COVİD-19 PANDEMİSİNDE YÜKSEKÖĞRETİMDE TEKNOLOJİ KABULÜNE İLİŞKİN AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Bilişim teknolojileri, küresel pazarlarda rekabet edebilmek için çeşitli avantajlar sağlamaktadır. Çoğu işletme hızlı pazar tepkisi, hızlı ve güvenilir tedarik zincirleri, büyük verilere dayalı hızlı karar gibi rekabet avantajları elde etmek için bu teknolojileri benimsemektedir. Yeni bir teknoloji edinmek zorlu bir süreçtir ve bir teknolojinin kabul edilme hızını etkileyen çeşitli faktörler vardır. Doğal afetler, ekonomik krizler, piyasa yapısı gibi çeşitli nedenlerle bazı faktörlerin etkileri değişkenlik gösterebilmektedir. 2020 yılının başından itibaren Covid-19 pandemisi birçok işletmenin ve tedarik zincirinin yeni koşullara uyum sağlamasına neden olmuştur. Yükseköğretim sektörü, pandemiden en çok etkilenen sektörlerden biridir ve geleneksel öğretimden çevrimiçi öğretime hızla geçmek zorunda kalmıştır. Bu çalışma, Covid-19 pandemi koşullarında uzaktan eğitim sistemlerinin kabulüne yönelik öz-yeterlik, kullanıcı deneyimi, yenilikçilik, kullanışlılık, kullanım kolaylığı ve niyetin olası etkilerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, Türkiye’de Ardahan Üniversitesi›nde 598 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hipotezler, PLS-SEM (Kısmi En Küçük Kareler Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi) kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Bulgular, öz yeterlik ve yenilikçiliğin algılanan kullanım kolaylığı üzerinde etkisi olduğunu ve öz yeterlik ile kullanıcı deneyiminin algılanan kullanışlılık üzerinde olumlu bir etkisi olmadığını göstermektedir. Sonuçlarda algılanan kullanım kolaylığının algılanan kullanışlılık üzerinde olumlu etkileri olduğunu ve algılanan kullanışlılığın niyet üzerinde olumlu etkisi olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öz yeterlilik
• Kullanıcı Deneyimi
• Yenilikçilik
• Kullanışlılık
• Kullanım Kolaylığı
• Niyet

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Öz

Information technologies provide various advantages to compete in global markets. More businesses adopt these technologies to gain competitive advantages such as quick market response, fast and reliable supply chains, quick decision based on big data. It is a challenging process to acquire a new technology and there are different factors that affect the acceptance speed of a technology. The effects of some factors may vary due to various reasons such as natural disasters, economic crises, market structure. Since the beginning of 2020, Covid-19 pandemic caused many different businesses and supply chain to adapt new conditions. Higher education industry is one of the profoundly affected sectors from pandemic and it is forced to shift rapidly from traditional teaching to online teaching. This study aims to investigate the possible effects of self-efficacy, user experience, innovativeness, usefulness, ease of use and intention on acceptance of distance education systems under Covid-19 pandemic conditions. The study is conducted at Ardahan University, Turkey with 598 of students. The hypotheses were tested using PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling). Findings reveal that self-efficacy and innovativeness have effects on perceived ease of use while self-efficacy and user experience do not have positive impact on perceived usefulness. Results also revealed that perceived ease of use has positive impacts on perceived usefulness, and perceived usefulness has positive impact on intention.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Self-efficacy
• user experience
• innovativeness
• usefulness
• ease of use
• intention

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, A., Al Enazi, S., & Damaj, I. (2016). Agrisys: A smart and ubiquitous controlled-environment agriculture system. 2016 3rd MEC International Conference on Big Data and Smart City (ICBDSC), 1–6.
2. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 665–694.
3. 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.
4. Aguilera-Hermida, A. P., Quiroga-Garza, A., Gómez-Mendoza, S., del Río Villanueva, C. A., Avolio Alecchi, B., & Avci, D. (2021). Comparison of students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19 in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Turkey. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6823–6845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10473-8
5. Ahmad, T. B. T., Madarsha, K. B., Zainuddin, A. M. H., Ismail, N. A. H., & Nordin, M. S. (2010). Faculty’s acceptance of computer based technology: Cross-validation of an extended model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2).
