Top

Education and Information Technologies

Published in:

07-08-2021

Effects and acceptance of precision education in an AI-supported smart learning environment

Author: Yung-Hsiang Hu

Published in: Education and Information Technologies | Issue 2/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The research presents precision education that aims to regulate students’ behaviors through the learning analytics dashboard (LAD) in the AI-supported smart learning environment (SLE). The LAD basically tracks and visualizes traces of learning actions to make students aware of their learning behaviors and reflect these against the agreed goals. This research aims to realize the digital transformation of the learning space, thereby improving students’ learning outcomes with the assistance of the learning dashboard. To examine whether there was a close relationship between the frequency of using the whole platform and academic results, the data was collected from 50 first-year university students who registered with the innovative thinking course. Based on the data, we constructed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire and interview guide to realize the students’ acceptance and feedback towards the SLE. Students were clustered into high-mark and low-mark groups based on their final results. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test is used to identify a significant difference between the two groups using the precision education platform. Subsequently, the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is further utilized to analyze the relationship between system quality, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness on behavioral intention and learning transfer.

previous article Forecasting approaches in a higher education setting

next article Using QR code enhanced authentic texts in EFL extensive reading: a qualitative study on student perceptions

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Abad-Segura, E., González-Zamar, M.-D., Infante Moro, J. C., & García, G. (2020). Sustainable management of digital transformation in higher education: Global research trends. Sustainability, 12(5), 2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052107CrossRef

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are Individual Differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.xCrossRef

Aguilar, J., Sánchez, M., Cordero, J., Valdiviezo-Díaz, P., Barba-Guamán, L., & Chamba-Eras, L. (2018). Learning analytics tasks as services in smart classrooms. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(4), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0525-0CrossRef

Ajzen I.(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (p. 173–221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5261–5280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-yCrossRef

Alzougool, B. (2019). The use and continuance use of social media applications by small and medium enterprises in Kuwait. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 68(6–7), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-11-2018-0094CrossRef

Andrejevic, M., & Selwyn, N. (2020). Facial recognition technology in schools: Critical questions and concerns. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686014CrossRef

Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Graesser, B. (2011). Use of hypermedia to convey and assess self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 102–121). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010

Barisa, M. F., & Tosun, N. (2013). Influence of E-portfolio supported education process to academic success of the students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103(26), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.365CrossRef

Berrett, B., Murphy, J., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Administrator insights and reflections: Technology integration in schools. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 200–221.

Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.32.11

Bölen, M. C. (2020). Exploring the determinants of users’ continuance intention in smartwatches. Technology in Society, 60, 101209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101209CrossRef

Bull, S. (2004). Supporting learning with open learner models. Planning, 29(14), 1.MathSciNet

Chang, C.-C., Liang, C., Chao, P.-N., & Liao, Y.-M. (2018). Using e-portfolio for learning goal setting to facilitate self-regulated learning of high school students. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(12), 1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1496275CrossRef

Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 191–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045699CrossRef

Cheung, M. L., Chau, K. Y., Lam, M. H. S., Tse, G., Ho, K. Y., Flint, S. W., Broom, D. R., Tso, E. K. H., & Lee, K. Y. (2019). Examining consumers’ adoption of wearable healthcare technology: The role of health attributes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 2257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132257CrossRef

Conner, M. and Sparks, P. (2015). Theory of planned behavior and health behavior. In M. Cooner and P. Sparks (eds), prediction health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models. 3rd edition. Open University Press. 170–222.

Cook, C. R., Kilgusb, S. P., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Advancing the science and practice of precision education to enhance student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.004CrossRef

Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Millán, E., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). The NISPI framework: Analysing collaborative problem-solving from students’ physical interactions. Computers and Education, 116, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.007CrossRef

Davis G.B. (2000) Information systems conceptual foundations: Looking backward and forward. In: Baskerville R., Stage J., DeGross J.I. (eds) Organizational and social perspectives on information technology. IFIP — The international federation for information processing, vol 41. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_5

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.CrossRef

Du Boulay, B. (2019). Escape from the Skinner Box: The case for contemporary intelligent learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2902–2919. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12860CrossRef

Duval, E. (2011). Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Alberta, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/2090116.2090118

Fleaca (2017). Embedding digital teaching and learning practices in the modernization of higher education institutions. In Proceedings of the SGEM2017 International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM (pp. 20–25).Albena, Bulgaria.

