Seite - 254 - in Intelligent Environments 2019 - Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments

Table 3. Direct and indirect effects on endorsement and use of Web 2.0 tools1. 1 No indirect effects on endorsement were found 2 Constructs with indirect effects on use, mediated by endorsement in [20] 3 Interrelated latent variables with direct and mediated effects on use in [11] and [19] 4.3 Choice: A Potentially Overlooked Factor Students may find the personalized learning environments (PLEs) appealing for their ability to choose Web 2.0 tools and organizational schemes. Despite recommendations from three studies [16], [6], and [15] to make student choice a factor in PLEs, none of the recent predictive models explicitly addresses user choice. Research on choice reviewed by Ivancic [25] suggests that having the freedom to choose may be meaningful on its own. Researchers studying PLEs [16][6][15] concurred, and Bartolomé and Cebrian-de-la-Serna [15] found that expert opinions about which tools to offer in PLEs did not match the quantity or types of tools that students preferred when given the choice. According to experimental research summarized by Reed and Kaplan [26], the Matching Law predicts quantitatively that when offered a choice, users match their selection to the relative amount of reward associated with it. In other words, if a student finds posting on Twitter to be more enjoyable than speaking in class, the student will spend more time and make more posts on Twitter than they will speaking in class. Direct Effect on Endorsement Direct Effect on Use Indirect Effect on Use Perceived Usefulness [18] Attitude [18] Infrastructure2[20] Collectivism2[20] Performance2[20] Effort/Influence2[20] Self2[20] Communication Functionality2[20] Perceived Usefulness [24] Collaboration [24] Resource Sharing [24] Enjoyment [24] Adoption3[19][11] Purpose of Use3 [19][11] Social Influence [24] Perceived Ease of Use [19][11] Perceived Usefulness [18][19][11] Attitude [18] Performance2[20] Effort/Influence2[20] Self2[20] Communication Functionality2[20] Adoption3[19][11] Purpose of Use3 [19][11] Security Awareness [18] Ethics Awareness [18] Social Influence [19][11] Facilitating Conditions [19][11] Community Identity [19][11] Mobility [19] Social Relations [19][11] Work Related [19][11] Daily Activity [19][11] Communication [19][11] Interactivity [19] Motivational Influence [11] Collaboration [11][19] Resource Sharing [11][19] E.Damianoetal. /Bridging theDivide: TheCurrentStatusofWeb2.0 inHigherEducation254