Students’ perception of academic databases as recognition of learning and research during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Consistent with their goal of becoming a centre for educational excellence in teaching, learning and research, the authorities of Chinese higher education introduced their academic database system as one of their e-library services. However, the existing literature exhibits inadequate empirical measurements of academic databases in all aspects of higher education throughout the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this gap, this study aims to validate the technology satisfaction model (TSM) for measuring students’ satisfaction in using academic databases for their learning and research purposes. This study also analysed local and international academic databases to explore whether these databases could play a moderating role in shaping learners’ satisfaction. The data were collected through a survey of 500 respondents studying at a research university in Shanghai. The results, which were analysed by structural equation modelling and the Rasch model, showed that students’ satisfaction is determined by three valid predictors: computer self-efficacy, perceived usefulness and ease of use, and causal direct and indirect relationships among these variables in the use of local and international academic databases. Our new findings on the moderating effect of local (i.e. Chinese) and international (e.g. English) academic databases highlighted that the TSM has successfully estimated dual databases and produced insignificant, dissimilar results. This study could aid local and international educators, researchers, information science professionals and others in measuring the perception of academic databases for learning and research. This research could also serve as a guideline for researchers and psychometricians in measuring innovative learning technologies using structural equation modelling and the Rasch model. This is the unique contribution of this study, which concludes that local and international academic databases are almost equally important for postgraduate students at a research university in China. Moreover, these students are satisfied in using these academic databases to learn and do research.

Keywords

Academic databases higher education Rasch model structural equation modelling technology satisfaction model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mehta

Wang

. COVID-19 and digital library services – a case study of a university’s library. Digit Libr Perspect 2020; 36(4): 351–363.

Audunson

Shuva

. Digital library education in Europe. SAGE Open 2016; 6(1): 1–17.

Khan

Bhatti

. Digital competencies for developing and managing digital libraries: an investigation from university librarians in Pakistan. Electron Libr 2017; 35(3): 573–597.

Cox

. Space and embodiment in informal learning. High Educ 2018; 75(6): 1077–1090.

Ojennus

Watts

. User preferences and library space at Whitworth University Library. J Librariansh Inf Sci 2017; 49(3): 320–334.

Koprivica

Grabovac

. Search of online data base and information retrieval: one year experience in work of the library of clinical centre university in Sarajevo. Acta Inform Med 2010; 18(2): 100–108.

Dukić

. Online databases as research support and the role of librarians in their promotion: the case of Croatia. Libr Collect Acquis Tech Serv 2013; 37(1–2): 56–65.

Islam

AYM

. Online database adoption and satisfaction model. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011.

Long

Guo

. A survey on the self-built online database in 985 universities. Res Libr Sci 2010; 18: 27–31.

10.

East China Normal University Library Annual Report. Library annual report, 2019. https://zixun-lib.ecnu.edu.cn/about/zixunfabu/nianbao2019/mobile/index.html#p=1

11.

Liu

Wang

Koehler

. Exploring the intention-behavior gap in the technology acceptance model: a mixed-methods study in the context of foreign-language teaching in China. Br J Educ Technol 2019; 50(5): 2536–2556.

12.

Islam

AYMA

. Validation of the technology satisfaction model (TSM) developed in higher education. Int J Technol Hum Interact 2014; 10(3): 44–57.

13.

Davis

Bagozzi

Warshaw

. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 1989; 35(8): 982–1003.

14.

Unal

Uzun

. Understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use Edmodo through the lens of an extended technology acceptance model. Br J Educ Technol 2021; 52(2): 619–637.

15.

Ursavaş

Yalçın

Bakır

. The effect of subjective norms on preservice and in-service teachers’ behavioural intentions to use technology: a multigroup multimodel study. Br J Educ Technol 2019; 50(5): 2501–2519.

16.

Martín-García

Martínez-Abad

Reyes-González

. TAM and stages of adoption of blended learning in higher education by application of data mining techniques. Br J Educ Technol 2019; 50(5): 2484–2500.

17.

Yalcin

Kutlu

. Examination of students’ acceptance of and intention to use learning management systems using extended TAM. Br J Educ Technol 2019; 50(5): 2414–2432.

18.

Islam

AYMA

Mok

Qian

et al. Factors influencing students’ satisfaction in using wireless internet in higher education: cross-validation of TSM. Electron Libr 2018; 36(1): 2–20.

19.

Bandura

. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.

20.

Islam

AYMA

Leng

Singh

Efficacy of the technology satisfaction model (TSM). Int J Technol Hum Interact 2015; 11(2): 45–60.

