electronics

Article
Technology Acceptance of an Interactive Augmented Reality
App on Resistive Circuits for Engineering Students
Alejandro Álvarez-Marín 1, * , J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide 2 and Mauricio Castillo-Vergara 3

1 Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad de La Serena, La Serena 1720170, Chile

2 Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Informática, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28933 Madrid, Spain;
[Link]@[Link]
3 Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago 8340578, Chile;
mhcastillo@[Link]
* Correspondence: aalvarez@[Link]

Abstract: In this study, we aim to establish the factors that explain the technology acceptance of aug-
mented reality (AR) in students’ engineering education. Technology acceptance of AR apps has been
insufficiently investigated. We conceive a theoretical model to explain technology acceptance by relating
behavioral intention to use with the variables subjective norm, technology optimism, technology innova-
tiveness, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude toward using. An interactive AR app
on electrical circuits was designed to assist students to overcome their difficulties in understanding how





 electricity works. A theoretical model was hypothesized and tested using structural equation modeling.
The study was conducted using a sample of 190 engineering students. The results demonstrate the
Citation: Álvarez-Marín, A.;
positive effect of technology optimism and technology innovativeness on perceived usefulness and
Velázquez-Iturbide, J.Á.;
attitude toward using, respectively. Furthermore, they suggest that attitude toward using is influenced
Castillo-Vergara, M. Technology
Acceptance of an Interactive
by perceived usefulness but not directly by perceived ease of use. This could mean that students would
Augmented Reality App on Resistive be willing to use this app if they find it useful and not just easy to use. Finally, the results illustrate that
Circuits for Engineering Students. attitude toward using firmly explains behavioral intention to use, which is consistent with the findings
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286. in previous studies. These results could guide how academics and higher education centers should
[Link] approach the incorporation of these technologies in classrooms.
electronics10111286
Keywords: augmented reality; education; engineering; mobile learning; technology acceptance
Academic Editors:
Daniela M. Romano
and Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy

1. Introduction
Received: 14 April 2021
Accepted: 7 May 2021
The education sector can benefit significantly by incorporating information tech-
Published: 28 May 2021
nologies and improving the academic performance of students [1,2]. However, students’
resistance to new technologies can impede their successful adoption or use. Therefore, de-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
termining the factors that explain and predict acceptance of these technologies is necessary
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
to design effective adoption strategies.
published maps and institutional affil- One of these technologies, augmented reality (AR), has been employed in different
iations. fields [3], from tourism and navigation to entertainment and advertisement, geometry
modeling and scene construction, assembly and maintenance, information assistant man-
agement, training, and education [4].
In the education sector, AR has been adopted in several areas of knowledge [5] because
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
it provides additional value to mobile learning objects by providing greater interactivity
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and an attractive learning environment [6]. The inclusion of AR technology helps students
This article is an open access article
in improving their creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills [7].
distributed under the terms and In engineering education, one of the areas where AR has been used is electronics [8,9].
conditions of the Creative Commons Students frequently find it difficult to understand electricity concepts because electricity
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and its working mechanism are invisible [10]. Visualizing electricity through an AR app
[Link]/licenses/by/ allows students to understand these concepts more intuitively [11] and improve their
4.0/). academic achievements [12].

Electronics 2021, 10, 1286. [Link] [Link]

Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 2 of 14

Incorporating the AR technology in different stages of the educational process could

also allow future engineering skills to be incorporated into Industry 4.0, which is charac-
terized by even more digitized and optimized operations in an integrated network under
the concept of industrial AR [13]. For example, companies with modern production sys-
tems currently anticipate AR apps that can support the assembly process through virtual
instructions [14].
Despite these benefits, the analysis of how users accept and use various innovative
technologies is lacking [15]. Technology acceptance is meant to explain technology usage
behavior and is associated with behavioral intention [16]. Given this, models are used to predict
or explain the behavior of individuals on the implementation of information technologies.
One of the most important models, the technology acceptance model (TAM), proposed
by Davis [17], is an adaptation of the theory of reasoned action [18]. The TAM incorporates
the following variables: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward using,
and behavioral intention to use.
Some studies have suggested the TAM’s incapacity to model new scenarios. However,
these studies focus on commercial applications, mainly marketing and AR apps’ perceived
value. Vishwakarma et al. [19], while researching an AR app in tourism, indicated that the
applicability of the TAM is limited because it explains the adoption of new information and
communication technologies only from the viewpoint of users and not consumers. They
used the value-based adoption model [20], which considers adoption from a consumer’s
perspective, rather than from a technology user perspective.
Nevertheless, the extended versions of the TAM remain valid in education as apps are
provided to students to support the educational process and autonomous learning. Given
that the commercialization of apps is not considered, students are not treated as consumers.
The TAM has been applied to study the adoption of new information and commu-
nication technologies such as wearables [21], Google Glass [22], and AR in science [23]
and geometry [24,25]. In the educational field, the TAM has been recently employed to
examine the adoption of massive open online courses [26,27], digital communication [28],
e-learning [29,30], mobile learning [31–33], and the use of open-source software [34].
In engineering education, only one study was found that addressed the acceptance of
the AR technology using structural equation modeling to analyze the causal relationship
between variables. Ibañez et al. [35] used the TAM to explore students’ perceptions re-
garding problem-solving in electromagnetism. The results of the evaluation demonstrated
that the behavioral intention to use was dependent on perceived enjoyment. However,
the authors had to remove the perceived usefulness construct because of inconsistency in
students’ responses. The personal or environmental characteristics were not considered.
As AR technology has proven to be useful for improving academic performance,
higher education institutions need to incorporate it more intensively in their teaching and
learning processes. The AR technology allows the creation of virtual laboratories that can
be used for different subjects, thereby optimizing the use of available resources. Further,
being an app, students can download and use it freely. Based on the features provided
by smartphones or tablets, each student could have a laboratory in his or her hands to
experiment and perform exercises, thereby catalyzing autonomous learning processes
in students. The AR technology can also promote distance learning, as students do not
necessarily need to visit laboratories.
However, this scenario is not possible if the actors involved are not willing to use
this technology. If the variables that influence the willingness to use technology are
appropriately understood, then the actions that lead to reinforcing the disposition of certain
students to use such technology can be encouraged. Thus, if an early-stage technology
reveals that potential users are unlikely to accept it, appropriate interventions could
be applied to achieve acceptance; otherwise, these resources could be invested in the
development and implementation of other higher impact technologies.
The characteristics of the current generation of students must also be considered.
Being digital natives, they are increasingly immersed in digital technologies [36]. The
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 3 of 14

