Abstract
Previous studies on educational data mining (EDM) acceptance were focused on antecedents that were adopted from various models and theories. However, the ways in which such antecedents became the most important tools for educational improvement have not been researched in detail. This study aims to identify the priority antecedents of EDM acceptance, particularly among undergraduate students since they are the most affected by this technology. Therefore, six antecedents with 11 variables have been formulated based on positive and negative readiness acquired from the technology readiness index (TRI). Meanwhile, cognition, emotion, internal control belief, and external control belief were obtained from the technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3). The Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) was used to identify priority antecedents of EDM acceptance, which was run using the SmartPLS 3.0 software. The findings revealed that perceived usefulness (PU) is the most important antecedent, followed by perceived ease of use (PEOU), and optimism (OPT). This study contributes to the literature by offering new insights on the field of EDM and extending existing knowledge on how cognition, positive readiness, negative readiness, emotion, internal control belief, and external control belief were combined for identifying priority antecedents of EDM acceptance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ali, L., Asadi, M., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., & Hatala, M. (2013). Factors influencing beliefs for adoption of a learning analytics tool: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 62, 130–148.
Arnold, K. E., Tanes, Z., & King, A. S. (2010). Administrative perceptions of data-mining software signals: Promoting student success and retention. The Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 6(2), 29–39.
Asif, R., Merceron, A., Abbas, S., & Ghani, N. (2017). Analyzing undergraduate students' performance using educational data mining. Computers & Education, 113, 177–194.
Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey Research Methods hlm.2nd Edisi. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Baker, R. S. J. d. (2010). Mining Data for Student Models. In R. Nkambou, J. Bourdeau, & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Advances in intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 308, pp. 323–337). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Bousbia, N., & Belamri, I. (2014). Which contribution does EDM provide to computer-based learning environments? In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Educational data mining (Vol. 524, pp. 3–28). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Calders, T., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2012). Introduction to the special section on educational data mining. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 13(2), 3.
Campagni, R., Merlini, D., Sprugnoli, R., & Verri, M. C. (2015). Data mining models for student careers. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(13), 5508–5521.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 1–14.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity : Basic issues in objective scale development the centrality of psychological measurement. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.
Costa, E. B., Fonseca, B., Almeida, M., Ferreira, F., Araújo, D., & Rego, J. (2017). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational data mining techniques for early prediction of students ’ academic failure in introductory programming courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 247–256.
Dahlan N., Ramayah T., & Mei L. L. (2002) Readiness to Adopt Data Mining Technologies: An Exploratory Study of Telecommunication Employees in Malaysia. In D. Karagiannis, U. Reimer (eds), Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management. PAKM 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2569. Heidelberg: Springer.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
García, E., Romero, C., Ventura, S. & de Castro, C. (2011). A collaborative educational association rule mining tool. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 77–88.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014a). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014b). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. (J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, & R. R. Sinkovics, Eds.), Advances in International Marketing, Advances in International Marketing 20(2009), 277–319.
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, 115–135.
Huang, T. C.-K., Liu, C.-C., & Chang, D.-C. (2012). An empirical investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools. International Journal of Information Management, 32(3), 257–270.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.
Jin, C. (2013). The perspective of a revised TRAM on social capital building: The case of Facebook usage. Information & Management, 50(4), 162–168.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling hlm.3rd Edisi. New York: The Guilford Press.
Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.
Martens, M., & Roll, O. (2017). Testing the technology readiness and acceptance model for mobile payments across Germany and South Africa. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 14(6), 1750033.
Motaghian, H., Hassanzadeh, A., & Moghadam, D. K. (2013). Factors affecting university instructors’ adoption of web-based learning systems: Case study of Iran. Computers & Education, 61, 158–167.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.
Park, Y., Yu, J. H., & Jo, I. H. (2016). Clustering blended learning courses by online behavior data case study in a Korean higher education institute. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 1–11.
Peña-Ayala, A. (2014). Educational data mining: A survey and a data mining-based analysis of recent works. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1432–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.08.042.
Pomeroy, W. L. (2014). Academic analytics in higher education: Barriers to adoption. Walden University.
Ranjan, R., Ranjan, J., & Bhatnagar, V. (2013). Critical success factor for implementing data mining in higher education: Indian perspective. International Journal of Computational Systems Engineering, 1(3), 151–161.
Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865–1886.
Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 40(6), 601–618.
Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2013). Data mining in education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3(1), 12–27.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R., & Hair, J. F. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105–115.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business - A Skill Building Approach hlm.5th Edisi. West Sussex: Wiley.
Sukhija, K., Jindal, M. & Aggarwal, N. (2015). The recent state of educational data mining: A survey and future visions. 2015 IEEE 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), hlm.354–359. IEEE.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors in fl uencing teachers ’ intention to use technology : Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Wang, W.-T., & Wang, C.-C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761–774.
Wook, M., Yusof, Z. M., & Nazri, M. Z. A. (2017). Educational data mining acceptance among undergraduate students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 1195–1216.
Zhang, P., Li, N. & Sun, H. (2006). Affective quality and cognitive absorption: Extending technology acceptance research. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, hlm.1–11.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia and the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia for being supporters of this work. We also acknowledge the participation and cooperation received from all undergraduate students in the Klang Valley area.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wook, M., Ismail, S., Yusop, N.M.M. et al. Identifying priority antecedents of educational data mining acceptance using importance-performance matrix analysis. Educ Inf Technol 24, 1741–1752 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09853-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09853-4