1. Introduction
The digital transformation in education has received a lot of positive attention [1]. In higher education, the application of digital technologies to improve learning has drawn a lot of interest. In recent times, it has frequently been difficult to acquire education via an alternative learning process approach. Technology advancements have made it possible to currently find answers to issues such as communication, information access, and corporate or cooperative ventures. As a result, there is numerous research that addresses the significance of technology self-efficacy in academia. However, most of the research concentrates on technology proficiency, while other research gives insight into digital technologies, which are thought to be crucial in shaping the type of digital information people receive and their acquired learning skills. This research advances and broadens the use of digital technology and information in the educational field, consequently promoting research programs, research findings, and the academic success of students [2,3,4]. The preponderance of earlier studies [4,5,6,7,8,9] concentrated on the adoption of digital technology in institutional educational contexts. The impact of experience, TAM, teachers’ roles, and students’ views are among the factors that can affect a student’s digital informal learning, although an empirical study on these factors is scarce. Additionally, a past study showed impediments to digital learning in traditional schools, but its status in higher education is still unknown. Our goal in this study is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding digital learning at college level education from the standpoint of the instructor. We looked at (1) the digital flow of information concerning the perceived ease of use of the digital learning, (2) tutor quality concerning the perceived usefulness, and (3) perceived experience concerning whether the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are indicative of the intention to employ digital learning in special education.
2. Review of the Literature
The most recent developments can be seen as a reflection of how technology is expanding and becoming more prevalent to help achieve exceptional innovation levels. Significant shifts were brought about by digital technologies in several industries, notably education. This results in lessening the impact of conventional teaching and learning methods. Digital technology in the educational setting was the subject of earlier research. The research concentrated on peoples’ knowledge in contrast to the dramatic shifts in information and communication technologies in the education system, commencing with the establishment of digital information competence [5,6]. Computer proficiency is a key component that supports individuals’ involvement in society and a job. Owing to even basic access to digital information, it is believed that digital information competency is the foundation for the capacity to retain continuous learning. Teachers who oversee helping students develop their digital information and communication skills may be significantly impacted by literacy abilities. By concentrating on the sorts of technology utilized as instruments to achieve various educational objectives, namely accessing, assessing, exchanging, and conveying digital information, the degree of competency in the application of digital information and communication abilities is conceived. It is important to recognize the contribution of teachers in promoting the usage of digital information. According to research, instructors’ views, and support of the usage of digital information play a significant effect. The importance placed on the digital domain of information for academic reasons is significantly influenced by instructors’ roles [5,6,7,10].
To evaluate computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, perceived enjoyment, and acceptance of digital learning as sustainable in connection to students’ satisfaction, research by [11] developed a novel model that may quantify characteristics that influence the adoption of digital information by students. Earlier research has a variety of goals. The research tried to study the safety issues with digital educational resources that are offering the finest ways to resolve the challenge of the perceived risk underneath security challenges, because the emphasis on the issue of security in utilizing digital information was important [12,13]. Other research, though, focused on the uptake of digital information. Prior research was conducted to analyze the influence of the digital storytelling approach on digital literacy abilities, with a specific emphasis on the development and adoption of the method [8,9].
Additionally, researchers found that thresholds of digital literacy shifted upon the implementation of novel digital information, implying that both instructors’ and students’ perspectives shifted given the struggles they faced when using the new digital information [8,11]. Based on the type of model used, the findings of previous research have a variety of consequences. Most of the research concentrated on elements such as perceived enjoyment, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, and TAM components. This research accentuates the beneficial role that the method of using digital information plays in educational contexts. According to the literature review’s findings, self-efficacy and perceived support both have a substantial impact on digital learning at the corporate stage, while self-control and parental assistance are the key barriers for students. A training program should be made available for education instructors, students, and practitioners in digital learning to address the self-efficacy issue [9]. As a component of the barriers preventing the adoption of digital information and technologies, other relevant variables such as student attendance, digital challenges, connectivity consideration, and involvement are included. A list of suggestions was made, including creating media content that enables bidirectional communication to enhance inter-institutional collaboration [9,13].
Although earlier research used various models to assess how well digital information was accepted, the present research differed from preceding research since it concentrated on the impact of other external factors including perceived experience and tutor quality. These elements have never been discussed in research that investigated the effects of digital information. TAM was identified in published findings as a crucial paradigm for assessing the acceptability of digital information in the educational setting. The present research tried to look into how perceived experience and TAM components relate to one another.
2.1. Digital Flow Information
To illustrate the varying levels of the usefulness of technology, the component of digital information serves as a depiction of the flowing spectrum. Components of the digital information flow have perceived benefits of technology. According to research, the perceived trust that people have in the information they receive is related to the digital flow of information. People who have access to information on educational platforms exhibit growing trust in digital information. When students view the information flow digitally as reliable, they are more likely to use it frequently. It acts as a type of inducement to keep using the information flow provided by digital technology. On the other side, innovation appears to have a detrimental consequence on the digital information flow, since it alters students’ views based on their experiences and the sorts of information supplied [14,15]. Based on the foregoing supposition, it is possible to hypothesize that:
Digital information has a positive effect and great impact on the perceived ease of use.