acceptance of technologies by digital natives requires incorporating a series of individual

and relevant factors [29]. One of them is technology readiness, which comprises four
dimensions: optimism and innovativeness as drivers, and discomfort and insecurity as
inhibitors [37] with optimism and innovativeness being stable individual dimensions for
measurement [38]. Although technology readiness dimensions have been employed in
examining the technological acceptance of digital natives as consumers [39], they have not
been used by incorporating them into the TAM in education. In addition, the studies on
the incorporation of mobile learning in the formal educational context are scarce [40].
To address this gap, we propose an extended TAM to analyze the influence of tech-
nology optimism and technology innovativeness on AR acceptance. The study seeks to
contribute to the relevant literature by determining variables that can explain and predict
students’ use of AR technology in engineering education. This could have implications for
the policies that higher education institutions may have for adopting these technologies.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

We focus on theoretical constructs proposed by Davis [17] in the TAM: perceived
ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward using, and behavioral intention to
use. Further, the TAM uses two theoretical constructs proposed by Parasuraman [37],
technology optimism and technology innovativeness, in addition to the subjective norm,
because they are related to behavioral intention to use.
Subjective norm refers to the belief that an important person or group of people
will approve and support a particular behavior. It is determined by the perceived social
pressure from other people to behave in a specific manner and a person’s motivation to
comply with those people’s expectations [41]. Expectations of other people, whose opinions
are important to a person, can make him or her believe that technology could improve his
or her performance [42] or can render the technology trustworthy [43]. In an academic
environment, students’ beliefs regarding the use of technology can be influenced by the
opinion of academics and classmates [44].
Technology innovativeness is defined as a person’s inclination to try new information
technologies [45]. It is related to people’s tendency to be pioneering users of technology
and be leaders in its use [37]. These users rarely consider new technologies as complex
or beyond their understanding and are likely to regret losing the opportunity to explore
new technologies [46]. Additionally, technology optimism refers to having a positive view
of technology, including control, flexibility, convenience, and efficiency [45]. It is related
to persons’ positive vision toward technology because they feel they have greater control
over their lives [37] and are prepared to use it [47].
Based on the above, we can infer that if a student is in an environment where technol-
ogy benefits are highlighted or their use is promoted, students would believe that using
these technologies can positively impact their study and encourage them to be pioneers in
using these technologies. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Subjective norm has a positive effect on technology optimism.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Subjective norm has a positive effect on technology innovativeness.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Technology optimism has a positive effect on technology innovativeness.

Perceived usefulness can be characterized as how a person thinks a particular technol-

ogy will improve task performance [48], for instance, the shorter time necessary to perform
a task or activity, or higher precision [49].
Further, attitude toward using refers to the user’s evaluation regarding the conve-
nience of using a determined technology [50].
If students are optimistic about the benefits that technology can provide to improve the
teaching and learning process, then they may be more likely to find that specific technology
easier to use, and in turn, believe that using it might be convenient and help achieve
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 4 of 14

the expected results. The same could happen with a student who is a pioneer in using
new technologies. With a particular technology, these students may believe that using
it can be convenient and have a positive attitude toward it. Therefore, we propose the
following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Technology optimism has a positive effect on perceived usefulness.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Technology optimism has a positive effect on attitude toward using.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Technology innovativeness has a positive effect on attitude toward using.

The perceived ease of use is defined as the degree to which a person believes that a
specific technology can be used effortlessly [49].
If students perceive that an AR app is easy to use, they might find it useful to incorpo-
rate it as a tool in their learning process. Similarly, this app was easy to use, and because of
its convenience, it could also elicit a positive attitude from students.
At the same time, this positive attitude that students may have toward the app could,
in turn, be explained by how useful they find incorporating it into their educational process.
This leads to our next set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on perceived usefulness.

Hypothesis 8 (H8). Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on attitude toward using.

Hypothesis 9 (H9). Perceived usefulness has a positive effect on attitude toward using.

Finally, behavioral intention to use refers to an individual’s perception of what others

think he or she should do about a determined behavior [18]. Studies on AR have illustrated
that behavioral intention to use is influenced by attitude toward using [48,51]. Thus, this
leads to our next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 10 (H10). Attitude toward using has a positive effect on behavioral intention to use.

We propose the research model depicted in Figure 1. This model comprises an

extended TAM that incorporates the variables technology optimism and technology in-
Electronics 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
novativeness, which have not been previously investigated in the context of AR apps in
engineering education.

Figure 1. Research model.

Figure 1. Research model.

