Validating Pupils’ Behaviour Intention to Use E-Book Technology in their Learning

  • Authors

    • Moamar Elyazgi
    2018-05-22
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.29.13810
  • E-book Technology, Child Computer Interaction, Technology Acceptance Model, Face Validity, Convergent Validity, Discernment Validity

  • The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new learning environments instrument designed to aid investigators and practitioners in measuring and researching the pupils’ behaviour intention to use e-book technology. The use of e-book technology in schools is now ubiquitous, but the effectiveness on the learning environment has mixed results. This study intends to investigate factors affecting pupils’ behavioural intentions to use the e-book technology. Integrating Child Computer Interaction (CCI) factors such as usability and interface with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) factors such as Perceived Enjoyment (PE),  Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Behaviour Intention (BI). Using e-book technology acceptance survey was developed, field-tested with 40 pupils from school aged 10-17 years  and then validated. The proposed questionnaire has 33 items allocated to six scales: (1) Usability; (2) interface; (3) Perceived Enjoyment; (4) Perceived Ease of Use; (5) Perceived Usefulness and (6) Behaviour Intention. The proposed questionnaire was administered to pupils in the schools. Six experts in the field of computer science, information system and technology to justify it, especially in relation to the elements of each concept, assessed content validity or face validity of the questionnaire. Then alpha reliability, convergent validity and discernment validity have been calculated in this study.   The questionnaire of e-book technology acceptance has strong evaluative and discriminative properties and can be used with confidence to measure the e-book acceptance for pupils.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Earle RS. The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology. 2002;42(1):5-13.
      [2] Chester A, Gwynne G. Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer?Mediated Communication. 1998;4(2):0-.
      [3] Van Dam A. Electronic books and interactive illustrations-transcript of a talk. In: Cunningham S, Hubbold RJ, editors. Interactive Learning Through Visualization. Begur, Spain: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 1992. p. 9-24.
      [4] Kumbhar RM, Bansode SY. E-books: an Analysis of Published Research. Asia Pacific Journal of Library and Information Science. 2012;2(2).
      [5] Borchers JO, editor Electronic books: Definition, Genres, Interaction Design Patterns. Human Factors in Computing Systems, Workshop: Designing Electronic Books; 1999 1-3 July; Linz University, Austria.
      [6] Cavanaugh C, Cavanaugh T, editors. eBooks for Education. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference; 2002 18-23 March; Chesapeake, VA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
      [7] Anuradha K, Usha H. Use of E-books in an Academic and Research Environment: A Case Study from the Indian Institute of Science. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems. 2006;40(1):48-62.
      [8] Vassiliou M, Rowley J. Progressing the definition of "e-book". Library Hi Tech. 2008;26(3):355-68.
      [9] Chen Y-S, Kao T-C, Sheu J-P. Realizing outdoor independent learning with a butterfly-watching mobile learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2005;33(4):395-417.
      [10] Encheff D. Creating a science e-book with fifth grade students. TechTrends. 2013;57(6):61-72.
      [11] Ihmeideh FM. The effect of electronic books on enhancing emergent literacy skills of pre-school children. Computers & Education. 2014;79(2014):40-8.
      [12] Korat O, Levin I, Atishkin S, Turgeman M. E-book as facilitator of vocabulary acquisition: Support of adults, dynamic dictionary and static dictionary. Reading and Writing. 2014;27(4):613-29.
      [13] Lai C. Integrating e-books into science teaching by preservice elementary school teachers. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH). 2016;2(1):57-66.
      [14] Liang TH, Huang YM. An Investigation of Reading Rate Patterns and Retrieval Outcomes of Elementary School Students with E-books. Educational Technology & Society. 2014;17(1):218-30.
      [15] Morgan H. Using digital story projects to help students improve in reading and writing. Reading Improvement. 2014;51(1):20-6.
      [16] Schneider JJ, Kozdras D, Wolkenhauer N, Arias L. Environmental E?Books and Green Goals. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 2014;57(7):549-64.
      [17] Schugar HR, Smith CA, Schugar JT. Teaching with interactive picture e?books in grades K-6. The Reading Teacher. 2013;66(8):615-24.