2.2. Tutor Quality
The tutor now plays a variety of other roles instead of just passing along the information to a group of students. The growth of the e-learning ecosystem altered the responsibility of the tutor. In situations where students believe their tutor to be of high quality, they can serve as the mediator, mentor, trouble-shooter, and somebody who can resolve any hardware or software problems. A high-quality tutor will motivate students or learners to participate in novel e-learning settings and utilize novel digital information with ease. The evolution of the tutor’s position led to new responsibilities such as group instructional help, conducting in-person or online classes for specialized assistance, emailing, and building online groups, in addition to electronic feedback for online assignments [16,17]. Considering that there is a favorable relationship between students’ intention to use digital information and the perceived usefulness that results from high tutor quality, prior research linked high-quality tutors and perceived usefulness [16,17]. As a result, it is assumed that:
Tutor quality has a positive effect and great impact on the perceived usefulness.
2.3. TAM Model and Experience
The TAM model was first developed by [18], who established the ground for a collection of cognitions and beliefs linked to the acceptance of technology that also takes into account the two important factors of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use intended to address the idea of DIE acceptability. A psychological construct known as experience can be regarded as an inherent motive that includes fun and fulfilment [19,20]. Previous research that combined perceived experience with TAM suggested that people with extensive experience value employing technology, with an emphasis on on-time experience that can strongly anticipate the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Therefore, people may believe that technology is easy to use, presuming that ease of use will allow them to use it freely, without having to exert much thought or work. This occurs anytime experienced users interact with technology regularly, which may create a comfortable and welcoming atmosphere [21]. The relationship between perceived experience, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use is the central concern as shown in Figure 1. Consequently, the following hypotheses are put forth:
The perceived ease of use has a positive effect and great impact on the DIE experience.
The perceived usefulness has a positive effect and great impact on the DIE experience.
The perceived ease of use has a positive effect and great impact on the intention to use DIE.
DIE experience has a positive effect and great impact on the intention to use DIE.
The perceived usefulness has a positive effect and great impact on the intention to use DIE.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Collection
Online surveys were distributed to interested students from universities in the UAE. The period covered by the data collection procedure was from 5 April to 30 June 2022. The research team distributed 500 questionnaires arbitrarily. A 97% response rate was obtained from these surveys, with the responder answering 485 of the questionnaires. In addition, 15 questionnaires were disqualified due to some incomplete data. As a result, there were 485 acceptable questionnaires. According to Krejcie and Morgan [22], the sample size for these acceptable questionnaires (the anticipated sampling size for 306 respondents/1500 population) was at the proper threshold. The sample size (485) and the minimal needs are very dissimilar. Given this, the sample size might be the results of the structural equation modeling analysis [23], which were then utilized to verify the hypotheses. It is also important to note that our hypotheses were built on the preceding theories (contextually digital information). The research team utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) (SmartPLS Version 3.2.7) to assess the measurement model. The final path model was used to carry out the advanced treatment.
3.2. Students’ Personal Information/Demographic Data
Among respondents, 58% were female students and 42% male students. In addition, 65% of participants were between the ages of 18 and 29, and the remaining participants were older than 29. Most of the responders were educated and held university degrees. More precisely, 68%, 30%, and 2% of the student population had bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees, respectively. According to [24], the "purposive sampling approach" can be used when participants indicate a readiness to volunteer. Regarding this sample, the students came from various universities, age categories, and academic stages. In addition, IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 was utilized to analyze the demographic data. In Table 1, the demographic and personal information is shown.
3.3. Study Instrument
Seventeen more items were introduced to the survey to evaluate the six components of a questionnaire. The origins of these elements are shown in Table 2. A survey instrument was recommended for this research to help validate the hypothesis. The questions from earlier studies were modified by academics to make the study more practical.
3.4. Common Method Bias (CMB)
According to the analysis, the newly created factor accounts for 22.48% of the largest variation, which is less than the threshold value of 50% [30]. Therefore, there were no concerns regarding the CMB in the data that were collected. Harman’s single-factor analysis was performed with seven components to verify that the collected data did not contain CMB [30]. Then, the ten factors were loaded into a single factor.
3.5. Pilot Study of the Questionnaire
Five hundred students were chosen as the sample size, accounting for 10% of the entire sample size for the assessment. To measure the reliability of the questionnaire items, a pilot study was carried out. Fifty students were chosen at random from the predetermined demographic for this pilot study. For this reason, the study requirements were highly stressed. Using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23, Cronbach’s alpha test for internal reliability was used to assess the results of the pilot study. This helped to produce reliable results for the measurement items. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 is regarded as satisfactory [31] when considering the mentioned tendency of social science research. The Cronbach’s alpha values are shown in Table 3 about the following 5 measurement scales.
3.6. Survey Structure
The students were handed a questionnaire survey. Three sections made up this survey.
-
Personal data about the respondents were the subject of the first part;
-
The generic concern on “intention to use digital information” was represented by two questions in the second part;
-
The final component had 15 items that were divided into four categories: “Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, DIE Experience, and Tutor Quality.”
A five-point Likert scale with the following alternatives was used to evaluate the 17 items: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5).
4. Findings and Discussion
4.1. Data Analysis
A two-stage assessment approach using the structural model and measurement model was used to analyze the collected data [32]. The partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) tool, with support from the SmartPLS V.3.2.7 program, was used to analyze the data for this paper [33]. There are various justifications for the usage of PLS-SEM in this research.