[Link]
Interactive AR
AR App
App
Some apps
Some apps have
have been
been developed
developed as a support
support for
for learning
learning electrical
electricalcircuits,
circuits,which
which
help visualize
help visualize electricity.
electricity. Matcha and Rambli
Rambli [10]
[10] developed
developed aa prototype
prototypeto toanalyze
analyzethe
the
relationship between current and resistance in a circuit. Restivo et al. [11] developed the
app “CD Circuit Puzzle.” The circuit elements were used as Lego pieces to understand
their operation, perceive different situations, and practice solutions. However, these apps
only reach a medium degree of interaction (level III, complex interaction: the student can
manipulate graphical objects to analyze their behavior [52]). Therefore, we developed an
 Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 5 of 14

relationship between current and resistance in a circuit. Restivo et al. [11] developed the
app “CD Circuit Puzzle.” The circuit elements were used as Lego pieces to understand
their operation, perceive different situations, and practice solutions. However, these apps
only reach a medium degree of interaction (level III, complex interaction: the student can
manipulate graphical objects to analyze their behavior [52]). Therefore, we developed
an AR app that reaches a high of interactivity (level IV, real-time interaction: the student
can interact in a simulation where stimuli generate complex responses [52]). This app,
named “INGAR DC Analysis,” analyzes direct current (DC) in resistive circuits. This app
allows the user to change the batteries’ voltage values and the resistance value of the light
bulbs and resistors under controlled safety conditions, generating real-time amperage
calculations present in the circuit.
This app can be used in theoretical classes, laboratories, or as a support tool for
autonomous learning using smartphones or tablets. The AR app’s purpose is to enable
students to work with electrical circuits and visualize how electricity functions.
In the app, AR figures (batteries, light bulbs, and resistors) can be manipulated in
ics 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW serial or parallel resistive circuits by students. The app has five types of
6 ofserial
15 and parallel
circuits to choose from (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Interactive AR app. Figure 2. Interactive AR app.

By manipulating By QR codes as targets,

manipulating QR codesstudents can students
as targets, experiencecanvarious circuit
experience con- circuit configu-
various
figurations by rations
incorporating and combining batteries, light bulbs, and resistors,
by incorporating and combining batteries, light bulbs, and resistors, and and varying
varying their voltages and resistances.
their voltages and resistances.
With this, the app
Withcalculates and
this, the app displaysand
calculates thedisplays
resulting
thevalues of voltage
resulting and
values of am- and amperage
voltage
perage of lightofbulbs
light and
bulbsresistors in real
and resistors in time, usingusing
real time, the loop method
the loop andand
method applying
applying Kirchhoff’s
Kirchhoff’s voltage lawlaw
voltage [53].
[53].
According to the amperage value circulating in each branch of the circuit, a color is
assigned. A gray branch means no amperage. A 12-color scale ranging from faint yellow
to bright red was used, depending on the amperage value.
Thus, students can visualize the different intensities of current passing through each
branch of the circuit and the values of amperage and voltage circulating through each
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 6 of 14

According to the amperage value circulating in each branch of the circuit, a color is
assigned. A gray branch means no amperage. A 12-color scale ranging from faint yellow to
bright red was used, depending on the amperage value.
Thus, students can visualize the different intensities of current passing through each
branch of the circuit and the values of amperage and voltage circulating through each light
bulb or resistor.
The app was developed in Unity 3D using the Vuforia SDK. The development of the
app is facilitated using prefabs, which were obtained from the SDK. Three-dimensional
objects were developed with the Blender software. Batteries, resistors, and light bulbs were
created as objects in AR to interact with the resistive circuit. QR codes are used by the
circuit, batteries, light bulbs, and resistors code as a target to position each AR element in
the space. An optical tracker for its operation is used.

4. Methodology
The model and the proposed hypotheses were simultaneously tested applying struc-
tural equations through partial least squares (PLS), using the Smart PLS 3.2.9 © soft-
ware [54]. The PLS technique was adopted because it combines unobserved variables
representing theoretical concepts and data from measurements, which are used to provide
evidence on the relationships between latent variables [55]. This method is appropriate as
the approximation includes complex models as well as compound variables [56].
The application of the PLS technique consists of different steps, with the first step
being the model fit [57]. The fit test is performed for the estimated model by applying
a bootstrapping process of 5000 subsamples [58]. Second, the measurement model is
evaluated, and third, the fit of the model is analyzed [59]. Type B compound variables
were considered for this model [60].
A review of the literature to compile the survey was conducted. Questionnaires
from previous studies were used, as these questions were previously validated. A survey
comprising 22 indicators was employed for data collection. Table 1 presents the studies
used to adapt the questions for the constructs and indicators.

Table 1. Studies and indicators used.

Construct Study Indicator

Subjective norm People whose opinions I value encourage me to use new technologies.
[61]
People who are important to me help me use new technologies.
The products and services that use the newest technologies are much more
Technology optimism convenient to use.
[47]
I prefer to use the most advanced technology available.
Technology makes my work more efficient.
If I discover that new technologies exist, I find ways to test them.
Technology innovativeness [62] Among my classmates, I am generally the first to try new technologies.
I like to experiment with new technologies.
I found the app to be very easy to use.
[51] The app was intuitive to use.
Perceived ease of use Learning how to use the app was easy.
Handling the app was easy.
The use of the app improves learning in the classroom.
Perceived usefulness [48] Using the app during lessons would facilitate the understanding of certain concepts.
I believe that the app is helpful when learning.
I think using the app in the class would be positive.
Attitude toward using [51] The app is so interesting that you want to learn more about it.
Using the app for the study of electrical circuits is logical.
The app is a good idea.
I would like to have this app if I had to study electrical circuits.
Behavioral intention to use [63] I would intend to use this app to learn about electrical circuits.
I would recommend other students use this app to study electrical circuits.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 7 of 14

The convenience sampling method—a non-probability sampling technique involving

the sample being drawn from a pool of population that is easy to reach or contact—
was used in this study. This type of sampling is useful for pilot testing. The sample
corresponds to students studying Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Mining
Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Environmental Engineering at the University of La
Serena, Chile. These branches of engineering were selected because they include subjects
in which electrical circuits are taught. Student participation was voluntary, not associated
with evaluation, and students were not offered extra scores to participate in the study. The
prototype of the AR app was used in a guided session with the students. The pilot test has
been widely used to determine behavioral intention in AR apps [23,24,51,64–67].
The research took place in March 2020. The experience and the survey were carried out in
an ad hoc laboratory implemented using tablets. In the beginning, a 3 min video was shown
that demonstrated how the interactive AR app worked. Then, the students experimented
interacting with the app for 30 min, performing various guided exercises (similar to other
studies of AR acceptance in education [35,48,68] and other fields [51,67]). Students understood
different types of current intensity behaviors while practicing with serial or parallel circuits
and modifying values of voltage and resistance. Moreover, students were able to interact with
the app freely. At the end of the experience, the survey was conducted. Anonymity and strict
confidentiality of data were guaranteed.

