Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed reality technology

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1369-1387

  Yusoff, Rasimah Che Mohd ^a   Ibrahim, Roslina ^a   Zaman, Halimah Badioze ^b   Ahmad, Azlina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855403764     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Agarwal, R. & Prasad J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204
2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhi & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behaviour (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
3. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4. Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
5. Azuma, R., Yohan, B., Reinhold, B., Steven, F., Simon, J. & Blair, M. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/38.963459
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
7. Bertrand, M. & Bouchard, S. (2008). Applying the technology acceptance model to VR with people who are favourable to its use. Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 1(2), 200-207. http://journalofcybertherapy.webs.com/volume1issue22008.htm
8. Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R. & Schellens, T. (2009). Students' perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145-1156. http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/games.pdf; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022
9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
10. Caudell, T. & Mizell, D. (1992). Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In the Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Vol 2 (pp. 659-669). Hawaii: IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183317
11. Chesney, T. (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. Human Technology, 2(2), 225-235. http://www.humantechnology.jyu.fi/articles/volume2/2006/chesney.pdf
12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
13. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
14. 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151
15. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 15.1-15.22). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
16. Dillon, A. (2001). User acceptance of information technology. In W. Karwowski (Ed), Encyclopedia of human factors and ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis. [preprint; viewed 21 Oct 2011]. http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/BookChapters/Dillon-acceptance.htm
17. Dillon, A. & Morris, M. G. (1996). User acceptance of information technology: Theories and models. In M. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol 31), (pp. 3-32). Medford NJ: Information Today. [verified 11 Dec 2011; preprint] http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/BookChapters/User%20acceptance.htm
18. Dubois, E., Gray, P. & Nigay, L (2009). The engineering of mixed reality system. London: Springer-Verlag.
19. Goldiez, B., Livingston, M. A., Dawson, J., Brown, D., Hancock, P., Baillot, Y. & Julier, S. J. (2004). Advancing human centered augmented reality research. In the Proceedings for the Army Science Conference. Orlando, FL. http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA433480
20. Guadagnoli, E. & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265-275. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033290902008067
21. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Wielinga, B. & Evers, V. (2008). Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In Proceedings of HRI'08 (pp. 113-120). Amsterdam: IEEE/ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349838
22. Hanson, K. & Shelton, B. E. (2008). Design and development of virtual reality: Analysis of challenges faced by educators. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 118-131. http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_1/9.pdf
23. Hsu, C. L. & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853-868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014
24. Kondo, T. (2006). Augmented learning environment using mixed reality technology. In the Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN 2006) (pp. 83-87). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://www.editlib.org/p/23664 [viewed 10 Sep 2011].
25. King, W. R. & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
26. Kirkley, S. E. & Kirkley, J. R. (2005). Creating next generation blended learning environments using mixed reality, video games and simulations. TechTrends, 49(3), 42-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02763646
27. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Lee, H. Y., Qu, H. & Kim, Y. S. (2007). A study of the impact of personal innovativeness on online travel shopping behavior - A case study of Korean travellers. Tourism Management, 28(3), 886-897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.013
29. Legris, P., Ingham, J. & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 191-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
30. Liarokapis, F. (2007). An augmented reality interface for visualizing and interacting with virtual content. Virtual Reality, 11(1), 23-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0055-1
31. Lin, J. J. W. & Parker, D. E. (2007). User experience modeling and enhancement for virtual environments that employ wide-field displays. In the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Digital Human Modeling (pp. 423-433). Berlin: Springer Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73321-8_49
32. Louho, R., Kallioja, M. & Oittinen, P. (2006). Factors affecting the use of hybrid media applications. Graphic Arts in Finland, 35(3), 11-21. http://media.tkk.fi/GTTS/GAiF/GAiF_PDF/GAiF2006_3-2.pdf
33. Milgram, P. & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IECE Trans. on Information and Systems (Special Issue on Networked Reality), E77-D(12), 1321-1329. [verified 11 Dec 2011] http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/milgram-kishino-1994.pdf
34. Nilsson, S. & Johansson, B. (2008). Acceptance of augmented reality instructions in a real work setting. In the Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2025-2032). New York: ACM Press. http://www.ida.liu.se/~susni/papers/chi952-Nilsson.pdf; http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358633
35. Nov, O. & Ye, C. (2008). Personality and technology acceptance: Personal innovativeness in IT, openness and resistance to change. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 448). Hawaii: IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2008.348
36. O'Cass, A. & Fenech, T. (2003). Web retailing adoption: Exploring the nature of Internet user's web retailing behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(2), 81-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00004-8
37. Parveen, F. & Sulaiman, A. (2008). Technology complexity, personal innovativeness and intention to use wireless Internet using mobile devices in Malaysia. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(5), 1-10. http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/1[1].%20Ainin.pdf
38. Piaw, C. Y. (2006). Asas statistik penyelidikan (Buku 2) [Fundamentals of research statistics (Book 2)]. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: McGraw Hill Malaysia.
39. Rasimah, C. M., Halimah, B. Z. & Azlina, A. (2010). Design a situated learning environment using mixed reality technology - A case study. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET), 71, 887-892. [viewed 8 Sep 2011]. http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v71/v71-156.pdf
40. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York: The Free Press.
41. Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D. & Means, B. (2001). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101. http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/PackardChangingLearning.pdf
42. Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E. & Perry, J. (2007). On location learning: Authentic appllied science with networked augmented realities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 31-45.
43. Serenko, A. (2008). A model of user adoption of interface agents for email notification. Interacting with Computers, 20(4-5), 461-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.04.004; http://foba.lakeheadu.ca/serenko/papers/Serenko_IwC_model_of_user_adoption.pdf
44. Seymour, L., Makanya, W. & Berrange, S. (2007). End-users' acceptance of enterprise resource planning systems: An investigation of antecedents. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual ISOnEworld Conference, (pp. 26-1 - 26-22). Las Vegas, USA: Information Institute. http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/informationsystems/staff/personalpages/lseymour/2009/2007_Seymour_ISONEWORLD-ERP.pdf; http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.105.9129
45. Sutherland, I. E. (1965). The ultimate display. In the Proceedings of IFIP Congress (pp. 506-508). Arlington, VA: Federation of Information Processing Societies. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.136.3720
46. Sun, H. & Zhang, P. (2005). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 7(9), 618-645. http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol7/iss9/24/
47. Theng, Y. L., Lim, C. M. L., Liu, W. & Cheok, A. D. (2007). Mixed reality systems for learning. A pilot study understanding user perceptions and acceptance. In Proceedings of HCI (14) (pp. 728-737). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73335-5_79
48. Träskbäack, M. & Haller, M. (2004). Mixed reality training application for an oil refinery: User requirements. In Proceedings of Virtual Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry (VRCAI04) (pp. 324-327). Singapore: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1044588.1044658
49. Van Raaij, E. M. & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
50. 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
51. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872