Speculative investigations using complex models can effectively apply the PLS-SEM tool [34]. Secondly, rather than disassembling the entire model, PLS-SEM analyses it as a whole [35]. The primary justification for using PLS-SEM is that it performs best when the investigation is built on previous research or studies [36]. Finally, PLS-SEM provides concurrent analysis for measurement and structural modeling, enabling us to use it to produce correct computations [37].
4.2. Convergent Validity
In this instance, validity includes convergent and discriminant validity, whereas construct reliability includes composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha (CA). According to Hair et al. [32], when assessing a measuring model, constructs’ reliability and validity must be investigated. Table 4 demonstrates that the Cronbach’s alpha (CA) values that are employed to assess construct reliability are higher than the threshold of 0.7 and fall within the region of 0.828 to 0.904. The findings also show that Table 4’s composite reliability (CR) scores, which are significantly higher than the suggested level of 0.7 [38], span from 0.819 to 0.902. Assessing the average variance extracted (AVE) and factor loading are essential to measuring convergent validity [32]. Considering the results of Table 4, the recommended number of 0.7 is below the levels of all factor loadings. In addition, the findings of Table 4 show that the AVE yields values between 0.720 and 0.808, which are higher than the ‘0.5’ threshold level. These prospective findings allow for an effective evaluation of convergent validity for each of the constructs.
4.3. Discriminant Validity
The Fornell–Larker factor confirms these requirements and the results of Table 5 because every AVE score outweighs the value of the correlation it exhibits with other constructs when its square roots are summed [39]. We suggest measuring two parameters, specifically the Fornell–Larker factor and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT), to assess discriminant validity [32]. The results of the data analysis point to an aggravation evaluation of the measurement model’s validity and reliability. Table 6 shows the calculated HTMT ratio values and shows that each construct’s number is currently higher than the 0.85 threshold level [40]. Thus, the HTMT ratio is verified. Determining discriminant validity is dependent on these results. The structural model can, therefore, be evaluated by using the data that were collected more extensively.
4.4. Hypotheses Testing Using PLS-SEM
Each path’s variance description (R2 value) and each connection’s path significance in the research model were evaluated. The simultaneous assessment of the nine preceding hypotheses was conducted using the structural equation modeling (SEM) method [41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. According to Table 7, the R2 values for tutor quality, perceived usefulness, intention to use digital information, and DIE experience range from 0.597 to 0.666. These constructs, consequently, seem to have moderate predictive power [48]. Figure 2 and Table 8 show the normalized path coefficients and path significances.
The empirical data support hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, and H7 according to the data analysis.
The results show that digital information flow (DI) has significant effects on perceived ease of use (PE) (β = 0.618, p < 0.001); hence, H1 is supported. The results also show that perceived usefulness (PU) significantly influences tutor quality (TU) (β = 0.586, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H2. Perceived ease of use (PE) and perceived usefulness (PU) have significant effects on DIE experience (DE) (β = 0.754, p < 0.05) and (β = 0.385, p < 0.05), respectively; hence, H3 and H4 are supported. Finally, the relationships between perceived ease of use (PE), DIE experience (DE), and perceived usefulness (PU) have significant effects on intention to use DIE (IU) (β = 0.532, p < 0.01), (β = 0.436, p < 0.05), and (β = 0.483, p < 0.05), respectively; hence, H5, H6, and H7 are supported.
5. Discussion
Universities need cutting-edge technology solutions that improve e-research, e-teaching, and e-learning chances. Universities and the educational system have been impacted by the development of technology. By utilizing multimedia applications that are appealing to people who use technology, the digital flow of information enables creative exchanges amongst tech users. The present research developed a conceptual model founded on the preceding supposition to quantify the ongoing application of digital information in the educational setting. In the conceptual model that corresponds with the primary element, which is the digital flow of information, the perceived ease of use is seen as one of the essential factors. On the other side, the intention to use DIE is directly influenced by perceived ease of use. The findings of the present research are consistent with earlier publications predicated on previously established correlations [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].
The stated hypotheses are validated and substantiated by numerous parts of literature-based data [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. On the other hand, perceived ease of use and tutor quality are related. The quality of the tutor in a virtual world changes the instructor’s role from that of a knowledge source to that of a facilitator and trouble-shooter; as a result, a high degree of perceived ease of use suggests a higher degree of readiness to adopt the digital information. These elements taken together may be used to evaluate the application of DIE [68,69,70,71,72,73,74].
The existing findings are consistent with earlier research on the significance of technology acceptance, highlighting the evidence that PEOU and PU can be combined with external factors to evaluate the efficacy of technology based on each person’s attributes and the novel capabilities of the technology [75,76,77,78,79,80]. The TAM construct, which influences a person’s propensity to adopt DIE technology, received the most attention in the integrated model concerning DIE experience [81,82,83,84,85]. It explicitly connects the constructs of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and DIE experience to the ongoing intention to adopt DIE [85,86].
5.1. Theoretical Implication
Since it concentrates on the components that demonstrate dissimilarities by concentrating on tutor quality and experience, this research is far ahead of other research studies. In terms of the research’s theoretical importance, adoption and acceptance of research can take advantage of the incorporation of numerous external elements with the TAM constructs. In contrast to the straightforward application of SEM analysis that can be used in other empirical research, the focus on individual distinctions improves the deep-learning analysis. As a result, this research makes a significant literary addition and opens the door for further analysis of how people adopt the technology. Additionally, the suggested technique improves the research’s evaluation and findings’ predictive power.