5. Results
The survey had 190 respondents, of which 115 were males and 75 were females. The
average age was 21 years, and the students were in their third or fourth academic year. In
terms of the engineering field, 77 were industrial engineering students, while 38, 32, 26, and 17
were students from mining, mechanical, civil, and environmental engineering, respectively.
As the loadings of each indicators’ variance inflation factor is lower than 3.3, Cronbach’s
alpha and Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho for each construct are greater than 0.7, the constructs’
composite reliabilities are also higher than 0.7, and as their average variance extracted is above
0.5 (Table 2), reliability, convergent validity, and variance inflation factor requirements are
satisfied [69–71]. Analyzing Fornell–Larcker criterion, the square root of the average variance
extracted from each construct is greater than its correlation with any other construct (Table 3).
The Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations is below 1.0 (Table 4). Therefore, discriminant
validity is achieved according to Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait
ratio [58,72,73].

Table 2. Evaluation of the measurement model.

Variance Inflation Dijkstra–Henseler’s Composite Average Variance

Construct/Indicator Factor Cronbach’s Alpha Rho Reliabilities Extracted
Subjective norm (SN) - 0.788 0.798 0.904 0.824
SN1 1.732 - - - -
SN2 1.732 - - - -
Technology optimism
- 0.773 0.774 0.869 0.688
(TO)
TO1 1.757 - - - -
TO2 1.752 - - - -
TO3 1.411 - - - -
Technology
- 0.721 0.745 0.841 0.639
innovativeness (TI)
TI1 1.604 - - - -
TI2 1.384 - - - -
TI3 1.377 - - - -
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 8 of 14

Table 2. Cont.

Variance Inflation Dijkstra–Henseler’s Composite Average Variance

Construct/Indicator Factor Cronbach’s Alpha Rho Reliabilities Extracted
Perceived ease of use - 0.790 0.840 0.860 0.607
(PEOU)
PEOU1 1.816 - - - -
PEOU2 1.508 - - - -
PEOU3 1.510 - - - -
PEOU4 1.669 - - - -
Perceived usefulness - 0.855 0.856 0.912 0.776
(PU)
PU1 1.774 - - - -
PU2 2.529 - - - -
PU3 2.542 - - - -
Attitude toward - 0.764 0.765 0.850 0.587
using (ATU)
ATU1 1.689 - - - -
ATU2 1.489 - - - -
ATU3 1.494 - - - -
ATU4 1.360 - - - -
Behavioral intention - 0.859 0.861 0.914 0.780
to use (BIU)
BIU1 2.218 - - - -
BIU2 2.591 - - - -
BIU3 1.958 - - - -

Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion.

ATU BIU PEOU PU SN TI TO

ATU 0.766 - - - - - -
BIU 0.743 0.883 - - - - -
PEOU 0.390 0.328 0.779 - - - -
PU 0.611 0.423 0.560 0.881 - - -
SN 0.310 0.208 0.065 0.215 0.908 - -
TI 0.296 0.311 0.105 0.115 0.332 0.800 -
TO 0.352 0.357 0.173 0.299 0.399 0.467 0.830
Note 1: ATU is attitude toward using; BIU is behavioral intention to use; PEOU is perceived ease of use; PU is
perceived usefulness; SN is subjective norm; TI is technology innovativeness; and TO is technology optimism.
Note 2: Fornell–Larcker criterion: Diagonal elements are the square root of the average variance extracted shared
between the constructs and their measures. For discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be larger than
off-diagonal elements.

Table 4. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio.

ATU BIU PEOU PU SN TI TO

ATU - - - - - - -
BIU 0.915 - - - - - -
PEOU 0.472 0.378 - - - - -
PU 0.756 0.495 0.647 - - - -
SN 0.403 0.253 0.084 0.266 - - -
TI 0.383 0.393 0.150 0.135 0.436 - -
TO 0.455 0.440 0.209 0.367 0.509 0.616 -
Note: ATU is attitude toward using; BIU is behavioral intention to use; PEOU is perceived ease of use; PU is
perceived usefulness; SN is subjective norm; TI is technology innovativeness; and TO is technology optimism.