6. Albelbisi, N. A., & Yusop, F. D. (2019). Factors influencing learners’ self –regulated learning skills in a massive open online course (MOOC) environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.598191
7. Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology acceptance model in m-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 125, 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.008
8. Al-Maroof, R. S., Alhumaid, K., Alhamad, A. Q., Aburayya, A., & Salloum, S. (2021). User acceptance of smart watch for medical purposes: An empirical study. Future Internet, 13(5), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13050127

9. Al-Maroof, R. S., Salloum, S. A., Hassanien, A. E., & Shaalan, K. (2020). Fear from COVID-19 and technology adoption: The impact of Google Meet during Coronavirus pandemic. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1830121
10. Al-Okaily, M., M Alqudah, H., Matar, A., Lutfi, A., & Taamneh, A. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on acceptance of e-learning system in Jordan: A Case of transforming the traditional education systems. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(4), 840–851. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8483
11. Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N., & Al-Emran, M. (2020). Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 4961–5002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10197-1
12. Alshurideh, M. T., al Kurdi, B., Masa’deh, R., & Salloum, S. A. (2021). The moderation effect of gender on accepting electronic payment technology: a study on United Arab Emirates consumers. Review of International Business and Strategy, 31(3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-08-2020-0102
13. Arıkan, R. (2004). Araştırma teknikleri ve rapor hazırlama, Asil Yayın Dağıtım. Ankara.
14. Arora, S., Chaudhary, P., & Singh, R. K. (2021). Impact of coronavirus and online exam anxiety on self-efficacy: the moderating role of coping strategy. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(3), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0158
15. Baber, H. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503
16. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
17. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration, Walter de Guyter. Ontairo.
18. Bandura, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–3.
19. Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007
20. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e‐government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25.
21. Castiblanco Jimenez, I. A., Cepeda García, L. C., Violante, M. G., Marcolin, F., & Vezzetti, E. (2020). Commonly used external TAM variables in e-learning, agriculture and virtual reality applications. Future Internet, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13010007
22. Celuch, K., Taylor, S. A., & Goodwin, S. (2004). Understanding insurance salesperson internet information management intentions: A test of competing models. Journal of Insurance Issues, 22–40.
23. Chang, C.-T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C.-R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers & Education, 111, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010
24. Chen, N.-H. (2019). Extending a TAM–TTF model with perceptions toward telematics adoption. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-02-2018-0074
25. Cheng, Y.-M. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of e-learning acceptance. Information Systems Journal, 21(3), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00356.x
26. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
27. Chintalapati, N., & Daruri, V. S. K. (2017). Examining the use of YouTube as a learning resource in higher education: Scale development and validation of TAM model. Telematics and Informatics, 34(6), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.008
28. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T.-M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1136–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.011
29. Cicha, K., Rizun, M., Rutecka, P., & Strzelecki, A. (2021). COVID-19 and higher education: First-year students’ expectations toward distance learning. Sustainability, 13(4), 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041889
30. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
32. Deloitte (2020). Yeni nesil teknolojilerin COVID-19 mücadelesindeki önemi-ülke örnekleri. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/tr/Documents/consulting/yeni-nesil-teknolojilerin-covid-19-mucadelesindeki-onemi.pdf
33. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü [WHO]. (2020). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/
34. Elnagar, A., Afyouni, I., Shahin, I., Nassif, A. B., & Salloum, S. A. (2021). The empirical study of e-learning post-acceptance after the spread of COVID-19: A multi-analytical approach based hybrid SEM-ANN. ArXiv E-Prints, arXiv-2112.
