The value proposition of mobile technology for education is expected to grow as forecasts speak of mobile internet users exceeding desktop internet users by 2014. A key concern for higher education administrators will be how to implement a mobile website that attracts and retains students in its use. To answer this question, a scenario-based study of 288 USA college students was conducted involving two wireframes of a mobile website design varying only in its degree of interactivity. A PLS-based data analysis offered support for the positive effects of interactivity on the perceived usefulness, ease of use, and enjoyment of the university’s mobile website, which in turn positively influenced their intention to use it. The measurement model offered high explanatory power (47% of the variance in the behavioral intention to use the university’s mobile website was explained by its three antecedents). Implications for both theory and practice are also discussed.
AnckarBCarlssonCWaldenP (2003) Factors affecting consumer adoption decisions and intents in mobile commerce: Empirical insights. Proceedings of the 2003 16th BLED. Slovenia: AIS, 886–902.
2.
BaeJRyuSLeeJY. (2006) Implementation of next generation mobile service: The context-aware follow-me service. Lecture Notes in Computer Science3992: 1033–1036.
3.
BretzRSchmidbauerM (1983) Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
4.
BurgoonJKBonitoAJBengtssonB. (2000) Interactivity in human–computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior16(6): 553–574.
5.
ChenKYenDC (2004) Improving the quality of online presence through interactivity. Information and Management42(1): 217–226.
6.
ChildersTCarrCPeckJ. (2001) Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping. Journal of Retailing77(4): 511–535.
7.
ChinWWGopalA (1995) Adoption intention in GSS: Importance of beliefs. Data Base Advance26(2 and 3): 42–64.
8.
ChouC (2003) Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology34(3): 265–279.
9.
ChouCPengHChangCY (2010) The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: Students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers and Education55(3):1–14.
10.
CorlettDSharplesMChanT. (2004) A mobile learning organizer for university students. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on wireless and mobile Technologies in Education. Taiwan, China: IEEE Computer Society, pp.35–42.
11.
CoursarisCKKimD (2007) A research agenda for mobile usability. In: Proceedings of CHI ’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, April 28–May 3.
12.
CoursarisCKKimD (2011) A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. Journal of Usability Studies6(3): 117–171.
13.
CoursarisCKKripintirisK (2012) Web aesthetics and usability: An empirical study of the effects of white space. International Journal of e-Business Research8(1): 35–53.
14.
CoursarisCKHassaneinKHeadM. (2007) The impact of distractions on the usability and adoption of mobile devices for wireless data services. In: Proceedings of the European conference on information systems, HCI track, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 7–9 June.
15.
CoursarisCKHassaneinKHeadM. (2012) The impact of distractions on the usability and intention to use mobile devices. Computers in Human Behavior. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.006.
16.
CoursarisCKSwierengaSJWatrallE (2008) An empirical investigation of color temperature and gender effects on web aesthetics. Journal of Usability Studies3(3): 103–117.
17.
CrossRSmithJ (1996) Consumer-focused strategies and tactics. In: ForrestEMizerskiR (eds) Interactive Marketing: The Future Present. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books, pp.5–27.
18.
CyrDHeadM (2008) Hedonic and utilitarian outcomes of website presence: The impacts of framing and time constraints. In: Proceedings for the seventh pre-ICIS HCI research in MIS workshop, Paris.
19.
CyrDHeadMIvanovA (2006) Design aesthetics leading to M-loyalty in mobile commerce. Information and Management43(8): 950–963.
20.
CyrDHassaneinKHeadM. (2007) The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interacting with Computers19(1): 43–56.
21.
CyrDHeadMIvanovA (2009) Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: Development of a model for cognitive-affective user responses. International Journal of Human Computer Studies67: 850–869.
22.
DavisF (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–339.
DixARoddenTDaviesN. (2000) Exploting space and location as a design framework for interactive mobile systems. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction7(3): 285–321.
25.
DownesEJMcMillanSJ (2000) Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society2(2): 157–179.
26.
EbnerMSchiefnerM (2008) Microblogging – more than fun? In:Proceedings of IADIS mobile learning conference. Portugal, pp.155–159.
27.
FalkRMillerN (1992) A Primer for Soft Modeling. Akron, OH: The University of Akron Press.
28.
FornellCLarckerD (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
29.
GaoQRauPLPSalvendyG (2010) Measuring perceived interactivity of mobile advertisements. Behavior and Information Technology29(1): 35–44.
30.
GefenDStraubD (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the AIS16: 91–109.
31.
GefenDStraubDWBoudreauMC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems4(7): 2–77.
32.
GhoseSDouW (1998) Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of Internet presence sites. Journal of Advertising Research38: 29–43.
33.
GogginGSpurgeonC (2007) Premium rate culture: The new business of mobile interactivity. New Media and Society9(5): 753–770.
34.
GonzalesALFinleyTDuncanSP (2009) Perceived interactivity: Does interactivity increase enjoyment and creative identity in artistic spaces? In: Proceedings of CHI 2009. Boston, MA, pp.415–418.
35.
HaLJamesEL (1998) Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media42(4): 457–470.
36.
HäublGTriftsV (2000) Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science19(1): 4–21.
37.