To assess the goodness of fit in the estimated model, we follow the procedure proposed
by Dijkstra and Henseler [74]. The standardized root mean squared residual for the model
should be below 0.10, as argued by Williams et al. [55] and corroborated by Ringle et al. [75].
The deviations are not significant because the 99% bootstrap quantiles of the values of the
three measures, the standardized root mean squared residual (0.065), the unweighted least
squares discrepancy (1.085), and the geodesic discrepancy (0.243) were more significant
than the original values [58].
Table 5 lists the R2 values, which are significant and greater than 0.1 for each of
the latent variables [76]. The Stone–Geisser coefficient (Q2 ) is also presented, which was
 ATU 0.766 - - - - - -
BIU 0.743 0.883 - - - - -
PEOU 0.390 0.328 0.779 - - - -
PU 0.611 0.423 0.560 0.881 - - -
SN 0.310 0.208 0.065 0.215 0.908 - -
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 TI 0.296 0.311 0.105 0.115 0.332 9 of 14
0.800 -
TO 0.352 0.357 0.173 0.299 0.399 0.467 0.830
Note 1: ATU is attitude toward using; BIU is behavioral intention to use; PEOU is perceived ease of use; PU is perceived
usefulness; SN is subjective norm; TI is technology innovativeness; and TO is technology optimism. Note 2: For-
estimated
nell–Larcker criterion:by blindfolding
Diagonal [77].
elements areEach variable
the square roothas a predictive
of the relevance
average variance with shared
extracted valuesbetween
greater the con-
than
structs and their0,measures.
that is, high predictive validity,
For discriminant validitydiagonal
[78]. Therefore, R2 values
elements should andthan
be larger Stone–Geisser’s Q2
off-diagonal elements.
values have a satisfactory predictive power [70,79]. The results are consistent with those
Table predictive
in other studies capturing TAM’s 4. Heterotrait–Monotrait
power in theratio.
educational setting [80,81]. The
results obtained
ATU for the model
BIU are presented
PEOU in Table 6 PU depicted
and SNin Figure 3. TI Eight TO
ATUhypotheses are-accepted, while
- two are rejected.
- - - - -
BIU 0.915 - - - - - -
PEOUTable 5. R2–Q2. 0.472 0.378 - - - - -
PU 0.756 0.495 0.647 - - - -
2 Q2 -
SN Construct 0.253
0.403 0.084R 0.266p-Value - -
TI 0.383 0.393
Technology innovativeness 0.150
0.240 0.135 0.000 0.436 0.136- -
TO 0.455
Technology optimism0.440 0.209
0.162 0.367 0.001 0.509 0.616
0.106 -
Note: ATU is attitude toward using;
Perceived BIU is behavioral intention
usefulness 0.400 to use; PEOU 0.000
is perceived ease of 0.283
use; PU is perceived
usefulness; SN is subjective
Attitudenorm; TIusing
toward is technology innovativeness;
0.429 and TO is technology
0.000 optimism. 0.237
Behavioral intention to use 0.570 0.000 0.431
To assess the goodness of fit in the estimated model, we follow the procedure p
posed by Dijkstra and Henseler [74]. The standardized root mean squared residual
6. Results
Table the modelfrom the structural
should be below model.
0.10, as argued by Williams et al. [55] and corroborated
Ringle et al. [75]. The deviations are not significant because the 99% bootstrap quant
Hypothesis Path t-Value p-Value Supported
of the values of the three measures, the standardized root mean squared residual (0.0
H1: Subjective norm → Technology optimism the unweighted least 0.403 squares discrepancy
6.043 (1.085),0.000
and the geodesicYesdiscrepancy (0.2
H2: Subjective norm → Technology innovativeness 0.164 2.072 0.019 Yes
were more significant than the original values [58].
H3: Technology optimism → Technology innovativeness 0.400 2 5.107 0.000 Yes
Table 5 lists the R values, which are significant and greater than 0.1 for each of
H4: Technology optimism → Perceived usefulness 0.200 2.320 0.010 Yes
H5: Technology optimism → Attitude toward usinglatent variables [76].
0.095The Stone–Geisser
1.093 coefficient (Q2) is also presented,
0.137 No which was
timated
H6: Technology innovativeness → Attitude toward using by blindfolding
0.208 [77]. Each variable
2.665 has a predictive
0.004 relevance
Yeswith values gre
H7: Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulnessthan 0, that is, high predictive validity
0.564 5.606 [78]. Therefore,
0.000 R values and
2
Yes Stone–Geisser’
H8: Perceived ease of use → Attitude toward using
values have a satisfactory
0.103 predictive
1.088power [70,79]. The results areNo
0.138 consistent with th
H9: Perceived usefulness → Attitude toward using 0.476
in other studies capturing TAM’s 4.764
predictive power 0.000 Yes setting [80,81].
in the educational
H10: Attitude toward using → Behavioral intention to use
results 0.755
obtained for the model are 19.770 0.000 6 and depicted
presented in Table Yes in Figure 3. E
hypotheses are accepted, while two are rejected.

Figure
Figure 3. Resulting 3. Resulting
research model. research
A dashedmodel.
arrowAshows
dashed arrow shows non-significant
non-significant paths. paths.

6. Discussion
Students’ technology optimism depends on a small range of subjective norms (R2 = 0.162;
H1). This indicates that there would be other factors that help to better explain this factor.
Technology innovativeness depends moderately on subjective norms and technology
optimism (R2 = 0.240; H2 and H3). Technology optimism has a statistically significant
complementary mediation between subjective norms and technology innovativeness. The
direct effect of subjective norms on technology innovativeness is 0.164, while the indirect
effect because of technology optimism is 0.161 (0.403 × 0.400). This implies that technol-
ogy optimism explains approximately half of the impact that subjective norms have on
technology innovativeness.
Perceived usefulness is dependent on technology optimism and perceived ease of use
(R2 = 0.400; H4 and H7). However, perceived ease of use (0.564) has a more significant
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 10 of 14

impact than technology optimism (0.200), which indicates that the students relate the level
of ease in using an app, given its usefulness to achieve more significant learning.
Attitude toward using is dependent on perceived usefulness and technology innova-
tiveness (R2 = 0.429; H6 and H9). Perceived usefulness (0.476) has a greater impact than
technology innovativeness (0.208), implying that students must be clear about the app’s
usefulness for their studies and be willing to use it. However, technology optimism and
perceived ease of use have no statistically significant impact on attitude toward using (H5
and H8).
Technology optimism has an indirect effect on attitude toward using, which is caused
by the moderation of technology innovativeness (0.400 × 0.208 = 0.083) and perceived
usefulness (0.200 × 0.476 = 0.095), although both these effects are negligible.
Although perceived ease of use does not have a statistically significant effect on attitude to-
ward using, a complete mediation is produced by perceived usefulness (0.564 × 0.476 = 0.268),
which means that the app should not only be easy to use but also be found useful by students
in improving their academic performance.
Finally, the results show that behavioral intention to use strongly depends on attitude
toward using (R2 = 0.570; H10). From the model, behavioral intention to use is expected to
increase by approximately 0.755 when the attitude toward using factor increases by one.

