Examining the Factors Affecting the Adoption of IoT Platform Services Based on Flipped Learning Model in Higher Education

Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 335)


The current status of the 4th industrial revolution has offered some sophisticated technological tools for higher education institutions. One of these technologies is distance learning based on Internet of Things tools and cloud computing, that make the student the main pillar of learning, through engaging in Flipped Learning Model (FLM). For successful IT integration in higher education, designing a distance-learning training platform is vital. Although research has identified the factors that can directly determine the behavioral intention to use technology, little is known about the effects of these factors on the successful design of a distance-training platform. Therefore, this study examines the effects of these factors in determining the successful design and use of IoT-applications through distance learning platform based on FLM for higher education within the context of Oman technological colleges. This would be implemented by developing a conceptual framework in scope of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and literature review. Data will be collected from employees at these colleges, and analyzed using partial least squares—structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), in addition to the Importance-Performance Map Analysis (IPMA).


Internet of things Cloud computing Flip learning model (FLM) Importance-performance map analysis (IPMA) 


  1. 1.
    Ali, M., et al.: IoTFLiP: IoT-based flipped learning platform for medical education. Digit. Commun. Netw. 3(3), 188–194 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilboy, M.B., Heinerichs, S., Pazzaglia, G.: Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 47(1), 109–114 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abowd, G.D., Tech, G.: Beyond Weiser: from ubiquitous to collective computing. Computer 49(1), 17–23 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel, P., Cassou, D.: Enabling high-level application development for the Internet of Things. J. Syst. Softw. 103, 62–84 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leal, J.R.D.S.: Explaining organizational adoption of technology: the case of cloud platforms for Internet of Things. Master’s thesis, Dept. Information Systems Science, University of Jyväskylä (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karen Rose, L.C., Eldridge, S.: The Internet of Things: an overview. The Internet Society, vol. 80, pp. 1–50 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cavalcante, E., et al.: On the interplay of Internet of Things and Cloud Computing: a systematic mapping study. Comput. Commun. 89–90, 17–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davalos, A.G., Marquez, J., Villanueva, J., Solarte, Z.: IoT in education: integration of objects with virtual academic communities. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 445(115), V–VI (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selinger, M., Sepulveda, A., Buchan, J.: Education and the internet of everything. Int. Bus. Manag. 10(18), 4301–4303 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ervin, R.: How Digital Textbooks, Tech-Friendly Furniture, and Better Data Are Boosting Engagement at Community Colleges—EdSurge News. EdSurge (2017) [online]. Available at:
  11. 11.
    The Statistics Portal: Internet of Things (IoT) connected devices installed base worldwide from 2015 to 2025 (in billions). © Statista 2018 (2016) [online]. Available at:
  12. 12.
    The Cisco Portal: The Internet of Everything in Higher Education (2013) [online]. Available at: ampusconnection_100814_ioe.pdf
  13. 13.
    Demirer, V., Aydin, B., Çelik, S.B.: Exploring the educational potential of Internet of Things (IoT) in seamless learning. The Internet of Things: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice, pp. 1–15 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Movahed, H., Bagheri, M.: The effect of the Internet of Things (IoT) on education business model the effect of the Internet of Things (IoT) on education business model. In: 2016 12th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), Naples, 2016, pp. 435–441Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Satu, S., Roy, S., Akhter, F.: IoLT: an IoT based collaborative blended learning platform in higher education. In: 2018 International Conference on Innovation in Engineering and Technology (ICIET), pp. 1–6 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Förster, A., Dede, J., Könsgen, A., Udugama, A., Zaman, I.: Teaching the Internet of Things. GetMobile: Mob. Comput. Commun. 20(3), 24–28 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lai, C., Hwang, G.: A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Comput. Educ. 100, 126–140 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gros, B., López, M.: Students as co-creators of technology-rich learning activities in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 13(28) (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strawser, M.G. (ed.): New Media and Digital Pedagogy: Enhancing the Twenty-First-Century Classroom (Studies in New Media). Lexington Books (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Veeramanickam, M.R.M., Mohanapriya, M.: IOT enabled Futurus Smart Campus with effective E-learning: i-Campus. GSTF J. Eng. Technol. 3(4), 81–87 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gao, L., Bai, X.: A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 26(2), 211–231 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Al-Momani, A.M., Mahmoud, M.A., Ahmad, S.M.: Modeling the adoption of internet of things services: a conceptual framework. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2(5), 361–367 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    El-Masri, M., Tarhini, A.: Erratum to: Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65(3), 765–767 (2017).
