Research into the E-Learning Model of Agriculture Technology Companies: Analysis by Deep Learning
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. E-Learning
2.2. Augmented Reality
2.3. Deep Learning
2.3.1. Agricultural Trading and Personal Finance Consultation
2.3.2. Identification
2.3.3. Smart Customer Service
2.3.4. Regulation Technology (RegTech)
2.3.5. Precision Marketing
2.4. Information System Success Model
- Information quality: the output quality, including completeness, correctness, clarity, negotiability, intelligibility, reliability, utility, compactness, reliability, objectivity, immediacy, and novelty.
- System quality: information system quality, including easy operability, acquirability, functional usefulness, correctness, integration and flexibility, and efficiency.
- Service quality: the ability of suppliers of an information system to adjust services, support systems, etc.
- Intention of use: the intensity of the user’s initiative in using the information system, i.e., the individual’s subjective willingness.
- User satisfaction: the user’s degree of satisfaction, this is a general index including soft/hardware, the system interface and satisfaction with policy decisions.
- Net benefit: the benefit that the information system may bring, including invisible and visible benefits. The same information system may present different benefits to different organizations.
2.5. Expectation Confirmation Theory (ECT)
2.6. Theory of Communicative Action
- Rightness claim: The speaker’s content conforms to common specifications.
- Truth claim: The facts of the statement are acceptable to the listener.
- Truthfulness claim: The speaker is very sincere in obtaining the trust of the listener.
- Comprehensibility claim: The content of the speaker conforms to grammar.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Framework
3.2. Study Object and Questionnaire Design
- People working in agriculture-related business and related scholars and students.
- People working in information and communication-related businesses and related scholars and students.
- People working in fields not covered by the above and related scholars and students.
3.3. Study Analysis Method
4. Study Results and Discussion
4.1. Basic Information Analysis
4.2. Measurement Model Analysis
4.3. Structure Model Analysis and Qualification
- In the information systems success model, information quality, system quality and service quality positively affected intention of use and user satisfaction. The assumptions of H1–H6 were established. System quality most strongly affected intention of use (p < 0.001), followed by user satisfaction (p < 0.001).
- In the expectation–confirmation model, perceived performance had a positive effect on confirmation, and confirmation also had a positive effect on user satisfaction. Thus, both H9 and H10 were established.
- In the communicative action model, intention of use, user satisfaction and communication behavior positively affected use of the system, and thus assumptions H13, H14 and H16 were all established, certifying the reliability and validity of the measurement questionnaire and the suitability of adopting the PLS statistics software for the examination of the measurement model. This examination included internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminate validity.
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Study Contribution
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lin, F.C.; Chung, L.K.; Zhou, T.Y. With Cloud Technology to explore Data Vascular Experiences. Electr. Eng. Q. 2014, 2, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
- Motiwalla, L.F. Mobile Learning: A Framework and Evaluation. Comput. Educ. 2007, 49, 581–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehner, F.; Nösekabel, H. The Role of Mobile Devices in E-Learning—First Experiences with a Wireless E-Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Tokushima, Japan, 30 August 2002; pp. 103–106. [Google Scholar]
- Park, Y. A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four Types. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2011, 12, 78–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakefield, J.S.; Warren, S.J.; Alsobrook, M. Learning and Teaching as Communicative Actions: A Mixed-Methods Twitter Study. Knowl. Manag. E-Learn. Int. J. 2011, 36, 563–584. [Google Scholar]