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

In this study, we proposed an extended model of the TAM to explore factors that may
influence the intention of use of an AR app by students (digital natives). Many studies
have investigated the technological adoption of AR. However, few have considered the
educational field, more specifically, engineering.
Moreover, few studies have emphasized students’ characteristics, such as technology
optimism and technology innovativeness, which are especially important because students
are now digital natives. The inclusion of subjective norms also becomes relevant to deter-
mine if they influence students’ evaluated characteristics, and eventually, in adopting this
technology. As these are factors independent of the technology being assessed, the results
can have an important implication in adopting other technologies.
Thus, we presented an extended TAM incorporating factors not studied in this context.
This modification provides additional information on the acceptance of AR technology,
identifying factors external to the technology and specific to the users. Particularly, in
this case, the student’s environment may affect the student’s disposition or beliefs about
technologies, which may impact the acceptance of a particular technology.
Hence, these findings help us understand the motivations and foundations that
university students (digital natives) have in adopting AR technology in the future in the
academic environment.
Finally, the results show that TAM remains valid and with a satisfactory predictive
level when evaluated in an educational context. However, a study using an app with a
poor design (e.g., less interactivity, aesthetics) may not reach the same conclusions.
As a limitation, this study was conducted in Chile in a developing country context.
However, it may allow comparison and complement other studies conducted in other
countries with different realities in the future.

6.2. Practical Implications

In general, the findings demonstrate that personal and environmental aspects influ-
ence the willingness to use the app. This implies that higher education institutions can
influence their students to adopt new technologies and convince them that their use will
help improve their academic performance. This could be achieved by disseminating the
encouraging results because of the inclusion of this technology in education. The ease of
use of the app influences the perception that students have about its usefulness. Therefore,
this aspect should be considered when developing apps in this area.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 11 of 14

However, the willingness of students to use this technology depends on how many
students believe that they can improve their academic performance by using it and not how
easy they think it is to use the app. This is consistent with the findings of Arvanitis et al. [82],
who used an app in science education, and Wojciechowski et al. [48], who used an app in the
field of chemistry. As the study by Ibañez et al. [35] had to remove the attitude toward using
construct, their results cannot be compared. However, these findings differ from those in other
areas such as tourism [47,64], where the attitude toward using is influenced by perceived ease
of use and not by perceived usefulness. This is logical because when a person uses an app to
study, they expect it to impact academic results positively. By contrast, when that person uses
an app in a more playful environment, other factors, such as how easy it is to use that app,
motivate them.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, we presented an extended TAM to determine factors that explain AR
technology acceptance in engineering education. An AR app to analyze direct current in
resistive circuits was developed to test the model.
The findings suggest that the academic environment can influence beliefs concerning
the use of technologies and reflect how students could be affected by important role models.
For example, if faculty and friends have a favorable opinion about the early adoption of
technologies, students will be more willing to use new technologies. Similarly, if the student
is in an environment where the benefits of using technologies by faculty and friends are
valued, then he or she will have a favorable view of their use and will believe that it is
convenient to use these technologies.
The findings also suggest that students would be willing to use this app if they find it
useful, not just easy to use. Therefore, we suggest that the studies demonstrating that AR
improves academic performance should be disseminated among educational communities.
As future work, we recommend considering relevant characteristics of this technology
(e.g., interactivity levels, application stability) to analyze their influence on its acceptance.
Given that we have demonstrated the direct effect of technology innovativeness in our
proposed model, we also suggest investigating its moderating effect. Further, determining
the variables that explain the intention of use by academics and addressing the impact on
academic performance is also recommended.

Author Contributions: A.Á.-M.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Formal Analysis,

Software, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft. J.Á.V.-I.: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis,
Writing—Review and Editing. M.C.-V.: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing—Review and Editing.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Research Department of the University de La Serena
under Grant PR18362, and the Government of the Region of Madrid under Grant S2018/TCS-4307.
Data Availability Statement: Alejandro Álvarez-Marín, 15 October 2020, “Technology Accep-
tance of an Interactive AR App on Resistive Circuits for Engineering Students”, IEEE Dataport,
doi:10.21227/4s6m-7061.
Acknowledgments: We thank FIULS 2030 and the Research Department of the University de La
Serena and the Government of the Region of Madrid.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pathomaree, N.; Charoenseang, S. Augmented reality for skill transfer in assembly task. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Nashville, TN, USA, 13–15 August 2005; pp. 500–504. [CrossRef]
2. Martín Gutiérrez, J.; Meneses Fernández, M. Applying augmented reality in engineering education to improve academic
performance & student motivation. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2014, 30, 625–635.
3. Dey, A.; Billinghurst, M.; Lindeman, R.; Swan, J. A systematic review of 10 years of augmented reality usability studies: 2005 to
2014. Front. Robot. AI 2018, 5, 37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 12 of 14

