Examining the Influence of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Compatibility on Behavioral Intention toward IoT-based Smart Campus

Haiyan Cao; Md. Gapar Md Johar; Jacquline Tham

doi:10.54097/8j2eaz04

Authors

Haiyan Cao
Md. Gapar Md Johar
Jacquline Tham

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/8j2eaz04

Keywords:

Smart Campus; Perceived Usefulness; Perceived Ease of Use; Compatibility; Behavioral Intention.

Abstract

As the rapid development of the Internet of Things and smart campus construction, the higher education environment is undergoing profound changes. The willingness of students to adopt smart campuses is not only determined by technical performance but also influenced by factors such as cognitive and user experience. Based on the Technology Acceptance Model and Innovation Diffusion Theory, the study constructed a research model with perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), and compatibility (CMP) as independent variables and behavioral intention (BI) as the dependent variable. A questionnaire survey was conducted among college students in Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, and a total of 753 valid samples were collected. Structural equation model was used to analyze the data. The results show that PU, PEU, and CMP all have a significant positive impact on BI.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Cavus, N., Mrwebi, S. E., Ibrahim, I., Modupeola, T., & Reeves, A. Y. (2022). Internet of Things and Its Applications to Smart Campus: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 17(23).

[2] Xie, C. (2022). Construction of smart campus cloud service platform based on big data computer system. Procedia Computer Science, 208, 583-589.

[3] Luckyardi, S., Jurriyati, R., Disman, D., & Dirgantari, P. D. (2022). A systematic review of the IoT in smart university: Model and contribution. Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology, 7(3), 529-550.

[4] Sneesl, R., Jusoh, Y. Y., Jabar, M. A., & Abdullah, S. (2023). Examining IoT-based smart campus adoption model: an investigation using two-stage analysis comprising structural equation modelling and artificial neural network. IEEE Access, 11, 125995-126026.

[5] El Khatib, M., Alhammadi, M., & Almulla, A. (2024). Attributes of SMART Education in SMART Cities. International Journal of Business Analytics and Security (IJBAS), 4(2), 157-178.

[6] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.

[7] Fearnley, M. R., & Amora, J. T. (2020). Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model. IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(2), 89-106.

[8] Masadeh, S. A., & El-Haggar, N. (2024). Analyzing factors influencing IoT adoption in higher educational institutions in Saudi Arabia using a modified TAM model. Education and Information Technologies, 29(5), 6407-6441.

[9] Criollo-C, S., González-Rodríguez, M., Guerrero-Arias, A., Urquiza-Aguiar, L. F., & Luján-Mora, S. (2023). A Review of Emerging Technologies and Their Acceptance in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 14(1), 10.

[10] Bandura, A. (1985). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[11] Lin, S., Mastrokoukou, S., Longobardi, C., Bozzato, P., Gastaldi, F. G. M., & Berchiatti, M. (2023). Students' transition into higher education: The role of self‐efficacy, regulation strategies, and academic achievements. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(1), 121-137.

[12] Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

[13] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.

[14] Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M.A. (2017), Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed., Sage Publication, London.

[15] Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of consumer psychology, 20(1), 90-98.

[16] Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 136-162.

[17] Hooper, D. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.

[18] Chau, P.Y.K. and Hu, P.J.H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 699-719.

[19] Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

[20] Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.

[21] Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of consumer psychology, 20(1), 90-98.

[22] Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 136-162.

[23] Hooper, D. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.

[24] Chau, P.Y.K. and Hu, P.J.H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 699-719.

[25] Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Press, New York, NY