The Effects of Self-efficacy, Personal Innovativeness and Career Related Learning of Individuals who experienced Change Jobs on Smart Learning Continuous Usage Intention
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/1y8h8t82Keywords:
Smart Learning, Self-efficacy, Personal Innovativeness, Career Related Learning, Continuous Usage IntentionAbstract
With the transformation of the entire industry through digital transformation, the birth of new jobs and the disappearance of existing jobs are foreseen. Labor market is expected to become more flexible in the future, and the demand for individual-level learning for turnover and career management, which is a transition to new jobs, is expected to increase. In modern society, the disappearance of lifelong work and a positive change in the perspective on workplace movements, as well as the volatility and uncertainty in the social environment, have increased the number of workers who are learning to respond more actively to the unpredictable future. Learning can be described as career learning, a formal and informal activity that is self-directed, planned, active, and ongoing for your own future and future career development. Based on the expanded skill acceptance model, this study examines how the individual characteristics of the employee's self-efficacy and personal innovation affect the perceived usefulness and perceived usability, and the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This study examined how it affects the continuous use of smart learning. The subjects of this study were 20-30 employees who experienced turnover, who experienced smart learning during the turnover process, and analyzed the frequency of surveys using the STATA / SE 12.0 program to analyze 332questionnaires. , Reliability analysis, descriptive statistical analysis, etc., and empirical analysis through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The research results from hypotheses, analysis and verification are as follows. First, self-efficacy for smart learning has a significant effect on perceived usefulness and perceived usability. In other words, the higher the self-efficacy, the more statistically significant influence on the significance and ease of use. Second, personal innovation for smart learning has a significant effect on perceived usability, but does not have a significant effect on perceived usability. Third, perceived usefulness did not have a significant effect on career learning, but perceived usability had a significant effect on career learning. Fourth, career learning did not have a significant effect on the continuous use intention of smart learning. Fifth, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use had a significant effect on sustained use intention. For learners who have a strong self-directed learning tendency, such as turnover, self-efficacy and personal innovation, which are personal characteristics, are important to the continuous use of smart learning and affect career learning. This study considers the differences according to the inclination and characteristics when establishing the learning strategy considering the inclination and characteristics of the learners, establishes the learning and career learning plan and the human resource development plan, designs the education service according to the characteristics of the users, and learns. It can be used to formulate a strategy.
Downloads
References
1. Abbas, H. A., & Hamdy, H. I. (2015). Determinants of continuance intention factor in Kuwait communication market: Case study of Zain-Kuwait. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 648–657.
2. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 665–694.
3. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215.
4. Al-Sharafi, H., Hassan, M. E. M., & Alam, A. A. (2018). The effect of training and career development on employee retention: A study on telecommunication organizations in Yemen. Journal of Social Sciences Research, 2, 420–430.
5. Bae, J. S., & Sa, J. H. (2003). The effects of human resource management systems on organizational performance. Korean Academy of Management, 11, 133–169.
6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
7. Bessen, J. (2015). Learning by doing: The real connection between innovation, wages, and wealth. Yale University Press.
8. Bhang, S. H. (2012). A study on strategies of self-directed learning to promote smart learning. Journal of Lifelong Learning Society, 8(1), 93–112.
9. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 351–370.
10. Bluedorn, A. C. (1978). A taxonomy of turnover. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 647–651.
11. Byeon, H. S. (2012). The influence of users' personal innovativeness, trust, and felt trust on intention to use e-government. Korea Association for Policy Studies, 21(1), 313–336.
12. Carbery, R., & Garavan, T. N. (2007). Conceptualizing participation of managers in career-focused learning and development. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 394–418.
13. Cho, J. H. (2018). Factors influencing satisfaction and effectiveness of smart learning. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 19(3), 468–478.
14. Choi, H. S., Woo, Y. H., & Jung, H. J. (2013). Students’ perception of smart learning in distance higher education. Korea Contents Society, 13(10), 584–593.
15. Choi, S. (2016). The mediating effect of workplace learning. Yonsei University (Master’s thesis).
16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of IT. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
17. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
18. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). Personal initiative. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139–161.
19. Ha, J. H., & Jo, H. I. (2006). Perfectionism, stress coping, self-efficacy and college adjustment. Korean Journal of Counseling, 7(2), 596–611.
20. Hall, D. T., & Morgan, M. A. (1997). Career development & planning. In Career Management.
21. Hamid, A. A., Razak, F. Z. A., Bakar, A. A., & Abdullah, W. S. W. (2016). E-government continuance intention. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 644–649.