4. Chatzopoulos, D.; Bermejo, C.; Huang, Z.; Hui, P. Mobile augmented reality survey: From where we are to where we go.
IEEE Access 2017, 5, 6917–6950. [CrossRef]
5. Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the
literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 20, 1–11. [CrossRef]
6. Alvarado, L.; Domínguez, E.; Velázquez, Y.; Isidro, S.; Toledo, C. Layered software architecture for the development of mobile
learning objects with augmented reality. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 57897–57909. [CrossRef]
7. Lin, P.; Chen, S. Design and evaluation of a deep learning recommendation based augmented reality system for teaching
programming and computational thinking. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 45689–45699. [CrossRef]
8. Žagar, M.; Frid, N.; Knezović, J.; Hofman, D.; Kovač, M.; Sruk, V.; Mlinarić, H. Work in progress: Embedded computer engineering
learning platform capabilities. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tallinn, Estonia,
18–20 March 2015; pp. 751–753. [CrossRef]
9. Haramaki, T.; Nishino, H. An engineering education support system using projection-based AR. In Proceedings of the 19th
International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS), Ostrava, Czech Republic, 7–9 September 2016; pp. 267–272.
[CrossRef]
10. Matcha, W.; Rambli, D. User preference in collaborative science learning through the use of Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of
the 4th International Congress on Engineering Education, Porto, Portugal, 16–18 April 2012; pp. 64–68. [CrossRef]
11. Restivo, M.; Rodrigues, J.; Chouzal, M. Let’s work with AR in DC circuits. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3–6 December 2014; pp. 884–885. [CrossRef]
12. Akçayir, M.; Akçayir, G.; Pektaş, H.; Ocak, M. Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on
university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 57, 334–342. [CrossRef]
13. Fraga-Lamas, P.; Fernández-Caramés, T.; Blanco-Novoa, Ó.; Vilar-Montesinos, M. A review on industrial augmented reality
systems for the industry 4.0 Shipyard. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 13358–13375. [CrossRef]
14. Hořejší, P.; Novikov, K.; Šimon, M. A Smart Factory in a Smart City: Virtual and augmented reality in a smart assembly line. IEEE
Access 2020, 8, 94330–94340. [CrossRef]
15. Rodrigues, J.; Ramos, C.; Pereira, J.; Sardo, J.; Cardoso, P. Mobile five senses augmented reality system: Technology acceptance
study. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 163022–163033. [CrossRef]
16. Davis, F.; Bagozzi, R.; Warshaw, P. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci.
1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]
17. Davis, F. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results; Massachussetts
Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986.
18. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA,
USA, 1975; ISBN 0201020890.
19. Vishwakarma, P.; Mukherjee, S.; Datta, B. Travelers’ intention to adopt virtual reality: A consumer value perspective. J. Destin.
Mark. Manag. 2020, 17, 100456. [CrossRef]
20. Kim, H.-W.; Chan, H.; Gupta, S. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 2007,
43, 111–126. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Emran, M.; Al-Maroof, R.; Al-Sharafi, M.; Arpaci, I. What impacts learning with wearables? An integrated theoretical model.
Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–21. [CrossRef]
22. Al-Maroof, R.; Alfaisal, A.; Salloum, S. Google glass adoption in the educational environment: A case study in the Gulf area.
Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 26, 2447–2500. [CrossRef]
23. Cabero-Almenara, J.; Barroso-Osuna, J.; Llorente-Cejudo, C.; Fernández Martínez, M. Educational uses of augmented reality (ar):
Experiences in educational science. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4990. [CrossRef]
24. Ibili, E.; Resnyansky, D.; Billinghurst, M. Applying the technology acceptance model to understand maths teachers’ perceptions
towards an augmented reality tutoring system. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 2653–2675. [CrossRef]
25. Pittalis, M. Extending the technology acceptance model to evaluate teachers’ intention to use dynamic geometry software in
geometry teaching. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 1–20. [CrossRef]
26. Al-Adwan, A. Investigating the drivers and barriers to MOOCs adoption: The perspective of TAM. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020,
25, 5771–5795. [CrossRef]
27. Virani, S.; Saini, J.; Sharma, S. Adoption of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for blended learning: The Indian educators’
perspective. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–17. [CrossRef]
28. Al-Rahmi, W.; Alzahrani, A.; Yahaya, N.; Alalwan, N.; Kamin, Y. Digital communication: Information and communication
technology (ict) usage for education sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5052. [CrossRef]
29. Hanif, A.; Jamal, F.; Imran, M. Extending the technology acceptance model for use of e-learning systems by digital learners. IEEE
Access 2018, 6, 73395–73404. [CrossRef]
30. Kuliya, M.; Usman, S. Perceptions of E-learning among undergraduates and academic staff of higher educational institutions in
north-eastern Nigeria. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 1787–1811. [CrossRef]
31. Pratama, A. Fun first, useful later: Mobile learning acceptance among secondary school students in Indonesia. Educ. Inf. Technol.
2021, 26, 1737–1753. [CrossRef]
32. Qashou, A. Influencing factors in M-learning adoption in higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 1755–1785. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 13 of 14

