skip to main content
10.1145/3531073.3531129acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open access

Extended UTAUT model to analyze the acceptance of virtual assistant’s recommendations using interactive visualisations

Published: 06 June 2022 Publication History

Abstract

The use of learning objects (LOs) to create digital courses has been widely advocated by learning strategists and by teachers engaged in the e-learning domain. The ability to combine chunks of learning material as to meet complex educational requirements is still a challenge. This paper explores the idea that a learning assistant advises teachers about the e-learning modules to take into account for their courses. An AI-based digital assistant can provide significant opportunities, but might be perceived as a threat. The paper presents how teacher could perceive a virtual assistant as more trustworthy when it applies interactive visual strategies. To analyze teachers’ acceptance of the digital assistant, our proposal aims at extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model in order to incorporate three new constructors: Communicability, perceived trust and experience. To this end, 14 teachers have been involved in a user tests.

References

[1]
Mohammed Z Al-Taie and Seifedine Kadry. 2014. Visualization of explanations in recommender systems. Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol 2, 2 (2014), 140–144.
[2]
Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13.
[3]
Mustafa Bilgic and Raymond J Mooney. 2005. Explaining recommendations: Satisfaction vs. promotion. In Beyond personalization workshop, IUI, Vol. 5. 153.
[4]
Robin Burke, Alexander Felfernig, and Mehmet H Göker. 2011. Recommender systems: An overview. Ai Magazine 32, 3 (2011), 13–18.
[5]
Jan K Chorowski, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Dmitriy Serdyuk, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Attention-based models for speech recognition. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015).
[6]
Donald F Cox. 1967. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. (1967).
[7]
Fred D Davis, Richard P Bagozzi, and Paul R Warshaw. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of applied social psychology 22, 14 (1992), 1111–1132.
[8]
Anke JE De Veer, José M Peeters, Anne EM Brabers, Francois G Schellevis, Jany JD JM Rademakers, and Anneke L Francke. 2015. Determinants of the intention to use e-Health by community dwelling older people. BMC health services research 15, 1 (2015), 1–9.
[9]
Zhaohua Deng, Ziying Hong, Cong Ren, Wei Zhang, and Fei Xiang. 2018. What predicts patients’ adoption intention toward mHealth services in China: empirical study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 6, 8 (2018), e172.
[10]
Michelle Deschênes. 2020. Recommender systems to support learners’ Agency in a Learning Context: a systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 17, 1(2020), 1–23.
[11]
Kaili Dou, Ping Yu, Ning Deng, Fang Liu, YingPing Guan, Zhenye Li, Yumeng Ji, Ningkai Du, Xudong Lu, and Huilong Duan. 2017. Patients’ acceptance of smartphone health technology for chronic disease management: a theoretical model and empirical test. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 5, 12 (2017), e7886.
[12]
I. EDUCAUSE. 2021. 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2021/4/2021-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition
[13]
Martin Fishbein. 1979. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications.(1979).
[14]
Rakibul Hoque and Golam Sorwar. 2017. Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT model. International journal of medical informatics 101 (2017), 75–84.
[15]
Marco Hubert, Markus Blut, Christian Brock, Christof Backhaus, and Tim Eberhardt. 2017. Acceptance of smartphone-based mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, customer characteristics, perceived risks, and the impact of application context. Psychology & Marketing 34, 2 (2017), 175–194.
[16]
Daniel A Keim. 2001. Visual exploration of large data sets. Commun. ACM 44, 8 (2001), 38–44.
[17]
Sung S Kim and Naresh K Malhotra. [n.d.]. A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management science 51([n. d.]).
[18]
Anne Kohnke, Matthew L Cole, and Richard Bush. 2014. Incorporating UTAUT predictors for understanding home care patients’ and clinician’s acceptance of healthcare telemedicine equipment. Journal of technology management & innovation 9, 2 (2014), 29–41.
[19]
Chung-Feng Liu, Yung-Chieh Tsai, and Fong-Lin Jang. 2013. Patients’ acceptance towards a web-based personal health record system: an empirical study in Taiwan. International journal of environmental research and public health 10, 10(2013), 5191–5208.
[20]
JC Nunnally. [n.d.]. Psychometric theory 3E: Tata McGraw-hill education.
[21]
Raquel O Prates, Clarisse S De Souza, and Simone DJ Barbosa. 2000. Methods and tools: a method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces. interactions 7, 1 (2000), 31–38.
[22]
Christian Richthammer, Johannes Sänger, and Günther Pernul. 2017. Interactive visualization of recommender systems data. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Security in Highly Connected IT Systems. 19–24.
[23]
Jorge G Ruiz, Michael J Mintzer, and S Barry Issenberg. [n.d.]. Learning objects in medical education. Medical teacher 28, 7 ([n. d.]).
[24]
Ben Shneiderman. 2003. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In The craft of information visualization. Elsevier, 364–371.
[25]
Gilbert W Stewart. 1993. On the early history of the singular value decomposition. SIAM review 35, 4 (1993), 551–566.
[26]
S Shyam Sundar, Saraswathi Bellur, Jeeyun Oh, Haiyan Jia, and Hyang-Sook Kim. 2016. Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research 43, 5 (2016), 595–625.
[27]
Nava Tintarev and Judith Masthoff. 2007. A survey of explanations in recommender systems. In 2007 IEEE 23rd international conference on data engineering workshop. IEEE, 801–810.
[28]
María Cora Urdaneta-Ponte, Amaia Mendez-Zorrilla, and Ibon Oleagordia-Ruiz. 2021. Recommendation systems for education: systematic review. Electronics 10, 14 (2021), 1611.
[29]
Francisco AM Valério, Tatiane G Guimarães, Raquel O Prates, and Heloisa Candello. 2017. Here’s what I can do: Chatbots’ strategies to convey their features to users. In Proceedings of the xvi brazilian symposium on human factors in computing systems. 1–10.
[30]
Manasi Vartak, Silu Huang, Tarique Siddiqui, Samuel Madden, and Aditya Parameswaran. 2017. Towards visualization recommendation systems. Acm Sigmod Record 45, 4 (2017), 34–39.
[31]
Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903(2017).
[32]
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly (2003), 425–478.
[33]
Viswanath Venkatesh, James YL Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly (2012), 157–178.
[34]
Daricia Wilkinson. 2018. Testing a recommender system for self-actualization. In Proceedings of the 12th acm conference on recommender systems. 543–547.
[35]
Yongqing Yang, Yong Liu, Hongxiu Li, and Benhai Yu. 2015. Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment acceptance. Industrial Management & Data Systems(2015).
[36]
Xiaofei Zhang, Xitong Guo, Kee-hung Lai, Feng Guo, and Chenlei Li. 2014. Understanding gender differences in m-health adoption: a modified theory of reasoned action model. Telemedicine and e-Health 20, 1 (2014), 39–46.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
AVI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces
June 2022
414 pages
ISBN:9781450397193
DOI:10.1145/3531073
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 June 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Human Computer Interaction
  2. Interactive Visualization
  3. Recommender System
  4. UTAUT

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

AVI 2022

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 128 of 490 submissions, 26%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 748
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)331
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)37
Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media