22. Han, S. K., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Learner competencies through smart learning. Journal of Information Education, 19(2), 207–214.
23. Hausknecht, J. P., Rodda, J., & Howard, M. J. (2009). Targeted employee retention. Human Resource Management, 48(2), 269–288.
24. Hong, Y. Y., & Im, T. W. (2018). Smart learning in tertiary mathematics. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(7), 213–222.
25. Horwitz, F., Heng, C. T., & Quazi, H. A. (2003). Finders, keepers? HRM Journal, 13(4), 23–44.
26. Hwang, S. Y., An, D. C., & Kwon, Y. J. (2018). Smart learning service quality. Journal of Distribution & Management Research, 21(6), 211–221.
27. Ji, S. H. (2014). Career learning structure. Jeju National University (PhD).
28. Jo, Y. G. (2017). Trust transference of mobile apps. SeoulTech (PhD).
29. Joo, Y. J., Ham, Y. K., & Jung, B. K. (2014). Mobile learning continuance. Korea Contents Association, 14(6), 477–490.
30. Joo, Y. J., & Kim, D. S. (2017). MOOC satisfaction using UTAUT2. Journal of Lifelong Learning Society, 13(1), 185–207.
31. Jung, C. H., Kim, H. G., & Ha, I. S. (2011). E-learning continuance intention. Journal of Korea Entertainment Industry Association, 5(1), 65–72.
32. Jung, J. B., et al. (2018). Smart device acceptance factors. Korea Journal of Business Administration, 31(1), 27–47.
33. Kang, H. J., & Cho, D. Y. (2017). HRD policy for the 4th industrial revolution. Korean Journal of HRD, 19(4), 1–34.
34. Kang, I. A., Choi, J. I., & Chang, K. W. (2006). Constructivism comparison. Educational Technology, 22(4), 105–135.
35. Kang, I. J. (2015). Career learning & employability. SNU (PhD).
36. Kim, C. I., & Jaesoon. (2011). Smart device learning intention. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 14(3), 105–126.
37. Kim, D. G., et al. (2016). Instructor smart learning acceptance. Journal of IT & Telecommunication, 20(6), 1081–1086.
38. Kim, E. H. (2015). Corporate e-learning continuance. Korea Society of Computer Information, 23(1), 119–122.
39. Kim, H. N. (2012). R&D strategy in smart era. KICI Engineering Journal, 30(1), 33–38.
40. Kim, H. Y. (2014). Smart learning acceptance. Korea University (Master’s).
41. Kim, J. D. (2011). Training & firm performance. Korean Journal of HRD, 13(1), 99–116.
42. Kim, H. Y., & Lee, D. G. (2009). Self-development motivation. Korean Journal of Industrial Psychology, 22(2), 261–293.
43. Kim, K. H., & Kim, C. G. (2013). Smart learning in special education. Special Education, 48(2), 191–218.
44. Kim, M. J. (2014). Self-directed smart learning. Journal of Children Education, 16(3), 139–163.
45. Kim, S. Y. (2015). Academic self-efficacy and playfulness. Korean Computers & Accounting Review, 13(2), 23–47.
46. Kim, S. W., & Sung, U. O. (2005). E-learning acceptance. Learning & Performance, 7(1), 27–50.
47. Kim, J. H. (2010). Smartphone acceptance. Konkuk University (Master’s).
48. Ko, Y. Y., & Yoo, T. Y. (2016). Continuous learning activity. Korean Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(2), 279–301.
49. Kwon, S. D., & Yun, S. J. (2010). E-learning continued use. IT Applications & Management, 17(1), 35–54.
50. Lee, E. H. (2013). SMART education environments. Konkuk University (PhD).
51. Lee, J. (2002). LCMS-based e-learning. Educational Information Broadcasting, 8(2), 93–113.
52. Lee, J. H. (2016). Future learning culture. IEBOOK.
53. Lee, J. H., & Kim, D. W. (2015). Smart education adoption. Industrial Innovation Research, 31(1), 113–138.
54. Lee, J. H., & Zo, H. J. (2013). Smart learning adoption at work. Entrue Journal of IT, 12(3), 107–119.
55. Lee, J. M., & Kim, Y. J. (2015). Smart learning continuance. Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 127–150.