      [18] Brodersen C, Christensen B, Gr?nb?k K, Dindler C, Iversen O, editors. eBag-The Digital School Bag. Fourth Danish Research Symposium; 2004 16-18 Nov; Aalborg University, Aalborg.
      [19] Dalton B. E-text and e-books are changing literacy landscape. Phi Delta Kappan. 2014;96(3):38-43.
      [20] 20. Fasimpaur K. E-books in schools. Media and Methods. 2004;40(5):12-.
      [21] Doty DE, Popplewell SR, Byers GO. Interactive CD-ROM storybooks and young readers' reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 2001;33(4):374-84.
      [22] Grimshaw S, Dungworth N, McKnight C, Morris A. Electronic books: Children's reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2007;38(4):583-99.
      [23] Rahim NZA, Bakar NHA, editors. e-Book use by Malaysian primary school children. Digital Information and Communication Technology and it's Applications (DICTAP), 2014 Fourth International Conference on; 2014 6-8 May; Bangkok: IEEE.
      [24] Hernon P, Hopper R, Leach MR, Saunders LL, Zhang J. E-book Use by Students: Undergraduates in Economics, Literature, and Nursing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2007;33(1):3-13.
      [25] Appleton L. The use of e-books in midwifery education: the student perspective. Health and Information Libraries Journal. 2004;21(4):245-52.
      [26] Appleton L. Using Electronic Textbooks: Promoting, Placing and Embedding. The Electronic Library. 2005;23(1):54-63.
      [27] Levine-Clark M. Electronic books and the humanities: A survey at the University of Denver. Collection Building. 2007;26(1):7-14.
      [28] Letchumanan M, Tarmizi R. Assessing the intention to use e-book among engineering undergraduates in Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Library Hi Tech. 2011;29(3):512-28.
      [29] Vernon RF. Teaching notes: Paper or pixels? An inquiry into how students adapt to online textbooks. Journal of Social Work Education. 2006;42(2):417-27.
      [30] Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Jamali HR, Huntington P, editors. What do faculty and students really think about e-books? Aslib proceedings; 2007: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
      [31] Stone RW, Baker-Eveleth L. Students' expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013;29(3):984-90.
      [32] Armstrong C, Edwards L, Lonsdale R. Virtually there? E-books in UK Academic Libraries. Journal of Program. 2002;36(4):216-27.
      [33] Blummer B. E-books revisited: The adoption of electronic books by special, academic, and public libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly. 2006;11(2):1-13.
      [34] Funk L, Thiessen D, Wright V, Andrysek J, Rispin K. Reliability and validity of the Lower Limb Function Questionnaire when completed by young adult orthotic and prosthetic device users. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2016:1-10.
      [35] Khine DLFMS. Contemporary Approaches to Research on Learning Environments Worldviews. Hackensack, N.J.: World Scientific; 2006 May 25, 2006.
      [36] Koul RB, Fisher D, Shaw T. An application of the TROFLEI in secondary-school science classes in New Zealand. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2011;29(2):147-67.
      [37] Zandvliet D. Learning environments in new contexts: Web-capable classrooms in Canada. In: Fisher MSKDL, editor. Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective. Singapore: World Scientific, 2003; 2003. p. 133-56.
      [38] Aldridge JM, Dorman JP, Fraser BJ. Use of Multitrait-Multimethod Modelling to Validate Actual and Preferred Forms of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology. 2004;4:110-25.
      [39] Aldridge JM, Fraser BJ. Effectiveness of a technology-rich and outcomes-focused learning environment. Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective. 2003:41-69.
      [40] Elyazgi M, Nilashi M, Ibrahim O, Rayhan A, Elyazgi S. Evaluating the Factors Influencing E-book Technology Acceptance among School Children Using TOPSIS Technique. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems. 2016;3(2):11-25.
      [41] Elyazgi M, Ibrahim O, Nilashi M, Elyazgi S, Abu-Ulbeh W, Rayhan A. Investigating a Theoretical Framework for E-book Technology Acceptance. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems. 2015;2(5):16-23.
      [42] Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319-40.
      [43] Shroff RH, Deneen C, Ng EM. Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students' behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2011;27(4):600-18.