5.2. Managerial Implications
They suggest that users may understand the value of the technology depending on their wants and necessities, in addition to the unique characteristics of the technology. By offering contemporary significance for teaching and learning practice, the research’s conclusions can improve the proposed project for universities and other educational organizations. The administrative staff may be prompted to incorporate a more innovative viewpoint established in an educational institution and improve the educational setting by delivering more DIE that differentiates in quality and quantity if DIE is used as a useful component in the educational setting. Regarding how people view perceived usefulness and ease of use, developers may be able to concentrate on the efficacy of these two aspects in newly created digital products. As a result, instructors and proponents of technology should give students the chance to experience how particular DIE must be utilized as a backup that supports their function as trouble-shooters, not as a source of information. On the other hand, as time goes on, students will have a clear, good opinion of the educational setting and be more ready to employ technology, which will result in further advancements in the educational environments. Gender-based interpersonal distinctions in personal choice, beliefs, and academic impact should be considered in a prospective study.
6. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Studies
The digital revolution has had a huge impact on education. Digital technologies have attracted a lot of interest in higher education for improving learning. Providing education using various learning techniques has been difficult in recent years. Challenges with collaboration, business, information access, and communication can now be resolved using technology. Digital information literacy is essential for people to participate in society and perform their jobs well. Digital literacy is thought to be the foundation for the capacity to continue continuous learning as an outcome of the introduction to digital information. Education professionals are essential in advancing digital literacy. Therefore, academic institutions must reevaluate the usefulness of digital information technology as a tool for improving educational sections. The present research contains several drawbacks. First, the conceptual model is limited to a selection of external factors that might have an explicit correlation with the TAM constructs. Subsequent research may, therefore, include additional external factors that speak to the particulars of the questioned technology. Second, the sample is restricted to a collection of university students who have chosen various majors. The subsequent research may concentrate on the independent variations among individuals, since the survey does not address gender inequalities among university students. Third, while the survey was disseminated via social media and the internet, surveys may be disseminated differently in the coming years, particularly if the negative effects of the pandemic start to fade. Fourth, this research limits its focus to educational environments in which the DIE has a significant impact on the teaching and learning setting [51,52]. Subsequent research may concentrate on health or monetary organizations.
Conceptualization, M.A.A. and K.A.; methodology, R.A., A.A. (Abid Aldhuhoori) and A.A. (Ahmad Aburayya); software, N.A.; validation, A.B.A. and R.A.; formal analysis, A.A.M.; investigation, A.B.A. and S.A.S.; resources, A.L.; writing original draft preparation, M.A.A.; writing—review and editing, S.A.S.; visualization, A.L., T.A., A.B.A. and R.S.; supervision, M.A.A.; project administration, M.A.A.; funding acquisition, M.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
This work was supported through the Annual Funding track by the Dean-ship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Project No. Grant No. 903).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Path coefficient of the model (significant at ** p < = 0.01, * p < 0.05).
Demographic data of the respondents.
| Criterion | Factor | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 283 | 58% |
| Male | 202 | 42% | |
| Age | Between 18 and 29 | 315 | 65% |
| Between 30 and 39 | 130 | 27% | |
| Between 40 and 49 | 35 | 7% | |
| Between 50 and 59 | 5 | 1% | |
| Education qualification | Bachelor | 328 | 68% |
| Master’s | 146 | 30% | |
| Doctorate | 11 | 2% |
Measurement Items.
| Constructs | Items | Instrument | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intention to use digital information in education | IU1 | I will keep using DIE to further my education and keep ahead more with digital information. | [ |
| IU2 | To speed up my search for digital information for my education, I shall employ DIE. | ||
| Perceived ease of use | PE1 | My engagement with DIE is simple and clear. | [ |
| PE2 | The university personnel are quite transparent about engaging with DIE. | ||
| PE3 | DIE interaction takes cognitive work. | ||
| Perceived usefulness | PU1 | By adopting DIE, I can contribute more to class each day. | [ |
| PU2 | My comprehension of the practical disciplines I enrolled in has improved by employing DIE. | ||
| PU3 | My conceptual homework and assignments benefit from employing DIE. | ||
| Digital information flow | DI1 | I consider DIE important since it assists in the exchange of information. | [ |
| DI2 | I believe DIE assists in the development of innovative, beneficial technology. | ||
| DI3 | DIE makes it simple for teams to share information. | ||
| Tutor quality | TU1 | Using DIE, my tutor can clarify the course material. | [ |
| TU2 | My instructor assists me in honing my DIE learning techniques. | ||
| TU3 | My tutor explains how to use DIE and the steps to follow. | ||
| DIE experience | DE1 | I have a lot of DIE experience. | [ |
| DE2 | DIE is simple to operate, which is how I acquired experience using it. | ||
| DE3 | I have a lot of experience with DIE since it is helpful. |
Cronbach’s Alpha values for the pilot study (Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.70).
| Construct | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|
| DE | 0.826 |
| DI | 0.808 |
| IU | 0.876 |
| PE | 0.813 |
| PU | 0.773 |
| TU | 0.795 |
Convergent validity results.
