Submitted:
02 August 2024
Posted:
05 August 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Related Works
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Hypotheses
- 1)
- Hypothesis 1:
- 2)
- Hypothesis 2:
- 3)
- Hypothesis 3:
- 4)
- Hypothesis 4:
- 5)
- Hypothesis 5:
- 6)
- Hypothesis 6:
2.2. Participants
2.3. Instrumentation
2.4. Procedure
3. Results
3.1. Discriminnt Validity
3.2. Analysis
3.2.1. Determination of Factor R2
3.2.2. Path Co-Efficiency Results
3.3. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization (WHO), COVID-19 epidemiological update, 19 January 2024, https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-epidemiological-update---19-january-2024/. (Accessed July 29, 2024).
- H. Isfeld-Kiely and S. Moghadas, Effectiveness of School Closure for the Control of Influenza, National Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases, 2014. https://nccid.ca/publications/effectiveness-of-school-closure-for-the-control-of-influenza/. (Accessed July 29, 2024).
- Cloudflare, 2020. On the Shoulders of Giants: Recent Changes in Internet Traffic, 2020. https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-shoulders-of-giants-recent-changes-in-internet-traffic/. (Accessed July 30, 2024).
- Koppelaar, H., van der Linden, W.J., & Mellenbergh, G.J. A computer program for classifications in dichotomous decisions based on dichotomously scored items.Tijdschr Onderwijsresearch, 1977, 2, pp. 32-37.
- Y. Hwang, D. Shin, and H. Lee, Students’ perception on immersive learning through 2D and 3D metaverse platforms, Educ Tech Research Dev, 2023, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1687-1708. [CrossRef]
- B. Kye, N. Han, E. Kim, Y. Park, and S. Jo, Educational applications of metaverse: possibilities and limitations, J Educ Eval Health Prof, 2021, vol. 18, no 32, pp. 1-13. [CrossRef]
- C. A. Onggirawan, J. M. Kho, A. P. Kartiwa, and A. A. Gunawan, Systematic literature review: The adaptation of distance learning process during the COVID-19 pandemic using virtual educational spaces in metaverse, Procedia comp sci, 2023, vol. 216, pp. 274-283. [CrossRef]
- W. Suh and S. Ahn, Utilizing the metaverse for learner-centered constructivist education in the post-pandemic era: An analysis of elementary school students, J Intell, 2022, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 17.
- S. Sukendro et al., Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of e-learning during Covid-19: Indonesian sport science education context, Heliyon, 2020, vol. 6, no. 11. [CrossRef]
- S. Sayardoost Tabrizi, A. Sabzian, A. Moeini, and K. Yakideh, TAM-Based Model for Evaluating Learner Satisfaction of E-Learning Services Case Study: E-Learning System of University of Tehran, Int J Web Research, 2023, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 105-112.
- Z. Mseleku, A literature review of E-learning and E-teaching in the era of Covid-19 pandemic, Int J Innov Sc Res Techn, 2020, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 588-597.
- L. Yekefallah, P. Namdar, R. Panahi, and L. Dehghankar, Factors related to students' satisfaction with holding e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic based on the dimensions of e-learning, Heliyon, 2021, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. e07628. [CrossRef]
- Dengel and J. Mägdefrau, Immersive learning explored: Subjective and objective factors influencing learning outcomes in immersive educational virtual environments. In 2018 IEEE international conference on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE), 2018, pp. 608-615.
- S. Mystakidis et al., Design, development, and evaluation of a virtual reality serious game for school fire preparedness training, Educ Sc, 2022, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 281. [CrossRef]
- R. Klamma, D. Sous, B. Hensen, and I. Koren, Educational escape games for mixed reality. In Addressing Global Challenges and Quality Education: 15th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2020), 2020, pp. 437-442.