  27. 27.
    Lee, Y.K., Park, J.H., Chung, N., Blakeney, A.: A unified perspective on the factors influencing usage intention toward mobile financial services. J. Bus. Res. 65(11), 1590–1599 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Long, T.: Development and initial validation of a flipped classroom adoption inventory in higher education. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Graduate School, University of Tennessee (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Svendsen, G.B., Johnsen, J.A.K., Almås-Sørensen, L., Vittersø, J.: Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32(4), 323–334 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Momani, A.M., Mahmoud, M.A., Ahmad, M.S.: Factors that influence the acceptance of internet of things services by customers of telecommunication companies in Jordan. J. Organ. End User Comput. 30(4), 51–63 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alghatrifi, I., Khalid, H.: A systematic review of UTAUT and UTAUT2 as a baseline framework of information system research in adopting new technology: a case study of IPV6 adoption. In: 2019 6th International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 2019, pp. 1–6.
  32. 32.
    Marchewka, J., Liu, C., Kostiwa, K.: An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using course management software. Commun. IIMA 7(2), 93 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Simon and Schuster, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Al-Qeisi, K., Dennis, C., Alamanos, E., Jayawardhena, C.: Website design quality and usage behavior: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. J. Bus. Res. 67(11), 2282–2290 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 429–440 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mutlu, H.M., Der, A.: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: the adoption of mobile messaging application. Megatrend Rev. 14(1), 169–186 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sanny, L.: Analysis of online purchase behavior intention in SME in Indonesia. In: 2017 3rd International Conference on Information Management (ICIM), Chengdu, pp. 6–10 (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chong, A.Y.L., Chan, F.T.S., Ooi, K.B.: Predicting consumer decisions to adopt mobile commerce: cross country empirical examination between China and Malaysia. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 34–43 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taherdoost, H.: A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 22, 960–967 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Al Mansoori, K.A.: Use of a modified UTAUT model to investigate Emirati Citizens’ adoption of e-Government in Abu Dhabi. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong in Dubai (2017)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gupta, A., Dogra, N.: Tourist adoption of mapping apps: a UTAUT2 perspective of smart travellers. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 23(2), 145–161 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Han, B., Wu, Y., Windsor, J.: User’s adoption of free third-party security apps. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 54(3), 77–86 (2014)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Al-Emran, M., Salloum, S.A.: Students’ attitudes towards the use of mobile technologies in e-Evaluation. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 11(5), 195–202 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Al-Emran, M., Malik, S.I.: The impact of Google apps at work: higher educational perspective. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 10(4), 85–88 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2017)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.G.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 26(2), 106–121 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Whitehead, A.L., Julious, S.A., Cooper, C.L., Campbell, M.J.: Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 25(3), 1057–1073 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295(2), 295–336 (1998)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morrison, L.C.L.M.K.: Research Methods in Education, 6th edn. Taylor & Francis Group, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cooper, D.R., Wittenberg, P.S.S.: Business Research Methods, 12th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garson, G.D.: Partial Least Squares: Regression & Structural Equation Models. Statistical Associates Publishers, Asheboro, NC (2016)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students, 5th edn. Pearson, London (2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Babbie, E.R.: The Basics of Social Research, 6th edn. Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43(1), 115–135 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fritz, M.S., Mackinnon, D.P.: Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychol. Sci. 18(3), 233–239 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F.: Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40(3), 879–891 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results the importance-performance map analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116(9), 1865–1886 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional and Learning Technologies DepartmentSultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman
  2. 2.Educational Technology Center, Nizwa College of TechnologyNizwaOman

Personalised recommendations