| Constructs | Items | Factor |
Cronbach’s Alpha | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intention to use digital information | IU1 | 0.840 | 0.892 | 0.825 | 0.756 |
| IU2 | 0.792 | ||||
| Digital information flow | DI1 | 0.852 | 0.889 | 0.819 | 0.695 |
| DI2 | 0.859 | ||||
| DI3 | 0.855 | ||||
| Perceived ease of use | PE1 | 0.905 | 0.904 | 0.902 | 0.800 |
| PE2 | 0.882 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.890 | ||||
| DIE experience | DE1 | 0.797 | 0.828 | 0.827 | 0.808 |
| DE2 | 0.890 | ||||
| DE3 | 0.802 | ||||
| Perceived usefulness | PU1 | 0.877 | 0.833 | 0.848 | 0.720 |
| PU2 | 0.868 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.871 | ||||
| Tutor quality | TU1 | 0.771 | 0.897 | 0.881 | 0.744 |
| TU2 | 0.799 | ||||
| TU3 | 0.745 |
Fornell–Larcker scale.
| IU | DI | PE | DE | PU | TU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IU | 0.800 | |||||
| DI | 0.264 | 0.887 | ||||
| PE | 0.675 | 0.382 | 0.873 | |||
| DE | 0.307 | 0.087 | 0.244 | 0.836 | ||
| PU | 0.650 | 0.532 | 0.623 | 0.432 | 0.937 | |
| TU | 0.664 | 0.283 | 0.373 | 0.391 | 0.336 | 0.874 |
Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
| IU | DI | PE | DE | PU | TU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IU | ||||||
| DI | 0.092 | |||||
| PE | 0.391 | 0.436 | ||||
| DE | 0.285 | 0.413 | 0.406 | |||
| PU | 0.659 | 0.573 | 0.501 | 0.352 | ||
| TU | 0.301 | 0.149 | 0.641 | 0.495 | 0.326 |
R2 of the endogenous latent variables.
| Construct | R2 | Results |
|---|---|---|
| PU | 0.597 | Moderate |
| IU | 0.641 | Moderate |
| DE | 0.642 | Moderate |
| PE | 0.666 | Moderate |
Hypotheses testing of the research model (significant at ** p < = 0.01, * p < 0.05).
| H | Relationship | Path | t-Value | p-Value | Direction | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | DI -> PE | 0.618 | 12.828 | 0.000 | Positive | Supported ** |
| H2 | TU -> PU | 0.586 | 13.183 | 0.000 | Positive | Supported ** |
| H3 | PE -> DE | 0.754 | 6.749 | 0.031 | Positive | Supported ** |
| H4 | PU -> DE | 0.385 | 6.587 | 0.039 | Positive | Supported ** |
| H5 | PE -> IU | 0.532 | 15.260 | 0.003 | Positive | Supported ** |
| H6 | DE -> IU | 0.436 | 7.102 | 0.026 | Positive | Supported ** |
| H7 | PU -> IU | 0.483 | 5.097 | 0.030 | Positive | Supported ** |
References
1. Almaiah, M.A.; Alfaisal, R.; Salloum, S.A.; Al-Otaibi, S.; Al Sawafi, O.S.; Al-Maroof, R.S.; Lutfi, A.; Alrawad, M.; Al Mulhem, A.; Awad, A.B. Determinants Influencing the Continuous Intention to Use Digital Technologies in Higher Education. Electronics; 2022; 11, 2827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics11182827]
2. Leshchenko, M.P.; Kolomiiets, A.M.; Iatsyshyn, A.V.; Kovalenko, V.V.; Dakal, A.V.; O Radchenko, O. Development of informational and research competence of postgraduate and doctoral students in conditions of digital transformation of science and education. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.; 2021; 1840, 012057. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012057]
3. Dudhat, A.; Santoso, N.P.L.; Henderi,; Santoso, S.; Setiawati, R. Blockchain in Indonesia University: A Design Viewboard of Digital Technology Education. Aptisi Trans. Technopreneurship ATT; 2021; 3, pp. 68-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34306/att.v3i1.146]
4. He, T.; Huang, Q.; Yu, X.; Li, S. Exploring students’ digital informal learning: The roles of digital competence and DTPB factors. Behav. Inf. Technol.; 2020; 40, pp. 1406-1416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1752800]
5. Siddiq, F.; Scherer, R.; Tondeur, J. Teachers’ emphasis on developing students’ digital information and communication skills (TEDDICS): A new construct in 21st century education. Comput. Educ.; 2016; 92–93, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.006]
6. Qureshi, M.I.; Khan, N.; Raza, H.; Imran, A.; Ismail, F. Digital Technologies in Education 4.0. Does it Enhance the Effectiveness of Learning? A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol.; 2021; 15, pp. 31-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i04.20291]
7. Jeffrey, L.; Hegarty, B.; Kelly, O.; Penman, M.; Coburn, D.; McDonald, J. Developing Digital Information Literacy in Higher Education: Obstacles and Supports. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res.; 2011; 10, pp. 383-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.28945/1532]
8. Çetin, E. Digital storytelling in teacher education and its effect on the digital literacy of pre-service teachers. Think. Ski. Creat.; 2020; 39, 100760. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100760]
9. Börnert-Ringleb, M.; Casale, G.; Hillenbrand, C. What predicts teachers’ use of digital learning in Germany? Examining the obstacles and conditions of digital learning in special education. Eur. J. Spéc. Needs Educ.; 2021; 36, pp. 80-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1872847]
10. Moreno-Morilla, C.; Guzmán-Simón, F.; García-Jiménez, E. Digital and information literacy inside and outside Spanish primary education schools. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact.; 2021; 28, 100455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100455]
11. Sayaf, A.M.; Alamri, M.M.; Alqahtani, M.A.; Al-Rahmi, W.M. Information and Communications Technology Used in Higher Education: An Empirical Study on Digital Learning as Sustainability. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7074. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137074]
12. Wahyuningsih, T.; Gunawan,; Oganda, F.P.; Anggraeni, M. Design and Implementation of Digital Education Resources Blockchain-Based Authentication System. Blockchain Front. Technol.; 2021; 1, pp. 74-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34306/bfront.v1i01.19]