      [44] Gerlach J, Buxmann P, editors. Analyzing Electronic Book Acceptance: A Compatibility Perspective. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS); 2013 7-10 Jan; Wailea, HI, USA: IEEE.
      [45] Hiramatsu A, Nose K. Behavior Analysis of Video Hosting Website Users Based on an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. In: Matsuo T, Colomo-Palacios R, editors. Electronic Business and Marketing. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 125-36.
      [46] Deshpande Y, Bhattacharya S, Yammiyavar P, editors. A behavioral approach to modeling Indian children's ability of adopting to e-learning environment. 4th International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction; 2012 27-29 December; Kharagpur, India: IEEE.
      [47] Ramayah T, Ignatius J. Impact of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived enjoyment on intention to shop online. ICFAI Journal of Systems Management (IJSM). 2005;3(3):36-51.
      [48] Fridin M, Belokopytov M. Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;33(1):23-31.
      [49] Elyazgi MG, Mahrin MNr, Rahim NZA, Imtiaz MA. Feasibility Study of Tablet PC Acceptance Among School Children in Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi. 2014;69(2):39-44.
      [50] Evans C, Gibbons NJ. The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education. 2007;49(4):1147-60.
      [51] 51. Jou M, Tennyson RD, Wang J, Huang S-Y. A study on the usability of E-books and APP in engineering courses: A case study on mechanical drawing. Computers & Education. 2016;92:181-93.
      [52] Park E, Sung J, Cho K. Reading experiences influencing the acceptance of e-book devices. The Electronic Library. 2015;33(1):120-35.
      [53] Torres R, Johnson V, Imhonde B. The Impact of Content Type and Availability on eBook Reader Adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems. 2014;54(4):42-51.
      [54] Roslina W, Fariha Z, Haslinda N, Fahmy S. Evaluating of Teacher's Acceptance of e-Book: A Case Study. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2014;8(4):136-41.
      [55] Olasina G, Mutula S. The Acceptance and Use of e-books: A group study in Nigeria. International Journal of Global Education. 2014;3(3):19-42.
      [56] Lin C-S, Tzeng G-H, Chin Y-C, Chang C-C. Recommendation sources on the intention to use e-books in academic digital libraries. The Electronic Library. 2010;28(6):844-57.
      [57] Woody WD, Daniel DB, Baker CA. E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education. 2010;55(3):945-8.
      [58] Heijden Hvd. User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS Quarterly. 2004;28(4):695-704.
      [59] Chang MK, Cheung W. Determinants of the intention to use Internet/WWW at work: a confirmatory study. Information & Management. 2001;39(1):1-14.
      [60] Igbaria M, Iivari J, Maragahh H. Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study. Information & Management. 1995;29(5):227-38.
      [61] Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science. 1989;35(8):982-1003.
      [62] Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1992;22(14):1111-32.
      [63] Yeou M. An Investigation of Students' Acceptance of Moodle in a Blended Learning Setting Using Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2016;44(3):300-18.
      [64] Waheed M, Kaur K, Qazi A, Jansen J. Students' perspective on knowledge quality in elearning context: A qualitative assessment. Internet Research. 2016;26(1):120-45.
      [65] Sabi HM, Uzoka F-ME, Langmia K, Njeh FN. Conceptualizing a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. International Journal of Information Management. 2016;36(2):183-91.
      [66] Park Y, Yu JH, Jo I-H. Clustering blended learning courses by online behavior data: A case study in a Korean higher education institute. The Internet and Higher Education. 2016;29:1-11.
      [67] Mirzajani H, Mahmud R, Fauzi Mohd Ayub A, Wong SL, Dalrymple J. Teachers' acceptance of ICT and its integration in the classroom. Quality Assurance in Education. 2016;24(1):26-40.
      [68] Yang H, Yu J, Zo H, Choi M. User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics. 2016;33(2):256-69.
      [69] Warshaw PR, Davis FD. Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1985;21(3):213-28.
      [70] Read J. Children as participants in design and evaluation. Journal of Interactions. 2015;22(2):64-6.
      [71] Read J, Markopoulos P. Child-computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2013;1(1):2-6.
      [72] Read JC, Bekker MM, editors. The nature of child computer interaction. 25th BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; 2011 4-8 July Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom. 2305348: British Computer Society.
