Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agent toolkit satisfaction and use in higher education

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

THIS PAPER presents results from a recent research investigation on the satisfaction and use of intelligent agent toolkits by instructors in higher education. An adaptation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) linking agent toolkit satisfaction and usage to key characteristics of user considerations, performance, and functionality serves as the study’s theoretical framework.

Data collection consists of the completion of an online questionnaire by 87 international instructors of agent-related courses. Results indicate that no single uniform toolkit satisfies the needs of instructors. Moreover, findings suggest that satisfaction levels are influenced primarily by user interactions with the toolkit, followed to a lesser extent by toolkit performance and functionality. This has a bearing on the utility of agent toolkits in the classroom as results point to a strong relationship between instructor satisfaction and the continuation of use of agent toolkits in future agent-related courses. Characteristics of an ideal agent toolkit for the classroom are also identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AgentBuilder. (2000). “What is AgentBuilder?” San Diego, CA: Reticular Systems. [Online]. Available: http://www.agentbuilder.com/Documentation/product.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Gahtani, S., & King, M. (1999). Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: Factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology.Behavoiur & Information Technology, 18(4), 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellifemine, F., Poggi, A., Rimassa, G., & Turci, P. (2000). An Object-oriented framework to realize agent systems.Proceedings of WOA 2000 Workshop (pp. 52–57).

  • Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web.Scientific American, 284(5), 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau, P.Y.K., & Hu, P.J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 191–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., Gillenson, M., & Sherrell, D. (2002). Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective.Information & Management, 39(8), 705–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis F. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis F. (1989). Received usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology.MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiter, T., & Mascardi, V. (2001). Comparing environments for developing software agents.INFSYS Research Report (1843-01-02). Knowledge-Based Systems Group.

  • Holder, L.B., & Cook, D.J. (2001). A client-server computational tool for integrated artificial intelligence curriculum.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(2), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, R.P., Buck T., Waterson, P.E., & Clegg, C.W. (2001). Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model.Journal of Information Technology, 16(4), 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howden, N., Ronnquist, R., Hodgson, A., & Lucas, A., (2001). JACK intelligent agents — summary of an agent infrastructure.Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2nd International Workshop on Infrastructure for Agents, MAS and Scalable MAAS. Montreal, Canada.

  • Jennings, N., Sycara, K., & Wooldridge, M. (1998). A roadmap of agent research and development.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1(1), 275–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N.R., & Wooldridge, M.J. (1998).Agent Technology Foundations, Applications, and Markets. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, M., Griffiths, N., & d’Inverno, M. (1997). From agent theory to agent construction: A case study.Proceedings of the ECAI’96 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: Intelligent Agents III.

  • Maes, P. (1999). Smart commerce: The future of intelligent agents in cyberspace.Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(3), 66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload.Communications of the ACM, 37(7). 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes, P., Guttman, R., & Moukas, A. (1999). Agents that buy and sell: Transforming commerce as we know it.Communications of the ACM, 42(3), 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Port, O. (2002, March 4). The next web.Business Week. pp. 96–102.

  • Rahman, S.M., Bignall, R.J. (Eds.). (2001).Internet commerce and software agents. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoepke, S.H. (1999, July 3,). Facilitating the deployment of intelligent agents in the application development mainstream.AgentLink Newsletter N3, pp. 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., & Detlor, B. (2002). Agent toolkits: A general overview of the market and an assessment of instructor satisfaction with utilizing toolkits in the classroom (Working Paper 455). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, Y. (1997). An overview of agent-oriented programming. In J.M. Bradshaw (Ed.),Software Agents (pp. 271–90). Menlo Park, CA.: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1998, July). What’s an AI toolkit for? Proceedings of AAAI-98Workshop on Software Tools for Developing Agents. B. Logan. J. Baxter, (Eds.). Madison.

  • Sun Microsystems, Inc., (2000). Java dynamic management kit. (White Paper). [Online]. Available: http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/nep/whitepapers/JDMK4_april00.pdf [2002, August].

  • Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., & Harland, J. (2001). Simplifying the development of intelligent agents.Proceedings of AI2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 14th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 557–568). LNAI 2256, Adelaide, Australia.

  • Wooldridge, M., & Ciancarini, P. (2001). Agent-oriented software engineering: The state of the art. In P. Ciancarini & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. (1998). Pitfalls of agent-oriented development.Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 98) (pp. 385–391). Minneapolis, MI.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Brian Detlor

    Present address: Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Alexander Serenko

Authors
  1. Alexander Serenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Detlor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Serenko.

Additional information

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Alexander Serenko is a PhD candidate at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University. He holds a MSc in Computer Science and an MBA in eBusiness. His research interests include intelligent agents and knowledge management. Alexander Serenko is the Director of the Doctoral Consortium for the World Congress on the Management of Electronic Business, Intellectual Capital and Innovation at McMaster University.

Brian Detlor is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University. Dr. Detlor specializes in intelligent agents, electronic business, and Web information systems design. His research interests include the application of intelligent agents in electronic shopping environments, electronic government, the personalization of Web page designs, Web information seeking, and knowledge management. Dr. Detlor teaches courses in information retrieval, intelligent agents, and eBusiness at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. He is currently writing a monograph entitledKnowledge Portals and the Digital Worker: From Human Issues to Intelligent Agents to be published by Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Serenko, A., Detlor, B. Agent toolkit satisfaction and use in higher education. J. Comput. High. Educ. 15, 65–88 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940853

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940853

Keywords

Search

Navigation