HoffmanDLNovakTP (1996) Marketing in hypermedia computer mediated environment: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing60(3): 50–68.
38.
HuangZCappelJJ (2005) Assessment of a web-based learning game in an information systems course. Journal of Computer Information Systems45(4): 42–50.
39.
JiangZBenbasatI (2007) Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research18(2): 1–16.
40.
JohnsonGJBrunerGCKumarA (2006) Interactivity and its facets revisited: Theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising35(4): 35–52.
41.
JordanP (2000) Designing Pleasurable Products. London: Taylor and Francis.
42.
KeilMBeranekPMKonsynskiBR (1995) Usefulness and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decision Support Systems13(1): 75–91.
43.
KimJMoonJY (1998) Designing emotional usability in customer interfaces – Trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interacting with Computers10: 1–29.
44.
KimHChanHCChanYP (2007) A balanced thinking-feelings model of information systems continuance. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies65: 511–525.
45.
KimKHParkJYKimDY. (2002) E-Lifestyle and motives to use online games. Irish Marketing Review15(2): 71–77.
46.
KiousisS (2002) Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media and Society4(3): 355–383.
47.
KirshD (1997) Interactivity and multimedia interface. Instructional Science25: 79–96.
48.
KlopferESquireKJenkinsH (2002) Environmental detectives PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. In: International workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education. (Conference at Växjö, Sweden, 29–30 August 2002.
49.
KoufarisM (2002) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research13(2): 205–223.
50.
LarssonAO (2011) Interactive to me – interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites. New Media and Society1–18.
51.
LeeT (2005) The impact of perceptions of interactivity on customer trust and transaction intentions in mobile commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research6(3): 165–180.
52.
LiDChauPYKLouH (2005) Understanding individual adoption of instant messaging: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems6(4): 102–129.
53.
LiuY (2003) Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research43(6): 207–216.
54.
LiuYShrumLJ (2002) What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising31(4): 53–64.
55.
MaciasW (2003) A beginning look at the effects of interactivity, product involvement and web experience on comprehension: Brand web sites as interactive advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising25(2): 31–44.
56.
McMillanSJ (2002) A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media and Society4(2): 271–291.
57.
McMillanSJHwangJS (2002) Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising31(3): 41–54.
58.
McNamaraNKirakowskiJ (2005) Defining usability: Quality of use or quality of experience?Proceedings of IPCC2005: 200–204.
59.
MahlkeS (2007) Usability, aethetics, emotions and the user experience. Hot Topics6(2).
60.
MalhotraYGallettaF (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In: Proceedings of the 32th ICSS, Maui, Hawaii, 5–8 January.
NaismithLLonsdalePVavoulaG. (2004) Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Futurelab Series, Report 11.
65.
QuiringO (2009) What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media and Society11(6): 899–920.
66.
RiceR (1984) New media technology: Growth and integration. In: RiceR and Associates (ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research and Technology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
67.
RichardR (2006) Users, interactivity and generation. New Media and Society8(4): 531–550.
68.
SchafferLCHannafinMJ (1986) The effects of progressive interactivity on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication and Technology34: 89–96.
69.
ShinDHHwangYSChooHS (2011) Smart TV: Are they really smart in interacting with people? Understanding the interactivity of Korean Smart TV. Behaviour & Information Technology1–17.
70.
SmithSDSalawayGCarusoJB (2009) The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
71.
SohnD (2011) Anatomy of interaction experience: Distinguishing sensory, semantic, and behavior dimensions of interactivity. New Media & Society13(8): 1320–1355.
72.
SteinfieldC (2003) The development of location based services in mobile commerce. Michigan State University Report. Available at: http://www.msu.edu/~steinfie/elifelbschap.pdf (accessed 15 March, 2010).
SunHZhangP (2006) The role of affect in IS research: A critical survey and a research model. In: ZhangPGallettaD (eds) Human–Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems-Foundations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc, p.1.
75.
SzuprowiczBO (1996) Interactive Communications: New Technologies and Future Directions. Charleston, SC: Computer Technology Research Corp.
76.
TeoHHOhLBLiuC. (2003) An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human Computer Studies58: 281–305.
77.
ThongJYLHongSJTamKY (2006) The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies64: 799–810.
78.
TractinskyN (2004) Toward the study of aesthetics in information technology. In: Proceedings for the twenty-fifth international conference on information systems, El Paso Texas, 12–15 December 2004, 771–780.
79.
TremayneM (2008) Manipulating interactivity with thematically hyperlinked news texts: A media learning experiment. New Media and Society10(5): 703–727.
80.
WilliamsFRiceRERogersEM (1988) Research Methods and the New Media. New York: The Free Press.
81.
WuG (2000) The role of perceived interactivity in interactive ad processing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, TX.
82.
WuJLiuD (2007) The effects of trust and enjoyment on intention to play online games. Journal of electronic commerce research8(2): 128–140.
83.
YangS (2008) Role of perceived interactivity in intended loyalty for mobile cell-phone. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
84.
ZengQLiX (2006) Factors influencing interactivity of Internet newspapers: A content analysis of 106 USA newspapers’ web sites. In: LiX (ed.) Internet Newspaper: The Making of a Mainstream Medium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.139–158.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