21.

Jiang

Islam

AYMA

et al. Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a regional comparison between eastern and western Chinese universities. Educ Inform Technol 2021; 26(6): 6747–6769.

22.

Islam

AYMA

Crook

et al. Assessment of ICT in tertiary education applying structural equation modeling and Rasch model. SAGE Open 2020; 10(4): 1–17.

23.

Islam

AYMA

Sheikh

. A study of the determinants of postgraduate students’ satisfaction in using online research databases. J Inform Sci 2020; 46(2): 273–287.

24.

Rafi

Islam

AYMA

Ahmad

et al. Digital resources integration and performance evaluation under the knowledge management model in the academic libraries. Libri 2022; 72(2): 123–140.

25.

Demir

. Scholarly databases under scrutiny. J Librariansh Inf Sci 2020; 52(1): 150–160.

26.

Rafi

Ming

Ahmad

. Evaluating the impact of digital library database resources on the productivity of academic research. Inf Discov Deliv 2019; 47(1): 42–52.

27.

Rafi

Ahmad

Naeem

et al. Knowledge-based society and emerging disciplines: a correlation of academic performance. Bottom Line 2020; 33(4): 337–358.

28.

Machimbidza

Mutula

. Investigating disciplinary differences in the use of electronic journals by academics in Zimbabwean state universities. J Acad Librariansh 2020; 46(2): 1–10.

29.

Bandura

. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977; 84(2): 191–215.

30.

Chen

. Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating role of learning engagement. Comput Human Behav 2017; 72: 362–370.

31.

Nagy

. Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn 2018; 19(1): 160–185.

32.

Lee

Hsiao

Purnomo

. An empirical examination of individual and system characteristics on enhancing e-learning acceptance. Australas J Educ Technol 2014; 30(5): 562–579.

33.

Islam

AYMA

Spector

. Unpacking mobile learning in higher vocational education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Mob Commun 2022; 20(2): 129–149.

34.

Bin

Islam

AYMA

et al. A study of Chinese technical and vocational college teachers’ adoption and gratification in new technologies. Br J Educ Technol 2020; 51(6): 2359–2375.

35.

Islam

AYMA

Mok

MMC

et al. ICT in higher education: an exploration of practices in Malaysian universities. IEEE Access 2019; 7(1): 16892–16908.

36.

Chen

Islam

AYMA

et al. Technology-enhanced learning and research using databases in higher education: the application of the ODAS model. Educ Psychol 2020; 40(9): 1056–1075.

37.

Islam

AYMA

. Factors engaging college students in online learning: an investigation of learning stickiness. SAGE Open 2021; 11(4): 1–15.

38.

Islam

AYMA

Ahmad

Rafi

et al. Performance-based evaluation of academic libraries in the big data era. J Inf Sci 2021; 47(4): 458–471.

39.

Kemp

Palmer

Strelan

. A taxonomy of factors affecting attitudes towards educational technologies for use with technology acceptance models. Br J Educ Technol 2019; 50(5): 2394–2413.

40.

Lakhal

Khechine

. Technological factors of students’ persistence in online courses in higher education: the moderating role of gender, age and prior online course experience. Educ Inf Technol 2021; 26(3): 3347–3373.

41.

Shen

Islam

AYMA

et al. Modeling Chinese teachers’ behavioral intention to use recording studios in primary schools. Interact Learn Environ. Epub ahead of print 21 July 2021. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1955713.

42.

Al-Emran

Mezhuyev

Kamaludin

. Is M-learning acceptance influenced by knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing in developing countries? Educ Inf Technol 2021; 26(3): 2585–2606.

43.

Nistor

Stanciu

Lerche

et al. I am fine with any technology, as long as it doesn’t make trouble, so that I can concentrate on my study: a case study of university students’ attitude strength related to educational technology acceptance. Br J Educ Technol 2019; 50(5): 2557–2571.

44.

Ifedayo

Ziden

Ismail

. Mediating effect of behavioural intention on podcast acceptance. Educ Inf Technol 2021; 26(3): 2767–2794.

45.

Kaewsaiha

Chanchalor

. Factors affecting the usage of learning management systems in higher education. Educ Inf Technol 2021; 26(3): 2919–2939.

46.

Hair

Black

Babin

et al. Multivariate data analysis a global perception. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education, 2010.

47.

Bentler

. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 1999; 6(1): 1–55.

48.

Bond

Fox

. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015.

49.

Byrne

. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.

50.

Fornell

Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981; 48: 39–50.

51.

Sobel

. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol Methodol 1982; 13: 290–312.