- Azuma, R.T. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milgram, P.; Takemura, H.; Utsumi, A.; Kishino, F. Augmented Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Proc. SPIE 1994, 2351, 282–292. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, G.; Murray, D. Parallel Tracking and Mapping on a Camera Phone. In Proceedings of the 2009 Science and Technology Proceedings, IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Orlando, FL, USA, 19–22 October 2009; Volume 19, pp. 83–86. [Google Scholar]
- Maimone, A.; Georgiou, A.; Kollin, J.S. Holographic Near-Eye Displays for Virtual and Augmented Reality. ACM Trans. Graph. 2017, 36, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.J.; Yang, N.X.; Chiu, S.Y. Primary School Mentor Principal Experience Inheritance Information Network Set Up Study. Educ. Study Mon. 2013, 228, 48–56. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, L.N. Machine Learning, Deep Learning and Network Security Technology. China Inf. Secur. 2016, 5, 94–112. [Google Scholar]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information Systems success: The quest for the development variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitt, L.F.; Watson, R.T.; Kavan, C.B. Service Quality A Measure of Information System Effectiveness. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, R.L. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 464–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, H.C. From Habermas’s Communicative Action Theory to explore the assessment system of textbooks in our country. Natl. Acad. Educ. 2001, 13, 148–150. [Google Scholar]
- Nah, S.; Chung, D.S. Communicative Action and Citizen Journalism: A Case Study of OhmyNews in South Korea. Int. J. Commun. 2016, 10, 2297–2317. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variable and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulland, J. Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacca, J.; Baldiris, S.; Fabregat, R.; Graf, S.; Kinshuk. Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 133–149. [Google Scholar]
- Radu, I. Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2014, 18, 1533–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Basic Data Items. | Category | Number of People | Percentage | Accumulated Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 261 | 56% | 56% |
Female | 202 | 44% | 100% | |
Business | Network business | 38 | 8.21% | 8.21% |
Telecommunications business | 41 | 8.86% | 17.06% | |
Electronic spareparts | 49 | 10.58% | 27.65% | |
Electronic engineering department | 50 | 10.80% | 38.44% | |
Banking business | 41 | 8.86% | 47.30% | |
Insurance business | 43 | 9.29% | 56.59% | |
Investment credit business | 38 | 8.21% | 64.79% | |
Agricultural department | 55 | 11.88% | 76.67% | |
Restaurant tourism business | 20 | 4.32% | 80.99% | |
Mechanical car and motorbike business | 35 | 7.56% | 88.55% | |
Military, government and teaching business | 40 | 8.64% | 97.19% | |
Others | 13 | 2.81% | 100% | |
Age | 20–25 | 105 | 22.68% | 22.68% |
25-30 | 92 | 19.87% | 42.55% | |
30-35 | 99 | 21.38% | 63.93% | |
40+ | 167 | 36.07% | 100% | |
Frequency | Nearly daily | 18 | 3.89% | 3.89% |
Once in three days | 55 | 11.88% | 15.77% | |
Once a week | 149 | 32.18% | 47.95% | |
Once a month | 89 | 19.22% | 67.17% | |
Almost never | 152 | 32.83% | 100% | |
Experience | Less than 5 classes (inclusive) | 369 | 79.70% | 79.70% |
6–10 classes | 78 | 16.85% | 96.54% | |
11–20 classes | 12 | 2.59% | 99.14% | |
21 classes and over | 4 | 0.86% | 100% | |
Degree of satisfaction | Very unsatisfied | 6 | 1.30% | 1.30% |
Unsatisfied | 14 | 3.02% | 4.32% | |
Satisfied | 299 | 64.58% | 68.90% | |
Very satisfied | 131 | 28.29% | 97.19% | |
Extremely satisfied | 13 | 2.81% | 100% |
AVE | CR Value | R Square | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Information Quality | 0.841 | 0.941 | 0.000 | 0.905 |
System Quality | 0.724 | 0.887 | 0.000 | 0.809 |
Service Quality | 0.727 | 0.889 | 0.000 | 0.811 |
Intention of Use | 0.677 | 0.913 | 0.728 | 0.880 |
User Satisfaction | 0.642 | 0.900 | 0.632 | 0.860 |