- S. Mystakidis, Combat tanking in education: the TANC model for playful distance learning in social virtual reality, Int J of Gaming Comp-Mediated Simul (IJGCMS), 2021, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 28-47. [CrossRef]
- X. Huang, J. Huss, L. North, K. Williams, and A. Boyd-Devine, Cognitive and motivational benefits of a theory-based immersive virtual reality design in science learning, Comp Educ Open, 2023, vol. 4, p. 100124. [CrossRef]
- X. Liu, H. Koppelaar, Adaptive Knowledge Exosomatics for E-Learning. In IGI-Global Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, pp.38 - 43, 2005. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/encyclopedia-distance-learning/12084. [CrossRef]
- S. Sayardoost Tabrizi, A. Sabzian, A. Moeini, A Hybrid Model for Evaluation of E-Learning User Satisfaction with TAM and ELQ Approach, Int J Inf Comm Techn Res (IJICTR), 2024, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 45-54.
- J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM, Eur bus rev, 2019, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2-24. [CrossRef]



| Observed VAR | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude | AT1 | 0.865 | 0.866 | 0.900 | 0.910 |
| AT2 | 0.891 | ||||
| AT3 | 0.882 | ||||
| AT3 | 0.738 | ||||
| Behavioral Intention | BI1 | 0.896 | 0.887 | 0.901 | 0.922 |
| BI2 | 0.916 | ||||
| BI3 | 0.827 | ||||
| BI4 | 0.816 | ||||
| Facilitating Condition | FC3 | 0.899 | 0.319 | 0.387 | 0.730 |
| FC4 | 0.601 | ||||
| Learners’ Satisfaction | SUE1 | 0.836 | 0.902 | 0.896 | 0.926 |
| SUE2 | 0.855 | ||||
| SUE3 | 0.875 | ||||
| SUE4 | 0.913 | ||||
| Perceived Usefulness | PU1 | 0.771 | 0.689 | 0.693 | 0.807 |
| PU2 | 0.675 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.634 | ||||
| PU4 | 0.777 | ||||
| UI | U12 | 0.756 | 0.664 | 0.735 | 0.807 |
| UI3 | 0.677 | ||||
| UI6 | 0.850 |
| AT | BI | FC | LS | PU | UI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT | 0.846 | |||||
| BI | 0.779 | 0.865 | ||||
| FC | 0.368 | 0.502 | 0.764 | |||
| LS | 0.859 | 0.814 | 0.357 | 0.870 | ||
| PU | 0.557 | 0.593 | 0.385 | 0.469 | 0.717 | |
| UI | 0.548 | 0.457 | 0.279 | 0.446 | 0.576 | 0.764 |
| R square | Correlation | |
| Attitude | 0.388 | Average |
| Behavioral Intention | 0.609 | Average |
| Learners’ Satisfaction | 0.662 | Average |
| Perceived Usefulness | 0.148 | Weak |
| Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | P Values | Significance | |
| Attitude -> Behavioral Intention | 0.756 | 0.75 | 0.066 | 11.383 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Attitude -> Learners’ Satisfaction | 0.615 | 0.614 | 0.071 | 8.695 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Behavioral Intention -> Learners’ Satisfaction | 0.814 | 0818 | 0.037 | 21.981 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Facilitating Condition -> Attitude | 0.139 | 0.150 | 0.057 | 2.414 | 0.016 | Yes |
| Facilitating Condition -> Behavioral Intention | 0.105 | 0.113 | 0.047 | 2.238 | 0.025 | Yes |
| Facilitating Condition -> Learners’ Satisfaction | 0.085 | 0.093 | 0.039 | 2.177 | 0.030 | Yes |
| Facilitating Condition -> Perceived Usefulness | 0.385 | 0.405 | 0.089 | 4.595 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Perceived Usefulness -> Attitude | 0.360 | 0.369 | 0.117 | 3.073 | 0.002 | Yes |
| Perceived Usefulness -> Behavioral Intention | 0.272 | 0.279 | 0.099 | 2.764 | 0.006 | Yes |
| Perceived Usefulness -> Learners’ Satisfaction | 0.222 | 0.229 | 0.084 | 3.649 | 0.008 | Yes |
| UI -> Attitude | 0.341 | 0.342 | 0.0104 | 3.289 | 0.001 | Yes |
| UI -> Behavioral Intention | 0.300 | 0.304 | 0.100 | 3.012 | 0.003 | Yes |
| UI -> Learners’ Satisfaction | 0.244 | 0.249 | 0.082 | 2.976 | 0.003 | Yes |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).