Fonseca, D., Conde, M. Á., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Improving the information society skills: Is knowledge accessible for all? Universal Access in the Information Society, 17, 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0548-6CrossRef

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312CrossRef

Garson, G. D. (2014). Partial least squares: Regression and structural equation models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.MATH

Hart, S. A. (2016). Precision education initiative: Moving toward personalized education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(4), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12109CrossRef

Hattie, J. (2013). Calibration and confidence: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 24, 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.009CrossRef

Henderson, D. J., & Russell, R. R. (2005). Human capital and convergence: A production-frontier approach. International Economic Review, 46(4), 1167–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2005.00364.xCrossRef

Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., & Abidi, S. M. R. (2018). Student engagement predictions in an e-Learning system and their impact on student course assessment scores. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/634718610.1155/2018/6347186.

Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., & Yang, S.J.-H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 81–91.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: a meta-analysis. Retrieved June 20, 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220040324_Cooperative_learning_methods_A_meta-analysis

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium

Kaminskyi O.Y., Yereshko J., & Kyrychenko S.O. (2018). Digital transformation of University Education in Ukraine: Trajectories of Development in the conditions of new technological and economic order. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 64(2), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v64i2.2083

Kay, J. (1997). Learner know Thyself: Student Models to Give Learner Control and Responsibility. In Z. Halim, T. Ottomann & Z. Razak (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Computers in Education(pp. 17–24), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education(AACE).

Khorashadi Zadeh, M., Karkon, A., & Golnari, H. (2017). The effect of information technology on the quality of accounting information. Journal of System Management, 3(3), 61–76.

Lagstedt, A., Lindstedt, J. P., & Kauppinen, R. (2020). An outcome of expert-oriented digitalization of university processes. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5853–5871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10252-xCrossRef

Long Y., & Aleven V. (2013). Supporting Students’ Self-Regulated Learning with an Open Learner Model in a Linear Equation Tutor. In: H.C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, & P. Pavlik (Eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7926. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_23

Lu, O. H. T., Huang, A. Y. Q., Lin, A. J. Q., Ogata, H., & Yang, S. J. H. (2018). Applying learning analytics for the early prediction of students’ academic performance in blended learning. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 220–232.

MacLeod, J., Yang, H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015CrossRef

Marcelo-García, C., Yot-Domínguez, C., & Mayor-Ruiz, C. (2015). University teaching with digital technologies. . Comunicar, 23(45), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.3916/C45-2015-12CrossRef

Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173CrossRef

Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A. A., & Dong, J.-J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015CrossRef

Newman, T., & Beetham, H. (2017). Student digital experience tracker 2017: the voice of 22,000 UK learners. Retrieved from https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6662/1/ Jiscdigitalstudenttracker2017.pdf

OECD. (2018). Going digital in a multilateral world. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/C-MIN-2018-6-EN.pdf

Omolewa, O. T., Oladele, A. T., Adeyinka, A. A., & Oluwaseun, O. R. (2019). Prediction of student’s academic performance using k-means clustering and multiple linear regressions. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(22), 8254–5260. https://doi.org/10.36478/jeasci.2019.8254.8260

Phillips-Wren, G. (2014). Intelligent systems to support human decision making. In J. Wang (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization (pp. 1297–1309). IGI Publishing.CrossRef

Phua, P. L., Wong, S. L., & Abu, R. (2012). Factors influencing the Behavioural intention to use the internet as a teaching-learning tool in home economics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.263CrossRef

Preston, A., Lazem, S., Kharrufa, A., Pursglove, B., & Olivier, P. (2018). Supporting the smart teacher: an agenda for the use of embedded sensing in novel learning spaces. Smart Learning Environments, 5(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0068-8

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/

Rahmana, M. M., Lesch, M. F., Horrey, W. J., & Strawdermana, L. (2017). Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.01110.1016/j.aap.2017.09.011CrossRef

Ribbe, E., & Bezenilla, M. J. (2013). Scaffolding learner autonomy in online university courses. Digital Education Review, 24, 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2013.24.98-112CrossRef

Saqr, M., & Alamro, A. (2019). The role of social network analysis as a learning analytics tool in online problem based learning. BMC Medical Education, 19, 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1599-6CrossRef

Sarikaya, A., Correll, M., Bartram, L., Tory, M., & Fisher, D. (2018). What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1), 682–692. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903CrossRef

Sathye, S., Prasad, B., Sharma, D., Sharma, P., & Sathye, M. (2018). Factors influencing the intention to use of mobile value-added services by women-owned microenterprises in Fiji. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(2), e12016. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12016CrossRef

Shih, Y. Y., & Fang, K. (2004). The use of a Decomposed theory of planned behavior to study internet banking in Taiwan. Internet Research, 14(3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410542643CrossRef

Slepcevic-Zach, P., & Stock, M. (2018). ePortfolio as a tool for reflection and self-reflection. Reflective Practice, 19(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1437399CrossRef

Slotta, J. (2010). Evolving the classrooms of the future: The interplay of pedagogy, technology and community. In: K. Makitalo-Siegl, J. Zottmann, F. Kaplan, & F. Fischer (Eds.), Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 215–242). Rotterdam: Sense

Southgate, E., Blackmore, K., Pieschl, S., Grimes, S., McGuire, J., & Smithers, K. (2018). Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies (virtual, augmented and mixed reality) in schools: A research report. University of Newcastle, Australia.

