Advertisement

The Influencing Factors on the Effective Use of Education APP Under the Background of Education Informatization

  • Xiaofen ZhouEmail author
  • Yi Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1126)

Abstract

Under the background of educational informationization, educational information system and various informationized teaching tools are changing people’s learning methods and lifestyles. However, as one of the important carriers or tools of educational informationization, the effect of educational APP in practical application is not as good as the designer expected. Therefore, how to exert the value of educational APP has become a problem urgently to be solved. This problem, based on the theory of social influence and 241 data collected from the survey as samples, constructs a research model for empirical research. The results show that the individual’s exploratory behavior towards educational APP can significantly affect their willingness to continue exploring. Subjective norms and social identity in social influence theory can affect the individual’s willingness to explore APP, while group norms have no significant impact. In addition, the results also show that perceived usefulness partially mediates the relationship between exploratory behavior and sustained exploratory willingness. The research in this paper is used for reference in the development and design of educational APP.

Keywords

Education informatization Education APP Value realization Education information system Social influence theory 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was financially supported by the Teaching Team Project of Hubei Province (Teaching team of the construction of smart logistics curriculum system), the Wuhan Technology and Business University (Teaching team of smart logistics development and management, TDXZ1802) and the Subject of Educational Science Planning in Hubei Province in 2018 (Research on Online Course Teaching Design of Applied Universities, 2018GB121).

References

  1. 1.
    Li, M., Kong, W., Li, Z.: Ask “jobs’ question”: how to measure the role of education informatization. Mod. Distance Educ. Res. 3, 3–10 (2017). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cai, H., Yin, H., Chen, M.: What factors affect teachers’ use of digital education resources? - Perspective on the construction and development of educational informatization in China in the intelligent age. Audiov. Educ. Res. 7, 60–69 (2019). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ren, Y., Gu, X.: Educational technology: questions and answers to discipline development. Educ. Res. 40(1), 141–152 (2019). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharples, M., Corlett, D., Oliver, W.: The design and implementation of a mobile learning resource. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 6(3), 220–234 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., Yang, S.J.: Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 11(2), 81–91 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ke, Q., Wang, P., Zhang, J.: The supply mode of digital education resources, Yao classification framework and development countermeasures. Res. Audio-Vis. Educ. 39(3), 68–74 (2018). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park, S.Y., Nam, M.W., Cha, S.B.: University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: evaluating the technology acceptance model. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 43(4), 592–605 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsiao, K.L., Huang, T.C., Chen, M.Y., et al.: Understanding the behavioral intention to play austronesian learning games: from the perspectives of learning outcome, service quality, and hedonic value. Interact. Learn. Environ. 1, 1–14 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K.H.: The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 110, 51–63 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Granovetter, M.: Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91(3), 485–510 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelman, H.C.: Interests, relationships, identities: three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57(1), 1–26 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelman, H.C.: Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. J. Confl. Resolut. 2(1), 51–60 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhou, T., Li, H.: Understanding mobile SNS continuance usage in China from the perspectives of social influence and privacy concern. Comput. Hum. Behav. 37, 283–289 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burton-Jones, A., Grange, C.: From use to effective use: a representation theory perspective. Inf. Syst. Res. 24(3), 632–658 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liang, H., Peng, Z., Xue, Y., et al.: Employees’ exploration of complex systems: an integrative view. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 322–357 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boudreau, M.C., Robey, D.: Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organ. Sci. 16(1), 3–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maruping, L.M., Magni, M.: Motivating employees to explore collaboration technology in team contexts. MIS Q. 39(1), 1–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andrews, F.M., Farris, G.F.: Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: a five-year panel study. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 8(2), 185–200 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levine, J.M., Moreland, R.L.: Culture and socialization in work groups. Prespectives Soc. Shared Cogn. 257–279 (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79(6), 876–889 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Creeping dispositionism: the temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84(3), 485–497 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kidwell, B., Jewell, R.D.: The influence of past behavior on behavioral intent: an information-processing explanation. Psychol. Mark. 25(12), 1151–1166 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liberman, N., Trope, Y.: The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71(1), 5–18 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fujita, K., Henderson, M.D., Eng, J., et al.: Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychol. Sci. 17(4), 278–282 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agrifoglio, R., Black, S., Metallo, C., et al.: Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation in continued twitter usage. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 53(1), 33–41 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation - confirmation model. MIS Q. 25(3), 351–370 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stajkovic, A.D., Luthans, F.A.: A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance. Acad. Manag. J. 40(5), 1122–1149 (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84(2), 191–215 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2(1), 21–41 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oliver, R.L.: A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17(4), 460–469 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation. Hum. Relat. 27(1), 1–15 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maruping, L.M., Magni, M.: Motivating employees to explore collaboration technology in team contexts. MIS Q. 39, 1–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shen, A.X., Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K., et al.: How social influence affects we-intention to use instant messaging: the moderating effect of usage experience. Inf. Syst. Front. 13(2), 157–169 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A.: Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37(3), 580–607 (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Orlikowski, W.J.: Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 11(4), 404–428 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mei, Y., Balakrishnan, M., et al.: Comparing the acceptance of key performance indicators management systems on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in a higher education institution in Malaysia. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci. (IJMECS) 4(10), 9–16 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2012.10.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of LogisticsWuhan Technology and Business UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Business Administration and Tourism ManagementYunnan UniversityKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations