not influence use. The study broadens the understanding of the aspects related to educational applications, thus enabling the use of its results to make decisions on the provision and development of apps for this purpose.

Examining Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 through Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modelling

“…In information system research, HM has been found to influence technology acceptance and use (Childers et al, 2001;Thong et al, 2006;Van der Heijden, 2004). From the literature, HM is generally a predictor of BI, a finding that is aligned with what was proposed by Venkatesh et al ( 2012) (Ashraf et al, 2023;Avci & Acvi, 2022, Azizi et al, 2020Bervell et al, 2021;de Moraes & Cabello, 2017;Fathima Sanjeetha & Sabraz Nawaz, 2020;Hu et al, 2020, Kalinkara & Talan, 2022Kumar & Bervell, 2019;Moorthy et al, 2019b;Nikolopoulou et al, 2020;Raman & Don, 2013;Zhou et al, 2022). However, when Tamilmani et al (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of 79 UTAUT2 studies, the researchers found that only 46 (58%) of the studies utilised HM as a construct, while 33 studies (42%) omitted the construct.…”

“…In a similar research on the acceptance of Google Classroom with 163 students, Bervell et al (2021) found that EE had a significant effect on SI instead of BI. De Moraes and Cabello (2017), in their study on the use of educational applications by 133 Brazilian students, revealed that EE has no significant effect on BI.…”

“…On the other hand, using H as a construct is encouraged in research to examine established technologies driven by intrinsic consumer motivation. From the literature, H was generally found to have a significant effect on BI (Almahri et al, 2020;Ashraf et al, 2023;Avci & Avci, 2022;Azizi et al, 2020;de Moraes et al, 2017;Fathima Senjeetha & Sabraz Nawaz, 2020;Hu et al, 2020;Jung & Lee, 2020;Malešević et al, 2021;Mishra et al, 2021;Nikolopoulou et al, 2020;Raman & Thannimalai, 2021, Zhou et al, 2022 and UB (Avci & Avci;2022;Azizi et al, 2020, Hu et al, 2020Malešević et al, 2021;Nikolopoulou et al, 2020).…”

“…The discussion on FC as a predictor of UB is sometimes not straightforward as in many studies. UB was often omitted in many UTAUT2 empirical studies (Abdul Rabu et al, 2019;Al-Azawei & Alowayr, 2020;Almahri et al, 2020;Arain et al, 2018;Arain et al, 2019;Bhimasta & Suprapto;de Moraes & Cabello, 2017;El-Masri & Tarhini, 2017;Faqih & Jaradat, 2021;Gengfu & Chotiyaputta, 2019;Gunawan et al, 2019;Jung & Lee;Kaur et al, 2021;Le et al, 2022;Meet et al, 2022;Mehta et al, 2019;Moorthy et al, 2019a;Moorthy et al, 2019b;Rudhumbu, 2022;Sharif et al, 2019;Xu et al, 2022). For studies that included UB as a construct, in most cases, findings revealed that FC was a predictor of UB (Ain et al, 2016;Ashraf et al, 2023;Cao & Nguyen, 2022;Goto & Munyai, 2022;Hu et al, 2020;Kalinkara & Talan, 2022;Musa et al, 2022;Nikolopoulou et al, 2020;Raman & Don, 2013;Tseng et al, 2019;b et al, 2020;Zhou et al, 2020;Zawain, 2019;Zawin & Haboobi, 2019).…”

How a geographically distributed software team managed to negotiate successfully using chat technology

“…Chat technology is of core interest to the Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) community, and the potential for using such technologies (e.g., Skype or Slack) in organizations of high complexity have been identified as an important research agenda (RIEMER; FRÖSSLER; KLEIN, 2007). Chat technology provides low-cost accessibility to team members across geography and time (MORAES;CABELLO, 2017;HSIUNG, 2000;ANDERSON;KANUKA, 1997). Moreover, chat technology can potentially facilitate closely-coupled interaction and communication within and across organizations (FAYARD;DESANCTIS, 2005;CLÉMENT;BAKER;MACINTYRE, 2003).…”