Factors Affecting University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use Teaching Application
Abstract
Background and Aim: Blended learning has become a prominent approach for improving educational and training efforts. The Rain classroom is a widely utilized electronic learning platform in China. This study explored the factors that affected student behavioral intentions regarding the Rain Classroom applications. The latent variables investigated in the study include perceived usefulness (PU), performance expectancy (PE), attitude to use (ATT), virtual classroom quality (VCQ), instructor characteristics (IC), social influence (SI), and behavioral intentions (BI). The objective of the research is to determine the extent to which each variable influences the use of the Rain Classroom applications.
Materials and Methods: The research study conducted at Zhanjiang University of Science and Technology in China aimed to investigate the factors affecting the use of the Rain Classroom. The survey, which involved a sample of 500 students, utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to analyze the collected data.
Results: The findings of the data analysis revealed that all the factors influencing behavioral intention were statistically significant, and the hypotheses were duly corroborated. Notably, performance expectancy (PE) emerged as the most influential determinant of behavioral intentions (BI) towards the adoption of the Rain Classroom.
Conclusion: The findings of this study have underscored the significant role of key factors in shaping behavioral intentions to utilize the Rain Classroom. The analysis conducted unveiled that the performance expectancy and the user's attitude towards the application were pivotal factors in determining the willingness of individuals to adopt and engage with the application.
Article Details
How to Cite
Section
Articles
Copyright & License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Ahmed, H. M. S. (2010). Hybrid E‐Learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(2), 313-346.
Ali, M., Raza, S.A., Qazi, W. and Puah, C.H. (2018). Assessing e-learning system in higher education institutes: evidence from structural equation modeling. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 15 (1), 59-78.
Alqahtani, A. Y., & Rajkhan, A. A. (2020). E-learning critical success factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Education sciences, 10(9), 216.
Arbuckle, J. (1995). AMOS: Analysis of moment structures user’s guide. Small Waters.
Arteaga Sánchez, R., Duarte Hueros, A., & García Ordaz, M. (2013). E‐learning and the University of Huelva: a study of WebCT and the technological acceptance model. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(2), 135-160.
Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA.
Azhari, M. S., & Usman, O. (2021). Interest Determination of Zoom Use with a TAM Approach in the Implementation of SFH in the Middle of Pandemic. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3768719
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Chen, M. L. (2022). The Impact of Mobile Learning on the Effectiveness of English Teaching and Learning—A Meta-Analysis. IEEE Access, 10, 38324-3833
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Engelbrecht, E. (2005). Adapting to changing expectations: Post-graduate students’ experience of an e-learning tax program. Computers & Education, 45(2), 217-229.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50
Hallo, K., Oboko, R. and Omwenga, E. (2017), “A model for evaluating E-Learning systems quality in higher education in developing countries”, International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 13 (2), 185-190.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1998). Black (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Hargreaves, C., Clarke, A.P., & Lester, K.R. (2022). Microsoft Teams and team performance in the COVID-19 pandemic within an NHS Trust Community Service in North-West England. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 28(2), 79-94.
Kwak, Y., Ahn, J.W., & Seo, Y.H. (2022). Influence of AI Ethics Awareness, attitude, anxiety, and self-efficacy on nursing students’ behavioral intentions. BMC Nurs. 21, 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01048-0
Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2004). E-learning compared with face to face: Differences in the academic achievement of postgraduate business students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3). DOI:10.14742/ajet.1350
Lv, H., Low, J., & Tan, S. (2023). Factors Affecting Medical Students' Intentions to Use Rain Classroom: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 24, 86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05037-6
Parveen, N., & Zamir, S. (2020). Factors affecting behavioral intentions in the use of mobile learning in higher education. International Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 6(1), 198-216.
Pedroso, R., Zanetello, L., Guimaraes, L., Pettenon, M., Goncalves, V., Scherer, J., Kessler, F., & Pechansky, F. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the crack use relapse scale (CURS). Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 43(3), 37-40.
Pham, L., Limbu, Y. B., Bui, T. K., Nguyen, H. T., & Pham, H. T. (2019). Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-26.
Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44(3), 217-235.
Selim, H. M. (2007). E-learning critical success factors: an exploratory investigation of student perceptions. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 2(2), 157-182.
Sharma, G. P., Verma, R. C., & Pathare, P. (2005). Mathematical modeling of infrared radiation thin layer drying of onion slices. Journal of Food Engineering, 71(3), 282–286.
Sica, C., & Ghisi, M. (2007). The Italian versions of the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Beck Depression Inventory-II: Psychometric properties and discriminant power. In M.A. Lange (Ed.), Leading-edge psychological tests and testing research (pp. 27-50). Nova.
Singh, A., Sharma, S., & Paliwal, M. (2021). Adoption intention and effectiveness of digital collaboration platforms for online learning: the Indian students’ perspective. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(4), 493-514.
Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 124-142.
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), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Vidakis, N., & Charitakis, S. (2018). Designing the learning process: The IOLAOS platform. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Management (pp. 1-11).
Wu, J.H., & Wang, Y.M. (2006). Measuring KMS success: A respecification of the DeLone and McLean’s model. Information and Management, 43(6), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.002