      [73] Berg GA. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) in Educational Environments: Implications of Understanding Computers as Media. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 2000;9(4):347-68.
      [74] Mayhew D. The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner's Handbbok for User Interface Design. 1st ed. San Francisco, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1999.
      [75] Seffah A, Metzker E. The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Communications of the ACM. 2004;47(12):71-6.
      [76] Chalmers PA. The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Computers in Human Behavior. 2003;19(5):593-607.
      [77] Sheppard S, Rouff C. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. 2nd ed. NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience New York; 1994.
      [78] Hu PJ, Chau PY, Sheng ORL, Tam KY. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems. 1999;16(2):91-112.
      [79] Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science. 2000;46(2):186-204.
      [80] Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Maruping LM, Bala H. Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: the competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Quarterly. 2008;32(3):483-502.
      [81] Turel O, Serenko A, Giles P. Integrating technology addiction and use: An empirical investigation of online auction users. MIS Quarterly. 2011;35(4):1043-62.
      [82] Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research. 2000;11(4):342-65.
      [83] Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL, editors. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1988 15-19 June; Washington, D.C., USA: ACM.
      [84] Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human?Computer Interaction. 1995;7(1):57-78.
      [85] Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 1932;22(140):1-55.
      [86] Remmers HH, Ewart E. Reliability of multiple-choice measuring instruments as a function of the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1941;32(1):61-6.
      [87] Jenkins GD, Taber TD. A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1977;62(4):392-8.
      [88] Revilla MA, Saris WE, Krosnick JA. Choosing the Number of Categories in Agree-Disagree Scales. Sociological Methods & Research. 2014;43(1):73-97.
      [89] Sun H, Zhang P. Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2006;7(9):618-45.
      [90] Lewis JR. Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2002;14(3-4):463-88.
      [91] Wu S, Lin C, editors. Exploring Users Intention and Behavior of the Portal Site: Application of Technology Acceptance Model. Pacific Asia Conference on Information System (PACIS); 2001 29-31 December; Taiwan. Taiwan
      [92] Hertzog MA. Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing and Health. 2008;31(2):180-91.
      [93] Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. The American journal of medicine. 2006;119(2):166. e7-. e16.
      [94] Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2003;56(12):1150-6.
      [95] Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in nursing & health. 1997;20(3):269-74.
      [96] Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2006;29(5):489-97.
      [97] Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS one. 2011;6(6):e20476.
      [98] Kimberlin CL, Winetrstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2008;65(23):2276-84.
      [99] Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Journal of Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.
      [100] Jones VD. The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness among sponsored research administrators. Mississippi, USA: University of Southern Mississippi; 2012.
      [101] Nunally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
      [102] Sekaran U. Research Methods of Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 4th ed. NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons; 2003.
      [103] Zhang P, Li N, Sun H, editors. Affective quality and cognitive absorption: Extending technology acceptance research. 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2006 4-7 January; Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
      [104] Rasli A. Data Analysis and Interpretation-A Handbook for Postgraduate Social Scientists. 1st ed. Skudai, Malaysia: Penerbit UTM; 2006.
      [105] Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. NY, USA: Sage Publications; 2013.
      [106] Baron S, Harris K, Elliott D, Ashill NJ, Carruthers J, Krisjanous J. Antecedents and Outcomes of Service Recovery Performance in a Public Health-Care Environment. Journal of Services Marketing. 2005;19(5):293-308.
      [107] Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, editor. Modern Methods for Business Research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assciates; 1998. p. 295-336.
      [108] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(1):39-50.
      [109] Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares stratctural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). United States of America: SAGE Publication, Inc.; 2013.
      [110] Henseler J, Ringle C, Sinkovics R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (AIM). 2009;20:277-320.
      [111] Cooper DR, Schindler PS, Sun J. Business Research Methods. 12th ed. NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Education; 2013.
      [112] Barroso C, Carri?n GC, Rold?n JL. Applying maximum likelihood and PLS on different sample sizes: studies on SERVQUAL model and employee behavior model. Handbook of partial least squares. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 427-47.
      [113] Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice. 2011;19(2):139-52.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Elyazgi, M. (2018). Validating Pupils’ Behaviour Intention to Use E-Book Technology in their Learning. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.29), 511-518. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.29.13810