35. Ernst &Young. (2020). Dünya, yıkıcı etkiye sahip değişimin kaçınılmaz olduğunun farkına vardı. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/tr_tr/pdf/2020/08/ey-turkiye-covid-19-sonrasi-bilgi-teknolojilerinin-dijital-dunyada-yeni-rolu--rapor.pdf
36. Fauzi, A., Wandira, R., Sepri, D., & Hafid, A. (2021). Exploring students’ acceptance of Google Classroom during the Covid-19 pandemic by using the technology acceptance model in West Sumatera Universities. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 19(4), pp233-240.
37. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2).
38. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
39. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515
40. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Inexperience and experience with online stores: The importance of TAM and trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(3), 307–321.
41. Goh, E., & Wen, J. (2021). Applying the technology acceptance model to understand hospitality management students’ intentions to use electronic discussion boards as a learning tool. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 21(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2020.1768621
42. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
43. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
44. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review.
45. Hart, J., & Sutcliffe, A. (2019). Is it all about the Apps or the Device?: User experience and technology acceptance among iPad users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 130, 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.002
46. Hassenzahl, M. (2008). User experience (UX). Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine on - IHM ’08, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1512714.1512717
47. Hassenzahl, M. (2018). The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product (pp. 301–313). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68213-6_19
48. He, T., & Zhu, C. (2017). Digital informal learning among Chinese university students: The effects of digital competence and personal factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0082-x
49. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
50. Heslin, P. A., & Klehe, U.-C. (2006). Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia Of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, SG Rogelberg, Ed, 2, 705–708.
51. Hester, A. J., Hutchins, H. M., & Burke-Smalley, L. A. (2016). Web 2.0 and transfer: Trainers’ use of technology to support employees’ learning transfer on the job. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(3), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21225
52. Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367.
53. Hornbæk, K., & Hertzum, M. (2017). Technology acceptance and user experience. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 24(5), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3127358
54. Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2007). Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1838–1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.003
55. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58–65.
56. Hwang, Y. (2014). User experience and personal innovativeness: An empirical study on the Enterprise Resource Planning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.002
57. İKÇÜ. (2021). İKÇÜ Üniversite Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. https://ikcuubys.ikcu.edu.tr/
58. Jackson, J. D., Yi, M. Y., & Park, J. S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50(4), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.02.006
59. Jang, J., Ko, Y., Shin, W. S., & Han, I. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: An examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 9, 6798–6809. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048708
60. Jang, S., & Lee, C. (2018). The impact of location-based service factors on usage intentions for technology acceptance: The moderating effect of innovativeness. Sustainability, 10(6), 1876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061876
61. Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (2014). Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM for mobile learning in Cyber University. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-014-9081-2
62. Kim, E.-J., Kim, J. J., & Han, S.-H. (2021). Understanding student acceptance of online learning systems in higher education: Application of social psychology theories with consideration of user innovativeness. Sustainability, 13(2), 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020896
63. Kim, M., Cho, W. D., Lee, J., Park, R. W., Mukhtar, H., & Kim, K.-H. (2010). Ubiquitous Korea Project. In Handbook of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments (pp. 1257–1283). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93808-0_46
64. Kim, S. H. (2008). Moderating effects of job relevance and experience on mobile wireless technology acceptance: Adoption of a smartphone by individuals. Information & Management, 45(6), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.05.002
65. Kobul, M.G. (2022) Socioeconomic status influences Turkish digital natives’ internet use habitus, Behaviour & Information Technology, https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2034970
66. Kwon, O., Choi, K., & Kim, M. (2007). User acceptance of context-aware services: Self-efficacy, user innovativeness and perceived sensitivity on contextual pressure. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(6), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290600709111
67. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
68. Li, Y., Qi, J., & Shu, H. (2008). Review of relationships among variables in TAM. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 273–278.
69. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
70. Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229-242.
71. Mokhtar, S. A., Katan, H., & Hidayat-ur-Rehman, I. (2018). Instructors’ behavioural intention to use learning management system: an integrated TAM perspective. TEM Journal, 7(3), 513.
72. Moon, J.-W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.
73. Ngafeeson, M. N., & Sun, J. (2015). The effects of technology innovativeness and system exposure on student acceptance of e-textbooks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 55.