33. Shodipe, T.; Ohanu, I. Electrical/electronics technology education teachers attitude, engagement, and disposition towards actual
usage of Mobile learning in higher institutions. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 1023–1042. [CrossRef]
34. Racero, F.; Bueno, S.; Gallego, M. Predicting students’ behavioral intention to use open source software: A combined view of the
technology acceptance model and self-determination theory. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2711. [CrossRef]
35. Ibáñez, M.; Serio, Á.; Villarán, D.; Delgado-Kloos, C. The acceptance of learning augmented reality environments: A case study. In Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Austin, TX, USA, 25–28 July 2016;
pp. 307–311. [CrossRef]
36. Camilleri, A.; Camilleri, M. The students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to engage with digital learning games. In Proceedings
of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 44–48.
[CrossRef]
37. Parasuraman, A. Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A Multiple-Item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies.
J. Serv. Res. 2000, 2, 307–320. [CrossRef]
38. Liljander, V.; Gillberg, F.; Gummerus, J.; van Riel, A. Technology readiness and the evaluation and adoption of self-service
technologies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2006, 13, 177–191. [CrossRef]
39. Mishra, A.; Maheswarappa, S.; Colby, C. Technology readiness of teenagers: A consumer socialization perspective. J. Serv. Mark.
2018, 32, 592–604. [CrossRef]
40. Pedro, L.; Barbosa, C.; Santos, C. A critical review of mobile learning integration in formal educational contexts. Int. J. Educ.
Technol. High. Educ. 2018, 15, 10. [CrossRef]
41. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
42. Taneja, A. Assessing the Impact of Concern for Privacy and Innovation Characteristics in the Adoption of Biometric Technologies.
In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Decision Sciences Institute. 2006. Available online: [Link]
proceedings06/Papers/[Link] (accessed on 2 October 2020).
43. Wu, I.-L.; Chen, J.-L. An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: An empirical study.
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2005, 62, 784–808. [CrossRef]
44. Ngafeeson, M.; Sun, J. E-book acceptance among undergraduate students: A look at the moderating role of technology innova-
tiveness. Int. J. Web Based Learn. Teach. Technol. 2015, 10, 36–51. [CrossRef]
45. Parasuraman, A.; Colby, C. Techno-Ready Marketing: How and Why Your Customers Adopt Technology; Free Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2001; ISBN 1416576630.
46. Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.; Chervany, N. Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-
adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 1999, 23, 183–213. [CrossRef]
47. Chung, N.; Han, H.; Joun, Y. Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage
site. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 588–599. [CrossRef]
48. Wojciechowski, R.; Cellary, W. Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments.
Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 570–585. [CrossRef]
49. Balog, A.; Pribeanu, C. Developing a measurement scale for the evaluation of AR-based educational systems. Stud. Inform. Control
2009, 18, 1220–1766.
50. Davis, F. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man
Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475–487. [CrossRef]
51. Pantano, E.; Rese, A.; Baier, D. Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: A two country
comparison of youth markets. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 81–95. [CrossRef]
52. Aqel, M. The effect of different interaction levels on instructional design learners. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 103, 1035–1043.
[CrossRef]
53. Floyd, T. Principles of Electric Circuits; Pearson Education, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 013507309X.
54. Ringle, C.; Wende, S.; Becker, J. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS: Bönningstedt, Germany, 2015.
55. Williams, L.; Vandenberg, R.; Edwards, J. 12 structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved
analysis. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 543–604. [CrossRef]
56. Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.; Ringle, C.; Thiele, K.; Gudergan, S. Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! J. Bus. Res.
2016, 69, 3998–4010. [CrossRef]
57. Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal computer
adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309.
58. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data
Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [CrossRef]
59. Müller, T.; Schuberth, F.; Henseler, J. PLS path modeling—A confirmatory approach to study tourism technology and tourist
behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2018, 9, 249–266. [CrossRef]
60. Cepeda-Carrion, G.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.; Cillo, V. Tips to use partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in
knowledge management. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 67–89. [CrossRef]
61. Teo, T.; Lee, C.; Chai, C. Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology
acceptance model. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2008, 24, 128–143. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2021, 10, 1286 14 of 14

62. Chang, C.-T.; Hajiyev, J.; Su, C.-R. Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The General
Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning approach. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 128–143. [CrossRef]
63. Balog, A.; Pribeanu, C. The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A
structural equation modelling approach. Stud. Inform. Control 2010, 19, 319–330. [CrossRef]
64. Lee, I.-J.; Chen, C.-H.; Su, C.-Y. App based souvenirs and entry tickets: A new means of enhancing post visit memories: A case
study from Taiwan. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 24, 177–185. [CrossRef]
65. Rese, A.; Baier, D.; Geyer-Schulz, A.; Schreiber, S. How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: A comparative
analysis using scales and opinions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 124, 306–319. [CrossRef]
66. Jung, T.; Lee, H.; Chung, N.; Tom Dieck, M. Cross-cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage
tourism sites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1621–1645. [CrossRef]
67. Voinea, G.; Postelnicu, C.; Duguleana, M.; Mogan, G.; Socianu, R. Driving performance and technology acceptance evaluation in
real traffic of a smartphone-based driver assistance system. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7098. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Miranda Bojórquez, E.; Vergara Villegas, O.; Cruz Sánchez, V.; García-Alcaraz, J.; Favela Vara, J. Study on mobile augmented
reality adoption for mayo language learning. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2016, 2016, 1069581. [CrossRef]
69. Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.; Ketchen, D.; Hair, J.; Hult, G.; Calantone, R.
Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209.
[CrossRef]
70. Hair, J.; Risher, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24.
[CrossRef]
71. Hair, J.; Hult, G.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications:
London, UK, 2016; ISBN 1452217440.
72. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. Int. Mark. Rev.
2016, 33, 405–431. [CrossRef]
73. Henseler, J. Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 1–8. [CrossRef]
74. Dijkstra, T.; Henseler, J. Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Comput. Stat. Data
Anal. 2015, 81, 10–23. [CrossRef]
75. Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M.; Straub, D. Editor’s comments: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly”. MIS Q. 2012,
36, iii–xiv. [CrossRef]
76. Falk, R.; Miller, N. A Primer for Soft Modeling; University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992; ISBN 0962262846.
77. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun.
Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4. [CrossRef]
78. Hair, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur. Bus. Rev.
2014, 26, 106–121. [CrossRef]
79. Hair, J.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and
higher acceptance. Long Range Plann. 2013, 46, 1–12. [CrossRef]
80. Bazelais, P.; Doleck, T.; Lemay, D. Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use
online learning technologies. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 93–111. [CrossRef]
81. Unal, E.; Uzun, A. Understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use Edmodo through the lens of an extended
technology acceptance model. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 619–637. [CrossRef]
82. Arvanitis, T.; Williams, D.; Knight, J.; Baber, C.; Gargalakos, M.; Sotiriou, S.; Bogner, F. A human factors study of technology
acceptance of a prototype mobile augmented reality system for science education. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2011, 4, 3342–3352. [CrossRef]