MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911123327 · doi:10.5539/cis.v12n1p53

Factor That Influence To Acceptance M-Learning among Jordanian Students

2019· article· en· W2911123327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saleem Issa Al Zoubi, Ahmad Issa Al Zoubi, Mohmmad Al Zoubi

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology acceptance modelComputer scienceUsabilityHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aims to examine critical factors that influence the acceptance and use of M-learning among Jordanian student. This study integrates technology acceptance model (TAM) with service quality factor. The primary data were collected from 487 valid questionnaires, which were distributed, to random Jordanian students in four cities. The analyses of the gathered data employed the (SPSS). The validity of the final overall model was evaluated using the statistics and acceptable fit of the measurement model to the data has been demonstrated. Based on the outcomes, the factors with the highest direct effect on Intention to use M-learning appeared to be Attitude toward using M-learning, while the factor with the highest indirect effect on Intention to use M-learning appeared to be Compatibility. The main findings of the study are: trust factor has a significant stronger impact on PEOU and PU. PEOU and PU have the stronger impact on customers' attitude, which in turn influences students’ intention to use M - learning services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207