13. Aydin, E.; Erol, S. The Views of Turkish Language Teachers on Distance Education and Digital Literacy during Covid-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Lit. Stud.; 2021; 9, pp. 60-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.9n.1p.60]
14. Labrecque, L.I.; vor dem Esche, J.; Mathwick, C.F.; Novak, T.P.; Hofacker, C. Consumer Power: Evolution in the Digital Age. J. Interact. Mark.; 2013; 27, pp. 257-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.002]
15. Peltier, J.W.; Dahl, A.J.; Swan, E.L. Digital information flows across a B2C/C2C continuum and technological innovations in service ecosystems: A service-dominant logic perspective. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 121, pp. 724-734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.020]
16. Teo, T.; Luan, W.S.; Thammetar, T.; Chattiwat, W. Assessing e-learning acceptance by university students in Thailand. Austral. J. Educ. Technol.; 2011; 27, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.898]
17. Kear, K.; Donelan, H.; Williams, J. Using wikis for online group projects: Student and tutor perspectives. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn.; 2014; 15, pp. 70-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i4.1753]
18. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q.; 1989; 13, pp. 319-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008]
19. Agarwal, R.; Karahanna, E. Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q.; 2000; 24, pp. 665-694. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3250951]
20. Saadé, R.; Bahli, B. The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag.; 2005; 42, pp. 317-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013]
21. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus; 1990; 119, pp. 115-140.
22. Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas.; 1970; 30, pp. 607-610. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308]
23. Chuan, C.L.; Penyelidikan, J. Sample size estimation using Krejcie and Morgan and Cohen statistical power analysis: A comparison. J. Penyelid. IPBL; 2006; 7, pp. 78-86.
24. Aburayya, A.; Alshurideh, M.; Marzouqi, A.A.; Diabat, O.A.; Alfarsi, A.; Suson, R.; Bash, M.; Salloum, S.A. An Empirical Examination of the Effect of TQM Practices on Hospital Service Quality: An Assessment Study in UAE Hospitals. Syst. Rev. Pharm.; 2020; 11, pp. 347-362.
25. Wang, Y.-S.; Wu, M.-C.; Wang, H.-Y. Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol.; 2009; 40, pp. 92-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x]
26. Alamri, M.M.; Almaiah, M.A.; Al-Rahmi, W.M. The role of compatibility and task-technology fit (TTF): On social networking applications (SNAs) usage as sustainability in higher education. IEEE Access; 2020; 8, pp. 161668-161681. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021944]
27. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2007; 36, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6]
28. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Malhotra, A. E-S-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J. Serv. Res.; 2005; 7, pp. 213-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156]
29. Okazaki, S. Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality. Int. Mark. Rev.; 2006; 23, pp. 279-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330610670451]
30. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2003; 88, pp. 879-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879]
31. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; Tata McGraw-Hill: New Delhi, India, 1978.
32. Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2017; 117, pp. 442-458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130]
33. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS: Bönningstedt, Germany, 2015.
34. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
35. Goodhue, D.L.; Lewis, W.; Thompson, R. Does PLS have adavantages for small sample size or non-normal data?. MIS Quaterly; 2012; 36, pp. 981-1001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41703490]
36. Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl.; 2010; 11, pp. 5-40.
37. Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares (pls) Approach to Casual Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption Ans Use as an Illustration. Technol. Stud. Spec. Issue Res. Methodol.; 1995; 2, pp. 284-324.
38. Almaiah, M.A.; Alamri, M.M.; Al-Rahmi, W.M. Analysis the effect of different factors on the development of Mobile learning applications at different stages of usage. IEEE Access; 2019; 8, pp. 16139-16154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2963333]
39. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
40. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2015; 43, pp. 115-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8]
41. Al-Maroof, R.; Ayoubi, K.; Alhumaid, K.; Aburayya, A.; Alshurideh, M.; Alfaisal, R.; Salloum, S. The acceptance of social media video for knowledge acquisition, sharing and application: A com-parative study among YouTube users and TikTok Users’ for medical purposes. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci.; 2021; 5, pp. 197-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.6.013]
42. Al-Maroof, R.; Alshurideh, M.; Salloum, S.; AlHamad, A.; Gaber, T. Acceptance of Google Meet during the Spread of Coronavirus by Arab University Students. Informatics; 2021; 8, 24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020024]
43. Al-Maroof, R.S.; Salloum, S.A. An Integrated Model of Continuous Intention to Use of Google Classroom. Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications; Al-Emran, M.; Shaalan, K.; Hassanien, A. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 295.