Spikol, D., Ruffaldi, E., & Cukurova, M. (2017). Using multimodal learning analytics to identify aspects of collaboration in project-based learning. In: B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim, (Eds.), Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2017, Volume 1. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences

Starčič, A. I., & Vukan, M. (2019). Teachers' perception of data‐driven school ecosystem and data analytics. In: Proceedings of IC4E 2019 (IC4E 2019), January 10‐13, 2019, Tokyo, Japan. Association for Computer Machinery.

Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory testing. The International Journal of Management Science, 41(8), 1328–1342. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328CrossRef

Sukhija, K., Jindal, M., & Aggarwal, N. (2015). The recent state of educational data mining: A survey and future visions. Presented at the 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), (pp. 354–359). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2015.7375344

Sullivan, F. R., & Keith, P. K. (2019). Exploring the potential of natural language processing to support microgenetic analysis of collaborative learning discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3047–3063. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12875CrossRef

Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50, 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007CrossRef

Tanimoto, S. (2005). Dimensions of Transparency in Open Learner Models. In Proceedings of the AIED'05 - Workshop on Learner Modelling for Reflection, to Support Learner Control, Metacognition and Improved Communication between Teachers and Learners. AIED, IOS Press, 100 -106. Amsterdam, 2005

Valaei, N., & Baroto, M. B. (2017). Modelling continuance intention of citizens in government Facebook page: A complementary PLS approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.047CrossRef

der Heijden, V. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information and Management, 40(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00079-4CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xCrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.xCrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24, 115–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981CrossRef

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/10.2307/30036540CrossRef

Verina, N., & Titko, J. (2019). Digital transformation: conceptual framework. International Scientific Conference Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Economics Engineering, VGTU Press. https://doi.org/10.3846/cibmee.2019.073

Vesin, B., Mangaroska, K., & Giannakos, M. (2018). Learning in smart environments: User-centered design and analytics of an adaptive learning system. Smart Learning Environment, 5, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0071-0CrossRef

Weng, T.-C., & Lyau, N.-M. (2018). Using the technology acceptance model to analyze students’ cognitive attitude toward a head acupuncture point assisted training simulator. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 10(4), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.3966/2071260X2018101004003CrossRef

Wilson, C., & Scott, B. (2017). Adaptive systems in education: A review and conceptual unification. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2016-0040CrossRef

Yan, H., Lin, F., & Kinshuk, . (2020). Including learning analytics in the loop of self-paced online course learning design. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00225-zCrossRef

Yastibasa, A. E., & Yastibas, G. C. (2015). The Use of E-portfolio-based assessment to develop students’ self-regulated learning in english language teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176(20), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.437CrossRef

Yoo Y., Lee H., Jo IH., Park Y. (2015) Educational dashboards for smart learning: review of case studies. In: Chen G., Kumar V., Kinshuk, Huang R., Kong S. (eds) Emerging Issues in Smart Learning. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44188-6_21

Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802546716CrossRef

Zapata-Rivera, D. (2020). Open Student Modeling Research and its Connections to Educational Assessment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00206-2

Zhang, W., & Guterrez, O. (2007). Information technology acceptance in the social services sector context: An exploration. Social Work, 52(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/52.3.221CrossRef

Zheng, Y., Zhao, K., & Stylianou, A. (2013). The impacts of information quality and system quality on users’ continuance intention in information-exchange virtual communities: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 56(1), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.11.008CrossRef

Title: Effects and acceptance of precision education in an AI-supported smart learning environment
Author: Yung-Hsiang Hu
Publication date: 07-08-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Education and Information Technologies / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10664-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Transformation and digital literacy: Systematic literature mapping

Switching intentions in the context of open-source software movement: The paradox of choice

Predicting behavioral intention to use e-learning system: A case-study in Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, Bangladesh

COVID-19, emergency remote teaching evaluation: the case of Indonesia

A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education

Mathematics learning and assessment using MathE platform: A case study

Premium Partner