74. Noh, N. H. M., Raju, R., Eri, Z. D., & Ishak, S. N. H. (2021). Extending technology acceptance model (TAM) to measure the students’ acceptance of using digital tools during open and distance learning (ODL). IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1176(1), 012037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1176/1/012037
75. Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41(6), 795–804.
76. Park, Y., Son, H., & Kim, C. (2012). Investigating the determinants of construction professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Automation in Construction, 22, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.016
77. Patricia Aguilera-Hermida, A. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
78. Portz, J. D., Bayliss, E. A., Bull, S., Boxer, R. S., Bekelman, D. B., Gleason, K., & Czaja, S. (2019). Using the technology acceptance model to explore user experience, intent to use, and use behavior of a patient portal among older adults with multiple chronic conditions: Descriptive qualitative study. J Med Internet Res, 21(4), e11604. https://doi.org/10.2196/11604
79. Pressley, T., & Ha, C. (2021). Teaching during a Pandemic: United States teachers’ Self-Efficacy during COVID-19. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103465
80. Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2012-0011
81. Rigdon, Edward E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods, Long Range Planning, Volume 45, Issues 5–6, 2012
82. Rini, G. P., & Khasanah, I. (2021). Intention to use online meeting applications during Covid-19 pandemic: A technology acceptance model perspective. Jurnal Manajemen Dan Pemasaran Jasa, 14(1), 77–94.
83. Salloum, S. A., Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, A., Al-Emran, M., Abdel Monem, A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 7, 128445–128462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467
84. Sidi Mohamed, D. (2021). The Digital Educational Innovation In The Weather Of Covid-19 In Morocco. MENACIS2021,19.
85. Soper, D. S. (2021). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
86. Sprenger, D. A., & Schwaninger, A. (2021). Technology acceptance of four digital learning technologies (classroom response system, classroom chat, e-lectures, and mobile virtual reality) after three months’ usage. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00243-4
87. Stoel, L., & Hye Lee, K. (2003). Modeling the effect of experience on student acceptance of Web‐based courseware. Internet Research, 13(5), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240310501649
88. Sukendro, S., Habibi, A., Khaeruddin, K., Indrayana, B., Syahruddin, S., Makadada, F. A., & Hakim, H. (2020). Using an extended technology acceptance model to understand students’ use of e-learning during Covid-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon, 6(11), e05410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05410
89. Syahruddin, S., Mohd Yaakob, M. F., Rasyad, A., Widodo, A. W., Sukendro, S., Suwardi, S., Lani, A., Sari, L. P., Mansur, M., Razali, R., & Syam, A. (2021). Students’ acceptance to distance learning during Covid-19: The role of geographical areas among Indonesian sports science students. Heliyon, 7(9), e08043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08043
90. Talsma, K., Robertson, K., Thomas, C., & Norris, K. (2021). COVID-19 beliefs, self-efficacy and academic performance in first-year university students: Cohort comparison and mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643408
91. Tsai, W.-H., Wu, Y.-S., Cheng, C.-S., Kuo, M.-H., Chang, Y.-T., Hu, F.-K., Sun, C.-A., Chang, C.-W., Chan, T.-C., Chen, C.-W., Lee, C.-C., & Chu, C.-M. (2021). A technology acceptance model for deploying masks to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan (My Health Bank): Web-based cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(4), e27069. https://doi.org/10.2196/27069
92. Utami, T. L. W. (2021). Technology adoption on online learning during Covid-19 pandemic: Implementation of technology acceptance model (TAM). Diponegoro International Journal of Business, 4(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.14710/dijb.4.1.2021.8-19
93. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on I
94. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
95. 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, 115–139.
96. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
97. Yemez, İ. (2021). Etik tüketimin hedonik tüketim ve kompulsif satın alma davranışı üzerindeki etkisinin PLS-SEM ile incelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Marketing, 6(2), 104-124.
98. Yoon, C., Jeong, C., & Rolland, E. (2015). Understanding individual adoption of mobile instant messaging: A multiple perspectives approach. Information Technology and Management, 16(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0202-4