44. Salloum, S.A.; AlAhbabi, N.M.N.; Habes, M.; Aburayya, A.; Akour, I. Predicting the Intention to Use Social Media Sites: A Hybrid SEM-Machine Learning Approach. International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 324-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69717-4_32]
45. Alhumaid, K.; Habes, M.; Salloum, S.A. Examining the Factors Influencing the Mobile Learning Usage During COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrated SEM-ANN Method. IEEE Access; 2021; 9, pp. 102567-102578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3097753]
46. Almaiah, M.A.; Alfaisal, R.; Salloum, S.A.; Al-Otaibi, S.; Shishakly, R.; Lutfi, A.; Alrawad, M.; Mulhem, A.A.; Awad, A.B.; Al-Maroof, R.S. Integrating Teachers’ TPACK Levels and Students’ Learning Motivation, Technology Innovativeness, and Optimism in an IoT Acceptance Model. Electronics; 2022; 11, 3197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics11193197]
47. Almarzouqi, A.; Aburayya, A.; Salloum, S.A. Determinants predicting the electronic medical record adoption in healthcare: A SEM-Artificial Neural Network approach. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, e0272735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272735] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35972979]
48. Liu, S.-H.; Liao, H.-L.; Peng, C.-J. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online e-learning users’ acceptance behavior. E-Learn; 2005; 4, H8.
49. Sapta, I.; Muafi, M.; Setini, N.M. The role of technology, organizational culture, and job satisfaction in improving employee performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus.; 2021; 8, pp. 495-505.
50. Monardo, G.; Pavese, C.; Giorgi, I.; Godi, M.; Colombo, R. Evaluation of Patient Motivation and Satisfaction During Technology-Assisted Rehabilitation: An Experiential Review. Games Health J.; 2021; 10, pp. 13-27. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32614618][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2020.0024]
51. Kabát, M. Teaching Metaverse. What and how to (not) teach using the medium of virtual reality. Edutainment; 2016; 1, Available online: https://ogrodynauk.pl/index.php/EDUT/article/view/10.15503.edut.2016.1.53.59 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
52. Louro, L.C. METAVERSE—The Learning in the Immersive Worlds. Slactions; 2009; 2009, 142.
53. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R.; Ghauri, P.N. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014]
54. Mulhem, A.A.; Almaiah, M.A. A conceptual model to investigate the role of mobile game applications in education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronics; 2021; 10, 2106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics10172106]
55. Almaiah, M.A.; Al-lozi, E.M.; Al-Khasawneh, A.; Shishakly, R.; Nachouki, M. Factors Affecting Students’ Acceptance of Mobile Learning Application in Higher Education during COVID-19 Using ANN-SEM Modelling Technique. Electronics; 2021; 10, 3121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics10243121]
56. Al-Emran, M.; Arpaci, I.; Salloum, S.A. An empirical examination of continuous intention to use m-learning: An integrated model. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2020; 25, pp. 2899-2918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10094-2]
57. Salloum, S.A.; Alhamad, A.Q.M.; Al-Emran, M.; Monem, A.A.; Shaalan, K. Exploring Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning Through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access; 2019; 7, pp. 128445-128462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467]
58. Lutfi, A.; Saad, M.; Almaiah, M.A.; Alsaad, A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.; Alrawad, M.; Alsyouf, A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.L. Actual Use of Mobile Learning Technologies during Social Distancing Circumstances: Case Study of King Faisal University Students. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 7323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14127323]
59. Al-Maroof, R.S.; Salloum, S.A.; AlHamad, A.; Shaalan, K.A. Understanding an Extension Technology Acceptance Model of Google Translation: A Multi-Cultural Study in United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol.; 2020; 14, pp. 157-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i03.11110]
60. Almaiah, M.A.; Almulhem, A. A conceptual framework for determining the success factors of e-learning system implementation using Delphi technique. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol.; 2018; 96, pp. 5962-5976.
61. Almaiah, M.A.; Nasereddin, Y. Factors influencing the adoption of e-government services among Jordanian citizens. Electron. Gov. Int. J.; 2020; 16, pp. 236-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/EG.2020.108453]
62. Elareshi, M.; Habes, M.; Youssef, E.; Salloum, S.A.; Alfaisal, R.; Ziani, A. SEM-ANN-based approach to understanding students’ academic-performance adoption of YouTube for learning during Covid. Heliyon; 2022; 8, e09236. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35434400][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09236]
63. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res.; 1998; 295, pp. 295-336.
64. Almaiah, M.A.; Jalil, M.A.; Man, M. Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. J. Comput. Educ.; 2016; 3, pp. 453-485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1]
65. Ntsiful, A.; Kwarteng, M.A.; Pilík, M.; Osakwe, C.N. Transitioning to Online Teaching During the Pandemic Period: The Role of Innovation and Psychological Characteristics. Innov. High. Educ.; 2022; pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09613-w]
66. Almaiah, M.A.; Al Mulhem, A. Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use of mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2019; 24, pp. 1433-1468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9840-1]
67. Nezamdoust, S.; Abdekhoda, M.; Rahmani, A. Determinant factors in adopting mobile health application in healthcare by nurses. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak.; 2022; 22, 47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01784-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35193552]
68. Almaiah, M.A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.; Althunibat, A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2020; 25, pp. 5261-5280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32837229]
69. Alam, S.S.; Masukujjaman, M.; Susmit, S.; Susmit, S.; Aziz, H.A. Augmented reality adoption intention among travel and tour operators in Malaysia: Mediation effect of value alignment. J. Tour. Futur.; 2022; ahead of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JTF-03-2021-0072]
70. Erdener, K.; Perkmen, S.; Shelley, M.; Kandemir, M.A. Measuring Perceived Attributes of the Interactive Whiteboard for the Mathematics Class. Comput. Sch.; 2022; 39, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2037294]
71. Alamer, M.; Almaiah, M.A. Cybersecurity in Smart City: A systematic mapping study. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT); Amman, Jordan, 14 July 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 719-724.