56. Lee, K. H., & Lee, Y. M. (2015). Boundaryless career attitude. HRM Research, 22(4), 225–246.
57. Lee, S. K., & Kwon, M. H. (2014). Smart education awareness. Regional Communication Research, 14(2), 258–294.
58. Lee, S. M. (2011). CRS technology expansion. E-Business Studies, 21(1), 115–141.
59. Lee, S. W. (2017). Digital transformation society. Journal of Communication Research, 54(4), 35–66.
60. Lee, Y. H., & Lee, H. J. (2018). Multimedia smart learning. Korean Language Education, 36, 247–274.
61. Lim, J. Y., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). SME education investment. HRM Research, 17, 139–162.
62. London, M., & Smither, J. (1999). Career-related continuous learning. RPHRM, 17, 81–121.
63. McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. ASTD Press.
64. Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242.
65. Min, B. W. (2018). Learning orientation and innovation. Korean Academy of Organization Management, 154–186.
66. Ministry of Education, Science & Technology. (2011). Smart education strategy.
67. Moon, H. N., Bae, Y. R., & Yoon, S. R. (2019). Career development challenges. Lifelong Education & HRD, 15(2), 153–182.
68. Na, I. G. (2010). Training effect on HR outcomes. HRM Research, 17, 39–56.
69. Nam, G. W. (2008). Continuous usage intention. Kwangwoon University (PhD).
70. Nho, Y. J., & Chae, C. K. (2009). Corporate formal training. Journal of Labor Policy, 9(2), 67–93.
71. Noh, K. S., Ju, S. H., & Jung, J. T. (2011). Smart learning concept. Digital Policy & Management, 9(2), 79–88.
72. Pak, K. H., & Kim, W. M. (2013). Smartphone e-learning. E-Business Studies, 14(2), 25–45.
73. Park, D. B., & Gu, J. W. (2018). Learning transfer effects. Management Information Systems, 37(3), 1–25.
74. Park, D. C., et al. (2015). Smart learning motivation. Information Systems Review, 17(2), 101–132.
75. Park, D. K. (2017). Blended learning satisfaction. SeoulTech (PhD).
76. Park, H. S. (2017). Mobile app service satisfaction. Namseoul University (PhD).
77. Park, H. J., & Cha, S. B. (2018). MOOC usage intention. CNU Journal of Education, 39(3), 55–81.
78. Park, J. P., & Kim, J. Y. (2010). Mobile advertising response. JOA, 7(4), 71–103.
79. Park, M. S. (2014). Online music education satisfaction. Journal of Music Education Science, 20, 1–15.
80. Park, M. S. (2017). Chatbot service acceptance. Hongik University (Master’s).
81. Park, S. J., et al. (2019). Smart machine service quality. Journal of Sport & Leisure Studies, 75, 267–278.
82. Park, D. K., & Park, G. M. (2016). Blended learning acceptance. Satellite Information & Communications, 11(3), 43–50.
83. Park, W. H. (2017). O2O service usage intention. Korea University (Master’s).
84. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster.
85. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations.
86. Rosenberg, M. (2001). Strategies for delivering knowledge. McGraw-Hill.
87. Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Moodle acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.
88. SARAMIN. (2019). Press release.
89. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories. Prentice Hall.
90. Segye Ilbo. (2018). Youth employment report.
91. Shim, M. Y. (2012). Protean career orientation. Korea University (PhD).
92. Shin, H. K., & Kim, Y. A. (2011). Smart learning factors. Korea Industrial Information Systems Society, 16(5), 93–105.
93. Sim, H. S., & Lim, H. J. (2013). Smart learning effectiveness. Journal of Cyber Education, 7, 139–160.
94. Sin, H. S. (2018). IT entrepreneurs’ personality. Korean Computers & Accounting Review, 16(1), 111–133.
95. Son, Y. M., & Kim, O. S. (2018). Personal innovativeness moderation. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 97–119.
96. Song, J. H. (2016). Hotel social commerce acceptance. Sejong University (PhD).
97. Song, J. H., Kim, S. H., & Jeong, U. K. (2018). Social commerce trust. Korean Journal of Hotel Administration, 27(5), 85–101.
98. Swanson, R. A. (2010). Foundations of HRD (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
99. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III. (2009). Foundations of HRD (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
100. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). Perceived ease of use antecedents. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.
101. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). Technology acceptance extension. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
102. Yoo, K. S. (2017). Job competency development policy. Journal of Practical Engineering Education, 9(2), 167–174.
103. Yoon, J. H., & Kim, K. S. (2006). Logistics service quality. Journal of Information Systems, 15(1), 21–48.
104. You, J. H., & Park, C. (2010). Review of TAM research. Entrue Journal of IT, 9(2), 31–50.
105. You, J. W., & Song, Y. H. (2013). Task value and engagement. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum, 13, 91–112.
106. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.
107. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