Expectation | 0.649 | 0.902 | 0.000 | 0.864 |
Perceived Performance | 0.685 | 0.915 | 0.000 | 0.884 |
Confirmation | 0.699 | 0.903 | 0.588 | 0.856 |
Strategic Action | 0.696 | 0.901 | 0.000 | 0.854 |
Communication Behavior | 0.666 | 0.888 | 0.000 | 0.831 |
Use of The System | 0.722 | 0.886 | 0.647 | 0.808 |
Sense of Previous Use | 0.656 | 0.905 | 0.536 | 0.869 |
Average | Standard Difference | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Information Quality (1) | 3.622 | 0.575 | 0.917 | |||||||||||
System Quality (2) | 3.538 | 0.596 | 0.673 ** | 0.851 | ||||||||||
Service Quality (3) | 3.509 | 0.669 | 0.521 ** | 0.565 ** | 0.853 | |||||||||
Intention of Use (4) | 3.442 | 0.633 | 0.572 ** | 0.577 ** | 0.524 ** | 0.823 | ||||||||
User Satisfaction (5) | 3.421 | 0.68 | 0.446 ** | 0.439 ** | 0.497 ** | 0.597 ** | 0.801 | |||||||
Expectation (6) | 3.348 | 0.706 | 0.440 ** | 0.507 ** | 0.464 ** | 0.551 ** | 0.597 ** | 0.806 | ||||||
Perceived Performance (7) | 3.557 | 0.612 | 0.553 ** | 0.524 ** | 0.479 ** | 0.595 ** | 0.478 | 0.479 ** | 0.828 | |||||
Confirmation (8) | 3.642 | 0.621 | 0.616 ** | 0.594 ** | 0.517 ** | 0.584 ** | 0.481 | 0.469 ** | 0.664 ** | 0.836 | ||||
Strategic Action (9) | 3.541 | 0.591 | 0.591 ** | 0.617 ** | 0.490 ** | 0.517 ** | 0.46 | 0.508 ** | 0.561 | 0.656 ** | 0.834 | |||
Communication Behavior (10) | 3.438 | 0.612 | 0.542 ** | 0.563 ** | 0.520 ** | 0.583 ** | 0.582 | 0.606 ** | 0.555 | 0.630 ** | 0.703 ** | 0.816 | ||
Use of The System (11) | 3.561 | 0.6 | 0.640 ** | 0.647 ** | 0.522 ** | 0.544 ** | 0.523 | 0.482 ** | 0.584 | 0.617 ** | 0.663 | 0.653 ** | 0.850 | |
Sense of Previous Use (12) | 3.474 | 0.605 | 0.591 ** | 0.604 ** | 0.485 ** | 0.509 ** | 0.52 | 0.557 ** | 0.554 | 0.603 ** | 0.667 | 0.667 ** | 0.720 ** | 0.810 |
Assumption | Relation | Path Coefficient | T Value | Significance | Verification Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1: Information Quality → Intention of Use | + | 0.259 | 3.953 | *** | Valid |
H2: Information Quality → User Satisfaction | + | 0.263 | 6.521 | *** | Valid |
H3: System Quality → Intention of Use | + | 0.302 | 7.209 | *** | Valid |
H4: System Quality → User Satisfaction | + | 0.295 | 6.752 | *** | Valid |
H5: Service Quality → Intention of Use | + | 0.255 | 2.717 | *** | Valid |
H6: Service Quality → User Satisfaction | + | 0.264 | 2.689 | ** | Valid |
H7: Intention of Use → User Satisfaction | + | 0.257 | 1.113 | --- | Invalid |
H8: Expectation → Confirmation | + | 0.262 | 1.433 | --- | Invalid |
H9: Perceived Performance → Confirmation | + | 0.279 | 1.679 | * | Valid |
H10: Confirmation → User Satisfaction | + | 0.266 | 1.704 | * | Valid |
H11: Confirmation → Sense of Previous Use | + | 0.238 | 0.968 | --- | Invalid |
H12: Sense of Previous Use → User Satisfaction | + | 0.262 | 1.063 | --- | Invalid |
H13: User Satisfaction → Use of the System | + | 0.281 | 7.968 | *** | Valid |
H14: Intention of Use → Use of the System | + | 0.277 | 1.875 | * | Valid |
H15: Sense of Previous Use → Use of the system | + | 0.264 | 0.896 | --- | Invalid |
H16: Communication Behavior → Use of the System | + | 0.234 | 1.934 | ** | Valid |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, C.-H.; Wang, W.-C.; Liu, C.-Y.; Pan, P.-N.; Pan, H.-R. Research into the E-Learning Model of Agriculture Technology Companies: Analysis by Deep Learning. Agronomy 2019, 9, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020083
Lin C-H, Wang W-C, Liu C-Y, Pan P-N, Pan H-R. Research into the E-Learning Model of Agriculture Technology Companies: Analysis by Deep Learning. Agronomy. 2019; 9(2):83. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020083
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Chi-Hsuan, Wei-Chuan Wang, Chun-Yung Liu, Po-Nien Pan, and Hou-Ru Pan. 2019. "Research into the E-Learning Model of Agriculture Technology Companies: Analysis by Deep Learning" Agronomy 9, no. 2: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020083
APA StyleLin, C. -H., Wang, W. -C., Liu, C. -Y., Pan, P. -N., & Pan, H. -R. (2019). Research into the E-Learning Model of Agriculture Technology Companies: Analysis by Deep Learning. Agronomy, 9(2), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020083