72. Tatnall, A. Editorial for EAIT issue 2, 2019. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2019; 24, pp. 953-962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09874-7]
73. Alghazi, S.S.; Kamsin, A.; Almaiah, M.A.; Wong, S.Y.; Shuib, L. For sustainable application of mobile learning: An extended UTAUT model to examine the effect of technical factors on the usage of mobile devices as a learning tool. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041856]
74. Almaiah, M.A.; Jalil, M.M. Investigating Students’ Perceptions on Mobile Learning Services. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol.; 2014; 8, pp. 31-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v8i4.3965]
75. Almaiah, M.A.; Al Mulhem, A. Thematic analysis for classifying the main challenges and factors influencing the successful implementation of e-learning system using NVivo. Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 9, pp. 142-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/22912020]
76. Lutfi, A.; Alsyouf, A.; Almaiah, M.A.; Alrawad, M.; Abdo, A.A.K.; Al-Khasawneh, A.L.; Ibrahim, N.; Saad, M. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Big Data Analytics in the Digital Transformation Era: Case Study of Jordanian SMEs. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1802. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031802]
77. Althunibat, A.; Almaiah, M.A.; Altarawneh, F. Examining the Factors Influencing the Mobile Learning Applications Usage in Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Electronics; 2021; 10, 2676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics10212676]
78. Lutfi, A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.L.; Almaiah, M.A.; Alsyouf, A.; Alrawad, M. Business Sustainability of Small and Medium Enterprises during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of AIS Implementation. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 5362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14095362]
79. Almaiah, M.A.; Hajjej, F.; Shishakly, R.; Lutfi, A.; Amin, A.; Awad, A.B. The Role of Quality Measurements in Enhancing the Usability of Mobile Learning Applications during COVID-19. Electronics; 2022; 11, 1951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics11131951]
80. Althunibat, A.; Altarawneh, F.; Dawood, R.; Almaiah, M.A. Propose a New Quality Model for M-Learning Application in Light of COVID-19. Mob. Inf. Syst.; 2022; 2022, 3174692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3174692]
81. Almaiah, M.A.; Hajjej, F.; Lutfi, A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.; Shehab, R.; Al-Otaibi, S.; Alrawad, M. Explaining the Factors Affecting Students’ Attitudes to Using Online Learning (Madrasati Platform) during COVID-19. Electronics; 2022; 11, 973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics11070973]
82. Almaiah, M.A.; Al-Otaibi, S.; Lutfi, A.; Almomani, O.; Awajan, A.; Alsaaidah, A.; Alrawad, M.; Awad, A.B. Employing the TAM Model to Investigate the Readiness of M-Learning System Usage Using SEM Technique. Electronics; 2022; 11, 1259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics11081259]
83. Almaiah, M.A.; Jalil, M.M.A.; Man, M. Empirical investigation to explore factors that achieve high quality of mobile learning system based on students’ perspectives. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J.; 2016; 19, pp. 1314-1320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.03.004]
84. Almaiah, M.A.; Ayouni, S.; Hajjej, F.; Lutfi, A.; Almomani, O.; Awad, A.B. Smart Mobile Learning Success Model for Higher Educational Institutions in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Electronics; 2022; 11, 1278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics11081278]
85. Almaiah, M.A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.; Althunibat, A.; Almomani, O. Exploring the Main Determinants of Mobile Learning Application Usage During Covid-19 Pandemic in Jordanian Universities. Emerging Technologies during the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 275-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67716-9_17]
86. Almaiah, M.A. Acceptance and usage of a mobile information system services in University of Jordan. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2018; 23, pp. 1873-1895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9694-6]
© 2022 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/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Alhumaid, Khadija 2
; Aldhuhoori, Abid 3 ; Alnazzawi, Noha 4
; Aburayya, Ahmad 5 ; Alfaisal, Raghad 6
; Salloum, Said A 7
; Abdalwali Lutfi 8
; Ahmed Al Mulhem 9 ; Alkhdour, Tayseer 10 ; Ali Bani Awad 9 ; Shehab, Rami 9 1 Department of Computer Networks, College of Computer Sciences and Information Technology, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia; Faculty of Information Technology, Applied Science Private University, Amman 11931, Jordan; King Abdullah the II IT School, Department of Computer Science, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
2 College of Education, Rabdan Academy, Abu Dhabi 114646, United Arab Emirates
3 Faculty of Business and Management, The British University in Dubai, Dubai 345015, United Arab Emirates
4 Computer Science and Engineering Department, Yanbu Industrial College, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Yanbu Industrial City, Yanbu 46452, Saudi Arabia
5 Business Administration College, MBA Department, City University Ajman, Ajman 18484, United Arab Emirates
6 Faculty of Art, Computing and Creative Industries, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim 35900, Malaysia
7 School of Science, Engineering, and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester M50 2EQ, UK
8 College of Business, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
9 College of Education, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
10 Department of Computer Networks, College of Computer Sciences and Information Technology, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia