--- title: "26" source: "26.docx" converted: "2026-10-01 10:26:16 +0800" converter: "MarkForge (mdconvert)" engine: "MarkItDown" --- Evaluating User Acceptance of the UnityHub Web-based System in Higher Education: A Descriptive Analysis Norazah Umar1, Nurhafizah Ahmad[[1]](#footnote-1)\*, Jamal Othman3, Rozita Kadar4 *1,2,3,4Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pulau Pinang Branch, Permatang Pauh Campus, 13500 Permatang Pauh, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.* | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | ARTICLE INFO | | ABSTRACT | | *Article history:* Received 25 June 2025 Revised 28 August 2025 Accepted 28 August 2025 Published 1 September 2025 | | The transition to hybrid learning in Malaysian higher education created a need for centralized platforms that enhance academic communication and class management. UnityHub was introduced as a web-based system to simplify group registration and strengthen student–lecturer interaction. The purpose of this study was to assess students’ acceptance of UnityHub using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and to examine both the overall level of acceptance and the relative strengths and weaknesses of its dimensions. A total of 90 students from Universiti Teknologi MARA, Penang Branch participated in the survey, which used a TAM-based questionnaire comprising 24 items. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations. The findings show that satisfaction scored highest (mean = 4.16), followed by attitude (3.80) and ease of use (3.78). Perceivedusefulness (3.71) and intention to use (3.72) were moderately high, while self-efficacy was lowest (3.42). Overall, UnityHub achieved strong acceptance for usability and efficiency, though improvements in academic integration and user confidence are needed. The study is limited to a single department sample; future research should involve multiple faculties and compare UnityHub with other platforms to enhance generalizability. | | *Keywords:* Web-Based System Communication Platform User Acceptance Technology Acceptance Model Information System *DOI:* [10.24191/jcrinn.v10i2.549](https://doi.org/10.24191/jcrinn.v10i2.549) | | 1. INTRODUCTION Effective communication is essential in educational settings, particularly in online and hybrid learning environments where physical interactions are limited. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to such learning models in Malaysian higher education, revealing critical challenges in sustaining engagement, managing academic information, and maintaining timely interactions between students and lecturers. In these contexts, the use of digital communication platforms becomes vital for supporting continuous learning and academic coordination. However, fragmented communication channels and the lack of centralized systems often lead to delays, confusion, and disengagement. Recognizing these issues, **UnityHub** was developed as a web-based academic management platform that organizes student-lecturer communication and class group registration into a single, accessible interface. Designed to streamline communication and information access, UnityHub enables students to join their respective class groups based on current timetables, receive timely updates from lecturers, and manage academic participation via mobile devices. While the platform addresses key communication and coordination gaps in hybrid learning, its long-term effectiveness depends heavily on user acceptance. Educational technologies regardless of their technical features must be perceived as useful and easy to use by students to ensure sustained adoption. This is particularly important in the post-pandemic context, where digital tools are expected to play a permanent role in academic processes. Therefore, understanding user perceptions is critical. This study adopts the **Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)** to evaluate students' acceptance of UnityHub. TAM is a widely recognized theoretical framework used to predict users’ acceptance of information systems based on two primary constructs: **perceived usefulness** (PU) and **perceived ease of use** (PEU). These variables influence users’ attitudes, satisfaction, and intention to continue using a system. By incorporating TAM, this study provides a theoretically grounded analysis of UnityHub’s reception among its target users. As digital platforms like UnityHub play a central role in academic communication, it is important to evaluate how students perceive and accept such systems. This study, guided by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), uses descriptive analysis to assess students’ acceptance of UnityHub. Accordingly, the objectives of this research are as follows: 1. To assess students’ acceptance of UnityHub across six key constructs self-efficacy, satisfaction, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and attitude toward use using descriptive statistical analysis. 2. To examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of UnityHub’s acceptance dimensions in order to highlight areas of high student approval as well as aspects that indicate only moderate acceptance. The subsequent sections explore relevant literature on the challenges of online communication, explain the development of the UnityHub web-based system, outline the research methodology, and present the analysis, results, and discussion. The final section concludes the research findings. 1. LITERATURE REVIEW Technology integration in higher education has grown rapidly, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the adoption of online and hybrid learning platforms. This shift has brought user acceptance into sharper focus, as the success of any educational technology depends on how well users perceive and engage with it. Therefore, understanding the factors that influence users’ acceptance and intention to use digital academic platforms is critical in evaluating system effectiveness beyond technical functionality. The **Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),** first introduced by Davis (1989), remains one of the most established theoretical frameworks for evaluating information system adoption. TAM posits that two key constructs **perc3eived usefulness (PU)** and **perceived ease of use (PEU)** shape users’ attitudes toward a system, which subsequently influence their behavioral intention to use it. A system is likely to be adopted when users believe it will improve their performance (PU) and is easy to operate (PEU). These constructions have been widely validated in studies of information systems and online applications across various domains. In educational contexts, TAM has been applied extensively to examine students' interactions with e-learning platforms, digital portals, and web-based communication tools. For instance, Xie and Lee (2015) reported that both PU and PEU significantly influenced students' acceptance of social learning technologies. Hollister et al. (2022) observed that during pandemic-driven online learning, students evaluated system adoption largely through the lens of functionality and ease of navigation. Similarly, Bashir (2018) highlighted that user interface clarity and intuitive design are crucial for fostering positive learning experiences in multimedia courseware. Beyond the original TAM constructs, researchers have incorporated additional variables to reflect the complex nature of user behavior. Among these, **self-efficacy,** the belief in one’s ability to use a system effectively—has emerged as a consistent predictor of technology adoption (Meng & Zhang, 2023). Students who feel confident in their ability to navigate digital platforms without assistance are more likely to perceive the system as useful and user-friendly. Likewise, **attitude toward use** and **intention to use** are often included in extended TAM models to capture motivational and behavioral dimensions more comprehensively (Venkatesh et al., 2012). These expanded frameworks offer a more holistic understanding of how users form judgments about a system, particularly in educational environments. Recent regional studies have confirmed the relevance of these constructs in the Malaysian higher education landscape. Al Husaini and Shukor (2023) identified time-efficiency, self-efficacy, and information access as key drivers of acceptance in student-facing systems. Abbas et al. (2019) found that social media platforms used for academic collaboration are adopted when they are perceived as both practical and engaging. These studies underscore the importance of designing systems that align with users’ preferences, behaviors, and contextual needs. In measuring acceptance, many studies rely on **quantitative descriptive analysis** of TAM-based surveys. Researchers typically use Likert-scale instruments to capture users’ responses on PU, PEU, satisfaction, intention, and related constructs. Descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and response frequencies are then used to interpret acceptance levels and highlight system strengths or weaknesses (Lee & Kozar, 2012; Rawashdeh et al., 2021). This approach provides both depth and breadth, offering a data-driven understanding of user reception and system usability. Despite the extensive literature on TAM and technology acceptance, limited research has examined the adoption of communication-specific platforms like **UnityHub**, particularly within the Malaysian post-pandemic educational context. Moreover, few studies have integrated descriptive analysis with TAM constructs to evaluate systems developed for academic communication and group coordination. This study addresses that gap by applying TAM to investigate students’ perceptions, satisfaction, and intention to use UnityHub, offering practical insights for improving digital communication infrastructure in higher education. 1. The Development of UnityHub: A Web-Based System for Effective Distance Learning Management This section discusses the development of UnityHub, a web-based system designed to streamline the management of students in distance learning. Through this platform, lecturers can ensure students stay up to date with their coursework, minimizing the risk of them falling behind in online classes. UnityHub provides students with essential information from the start of the semester, simplifying the process by offering a list of registered subjects along with corresponding class groups based on the latest semester schedule. The user-friendly interface allows students to select their subjects and groups easily, enabling them to join designated groups with just a few clicks. Additionally, UnityHub is accessible via mobile devices, ensuring convenient access for all users. The development of UnityHub involves three key stakeholders: academic management (including lecturers), students, and system developers. Fig. 1 illustrates the collaborative relationship among these parties. The process begins with the academic management team providing a timetable, which is then distributed to lecturers and students. Based on this timetable, lecturers register their respective groups on platforms such as WhatsApp or Telegram to obtain the necessary platform link. ![Diagram Description automatically generated](data:image/jpeg;base64...) Fig. 1. Flowchart of class group registration using UnityHub Simultaneously, the system development team creates an online form (Fig. 2) to collect essential data from lecturers for the UnityHub platform. This data includes information such as subject area, subject code, subject name, class group, lecturer's name, communication platform, and group link. Once the lecturers submit this information, the UnityHub development can proceed. When development is complete, the platform link is distributed to students through faculties and official social media channels, allowing students to join their respective groups based on the timetable simply by clicking the link. ![Graphical user interface, application Description automatically generated](data:image/png;base64...) Fig. 2. Online form UnityHub offers an efficient method for gathering geographically dispersed students, eliminating the need for lecturers to invite each student individually. Before the first class, lecturers often need to assemble their students promptly, and UnityHub streamlines this process, ensuring all students are organized into their respective groups within a week, which enables seamless classroom management. Fig. 3 provides an overview of the UnityHub interface, which includes six tabs: HOME, SARJANA, SARJANA MUDA, DIPLOMA, PRA-DIPLOMA, and KENALI JSKM. The HOME section serves as a platform for the JSKM coordinator to communicate essential messages to users. Another tab displays a comprehensive list of subjects offered under JSKM, while the KENALI JSKM tab links users to the official JSKM website. For instance, Pre-diploma students (tag no.1) can click on the PRA-DIPLOMA tab to access a list of pre-diploma subjects. They can then select their subjects (tag no.2), and the platform will display associated class groups. By clicking the provided link, students can join their designated class group effortlessly. Both lecturers and students receive timely notifications via the registered platform (tag no.3), promoting effective communication and engagement. ![Graphical user interface, application Description automatically generated](data:image/png;base64...) Fig. 3. UnityHub Interface UnityHub is an innovative web-based system designed to enhance distance learning management. By simplifying the process of organizing students into class groups, UnityHub helps students stay on track with their coursework. Its user-friendly interface and mobile accessibility provide convenience for both lecturers and students. UnityHub effectively unites academic management, lecturers, and students, creating an efficient and streamlined distance learning experience. With its comprehensive features and seamless integration, UnityHub has the potential to revolutionize distance learning program management. 1. Methodology **4.1 Participants** The population of this study comprised undergraduate students from Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Penang Branch. A total of 90 students were selected using **cluster sampling**, with the sample drawn from **five classes** under lecturers in the Computer and Mathematics Department. These classes were selected based on their active engagement with the UnityHub system during the academic semester, thereby representing users with direct system exposure. While this sampling approach ensured data relevance, it introduces a potential bias, as the sample may not fully represent students from other faculties or campuses. This limitation is acknowledged and discussed further in the final section. **4.2 Instrument** Data was collected using a structured **online questionnaire** adapted from established instruments based on the **Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)** as proposed by Davis (1989) and later extended by Venkatesh et al. (2012). The questionnaire consisted of 24 items measuring six TAM-related constructs: self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), satisfaction, intention to use, and attitude toward use. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). An additional section captured demographic information, including gender, age, academic level, field of study, sources of UnityHub information, and reasons for using the system. To ensure **content validity**, the instrument underwent expert review by two senior lecturers with research expertise in educational technology and instrument design. Their feedback informed minor adjustments in item wording to ensure contextual relevance. A **pilot test involving 15 students** from a different faculty was conducted to assess clarity and consistency of the items prior to full-scale distribution. Based on feedback, minor modifications were made to improve item phrasing without altering construct meanings. **4.3 Procedure** The data collection process was conducted through an online survey administered via a secure digital platform. An invitation to participate in the study was disseminated through official faculty communication channels, including email and WhatsApp group announcements coordinated by class lecturers. The message included a brief explanation of the study's purpose, a statement assuring confidentiality and voluntary participation, and a link to the online questionnaire. All selected participants were students enrolled in courses that actively utilized UnityHub during the semester. Prior to completing the survey, students were informed that their responses would be used solely for research purposes and would remain anonymous, with no identifying information being collected. Upon accessing the link, participants were directed to a brief introduction page outlining the scope of the study, followed by the main questionnaire. Each respondent was given an estimated time of 10 to 15 minutes to complete the survey at their own convenience. **4.4 Data Analysis** Data was analyzed using **IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26**. **Descriptive statistics** were used to address both research questions. For categorical data such as demographics and reasons for using UnityHub, **frequencies and percentages** were calculated. For Likert-scale items measuring TAM constructs, **mean scores and standard deviations** were computed to assess levels of user satisfaction, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioral intention. These descriptive metrics provided insight into the distribution of responses and the general acceptance level of UnityHub among students. Table . Mean score interpretation Instrument **reliability** was evaluated using **Cronbach’s Alpha** for each construct. Following guidelines by Hinton et al. (2004), alpha values above 0.70 were interpreted as indicating high reliability, while scores above 0.90 signified excellent internal consistency. All constructs met or exceeded the 0.80 threshold, confirming the instrument’s reliability for use in this study. To facilitate interpretation of the mean scores, student responses were categorized into five levels ranging from Very Low to Very High, as shown in Table 1. This classification provided a clearer understanding of whether each construct reflected low, moderate, or high levels of acceptance of UnityHub. | | | | --- | --- | | **Mean Score** | **Interpretation** | | **4.30 – 5.00** | **Very High** | | **3.50 – 4.29** | **High** | | **2.70 – 3.49** | **Moderate** | | **1.90 – 2.69** | **Low** | | **1.00 – 1.89** | **Very Low** | The cut-off ranges in Table 1 follow the approach suggested by Zaki and Ahmad (2017), ensuring consistency with prior studies in interpreting students’ responses. Based on this interpretation scale, the following section presents the descriptive results of the study. The findings are organized according to the TAM constructs, with each mean score reported together with its corresponding interpretation level to provide a clearer picture of students’ acceptance of UnityHub. 1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Descriptive analysis The survey included 90 students, with 60% identifying as female and 40% as male, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Most respondents (90%) were young adults aged between 18 and 22 years. In terms of academic qualifications, the majority were diploma students (63.3%), followed by degree students (35.6%), and only one respondent was a master’s student. Most respondents were from fields related to Science and Technology (84.4%), while 15.6% were from Social Science. Fig. 4. Respondent gender Fig. 5. Sources of information Table 2. Demographic characteristics of respondents | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | **Sample** | **Frequency** | **Percentage (%)** | | Gender | Male Female | 36 54 | 40 60 | | Age | 18-22 23-27 >27 | 81 8 1 | 90 8.9 1.1 | | Educational Level | Diploma Bachelor Master | 57 32 1 | 63.3 35.6 1.1 | | Field | Science & Technology Science Social | 76 14 | 84.4 15.6 | Fig. 5 displays the various sources from which students received information about UnityHub. The data reveals that 58 students learned about UnityHub from their lecturers. Additionally, 23 students received information from the Academic Affairs Division, 8 from faculty, and only 1 student from friends. As shown in Fig. 6, regarding the purpose of using UnityHub, 46% of students agreed that UnityHub saves time, while 28% found it easy to use. Additionally, 17% of students reported using it at the request of their faculty, and 9% used it out of personal interest. Since UnityHub is easily accessible on mobile devices, students can register for groups anytime, anywhere, and on any platform. Users do not require formal training to use the application, as its simple design allows them to join class groups without navigating multiple web pages. A similar study by Lee and Kozar (2012) found that perceived ease of use, usefulness, and trust in an application significantly influence user satisfaction. UnityHub users provided positive feedback, recommending that the application be applied or replicated across other faculties. Students responded favourably to the website’s design, navigation, and functionality, which encouraged them to use the application. Fig. 6. Purpose in using UnityHub * 1. Reliability test Cronbach's Alpha was calculated to assess the reliability of the survey constructs. As shown in Table 3, each Cronbach's Alpha score exceeds 0.80. According to Hinton et al. (2004), Cronbach's Alpha values above 0.50 indicate moderate reliability, while values of 0.70 and above indicate high reliability for dependent and independent variables. The Cronbach's Alpha scores confirm that all measurement items across variables are consistent. Table 3. Summary of Cronbach’s Alpha | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | **Variable** | **Items** | **Cronbach’s Alpha** | | Satisfaction | 4 | 0.868 | | Self-efficacy | 4 | 0.912 | | Perceived usefulness | 5 | 0.914 | | Perceived ease of use | 4 | 0.924 | | Intention to use | 3 | 0.901 | | Attitude towards use | 4 | 0.872 | Table 4. Mean and standard deviation of item | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | **Item** | **Mean** | **Standard Deviation** | | **Self-Efficacy** | | | | I am confident of using UnityHub even if there is no one around to show me how to do it. | 3.43 | 0.794 | | I am confident of using UnityHub even if I have never used such a system before. | 3.51 | 0.811 | | I am confident of using UnityHub even if I don't have a user manual for reference. | 3.38 | 0.800 | | I am confident of using UnityHub without assistance from anyone. | 3.34 | 0.837 | | **Satisfaction** | | | | The UnityHub is effective for gathering students' group information. | 4.16 | 0.579 | | The UnityHub is efficient for time saving. | 4.16 | 0.669 | | The UnityHub is efficient for cost saving. | 4.09 | 0.647 | | The UnityHub is efficient for reducing human error. | 4.02 | 0.734 | | **Perceived Usefulness** | | | | Joining class groups is a faster way with UnityHub. | 3.82 | 0.743 | | UnityHub would enhance my effectiveness in studying. | 3.61 | 0.730 | | UnityHub would improve the class group joining process. | 3.71 | 0.738 | | UnityHub facilitates student joining class group. | 3.74 | 0.728 | | I find UnityHub useful for my studies. | 3.67 | 0.703 | | **Perceived Ease of Use** | | | | The features in UnityHub are clear and understandable. | 3.74 | 0.663 | | The UnityHub is flexible to access anywhere. | 3.80 | 0.782 | | The use of UnityHub is very easy to be skilled. | 3.77 | 0.765 | | I find that UnityHub is easy to use. | 3.80 | 0.767 | | **Intention to Use** | | | | I intend to use UnityHub to enhance communication among lecturers and students | 3.77 | 0.720 | | I intend to use UnityHub at the beginning of the semester. | 3.70 | 0.741 | | I intend to use UnityHub every semester. | 3.68 | 0.668 | | **Attitude Toward Use** | | | | Using UnityHub at the beginning of the semester is good. | 3.84 | 0.669 | | I like the idea of using UnityHub. | 3.78 | 0.700 | | I have a positive attitude towards using UnityHub. | 3.79 | 0.727 | | I find the use of UnityHub is a good idea for my study process. | 3.79 | 0.727 | **Table 4** presents the mean and standard deviation of each item for each construct. All items scored above 3.00, ranging from 3.34 to 4.16, indicating that students generally had moderate to high levels of acceptance of UnityHub. The results encompass various aspects related to UnityHub acceptance, including self-efficacy, satisfaction, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and attitude toward the platform. In terms of self-efficacy, the results indicate that students have a moderate level of confidence in their ability to use UnityHub effectively. On average, they reported being able to navigate the platform without external guidance (mean = 3.43), even without prior experience with similar systems (mean = 3.51) or a user manual (mean = 3.38). Confidence in using the system independently, without assistance from others, was slightly lower (mean = 3.34). These results suggest that while students are reasonably self-reliant, their confidence remains moderate. This aligns with Meng, Qian and Zhang, Qi (2023), who highlighted that self-efficacy is often situational and may require additional training support, and with Mohd Basar, Zulaikha et al. (2021), who observed that learners adapt to new systems even when prior exposure is limited. Regarding satisfaction, the findings reveal consistently high ratings across all items. Students rated UnityHub as effective for gathering group information (mean = 4.16), efficient for saving time (mean = 4.16), cost-efficient (mean = 4.09), and capable of reducing human error (mean = 4.02). Compared to self-efficacy, which was moderate, satisfaction scores were notably higher, indicating that students perceive strong benefits once they begin using the system. This is consistent with Alyami et al. (2021), who emphasized time management as a critical factor in student performance, and Alhusaini (2023), who also reported that efficiency-driven platforms improve academic experience. Perceptions of usefulness yielded moderately positive results. Students considered UnityHub helpful in speeding up the process of joining class groups (mean = 3.82) and improving their effectiveness in studying (mean = 3.61). They also rated it as beneficial for enhancing the group-joining process (mean = 3.71), facilitating participation (mean = 3.74), and useful overall (mean = 3.67). Although these scores are positive, they are lower than those for satisfaction, suggesting that while students appreciate UnityHub’s role in streamlining processes, they may not yet see it as directly transformative for academic performance. These findings are in line with Hollister et al. (2022), who observed that digital platforms enhance engagement but may vary in perceived academic impact, and Nurkaliza (2018), who noted that usefulness perceptions are shaped by system integration with learning activities. The construct of ease of use was also rated positively, with mean scores for clarity of features (3.74), accessibility (3.80), and ease of learning (3.77), resulting in an overall mean of 3.80. These results show that students find UnityHub straightforward and convenient to use, a factor that directly supports adoption. This resonates with Bashir (2018), who highlighted the importance of user-friendly design for sustained engagement. Compared with usefulness, ease of use scored slightly higher, suggesting that accessibility and simplicity are stronger drivers of student acceptance. Students’ intention to use UnityHub showed moderate to high results, with mean scores of 3.77 for using it to enhance communication, 3.70 for using it at the start of the semester, and 3.68 for continued use every semester. These scores suggest that students are open to adopting UnityHub as part of their academic routines, though their intention is slightly lower than their reported satisfaction. This finding reflects Abbas et al. (2019) and Mazana et al. (2019), who both noted that students’ adoption of new systems is shaped by both functional efficiency and perceived long-term value. Finally, students’ attitudes toward using UnityHub were favourable. They rated positively the idea of using it at the beginning of the semester (mean = 3.84) and expressed strong liking for the platform (mean = 4.02). Their positive attitude overall (mean = 3.79) and perception that UnityHub is a good idea for supporting their study process (mean = 3.79) reinforce a generally welcoming disposition toward the system. This is consistent with Rawashdeh et al. (2021), who highlighted students’ positive attitudes toward e-learning platforms, and Abbas et al. (2019), who found that favourable attitudes strongly influence behavioural intention. Across constructs, satisfaction recorded the highest mean score (4.16), indicating that efficiency benefits are the strongest driver of student approval. Ease of use and attitude also scored high (around 3.8), reflecting positive experiences with accessibility and favourable overall perceptions. Perceived usefulness and intention to use were moderate (3.7), showing that while students value the system, they may not yet see it as fully essential for academic tasks. Self-efficacy scored lowest (3.42), suggesting that although students can use UnityHub independently, additional support or training could further strengthen confidence. Collectively, these results demonstrate that while UnityHub is well received, future improvements could focus on enhancing its perceived academic usefulness and supporting user self-efficacy. 1. ConCLUSION This study assessed students’ acceptance of UnityHub at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) across six constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The findings show that **satisfaction was rated highest (mean = 4.16)**, highlighting strong approval of the platform’s efficiency in saving time, reducing costs, and minimizing errors. **Ease of use (mean = 3.78)** and **attitude (mean = 3.80)** were also high, indicating positive perceptions of accessibility and overall design. By contrast, **perceived usefulness (mean = 3.71)** and **intention to use (mean = 3.72)** were moderate, suggesting that while students value UnityHub’s role in group management, its academic impact could be strengthened. **Self-efficacy was lowest (mean = 3.42)**, showing that some students may need additional support or training. These results meet the study objectives by providing a comprehensive overview of acceptance and identifying relative strengths and weaknesses. Practical implications include improving academic features to enhance perceived usefulness and offering onboarding tools to build self-efficacy. Limitations include the single-department sample, which reduces generalizability. Future studies should test UnityHub across multiple faculties and campuses and compare its acceptance with other platforms. Overall, UnityHub has achieved a generally positive level of acceptance among students, particularly in satisfaction and ease of use, but opportunities remain to strengthen its perceived usefulness and user self-efficacy. Addressing these areas will be crucial to ensuring its sustainable role as an academic communication and management tool in hybrid learning environments. 1. ACKNOLWEDGEMENT/FUNDINGS The authors wish to express their gratitude to Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM), Cawangan Negeri Pulau Pinang, Kampus Permatang Pauh, Malaysia, for their generous support in providing the data and facilities for this research. 1. conflict of interest statement The authors declare that this research was conducted without any personal, commercial, or financial conflicts of interest and affirm there are no conflicts with the funders. 1. AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION **Norazah Omar**: Data Analysis, Results and Discussion and Editting, **Nurhafizah Ahmad**: Methodology, Results and Discussion and Editting,. **Jamal Othman**: Literature Review, Conclusion and Abstracts, **Rozita Kadar**: Introduction and System Development. 1. References Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The impact of social media on learning behavior for sustainable education: Evidence from students of selected universities in Pakistan. *Sustainability*, *11*(6), 1683. Al Husaini, Y., & Ahmad Shukor, N. S. (2023). Factors affecting students' academic performance: A review. *International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development*, *12*(1), 284–294. Alyami, A., Abdulwahed, A., Azhar, A., Binsaddik, A., & Bafaraj, S. (2021). Impact of time-management on the student’s academic performance: A cross-sectional study. *Creative Education*, *12*(3), 471–485. Ataman, A. (2023, April 8). *6 user acceptance testing best practices in 2023*. AIMultiple. Bashir, K. (2018). Understanding the role of user interface design in fostering students’ learning process in a multimedia courseware learning environment: Insights from a Malaysian case study. *IIUM Journal of Educational Studies*, *5*(1), 93–109. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. *MIS Quarterly*, *13*(3), 319–339. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Inexperience and experience with online stores: The importance of TAM and trust. *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management*, *50*(3), 307–321. Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. *Journal of Business Research*, *62*(5), 565–571. Hamilton, T. (2023, April 8). *What is user acceptance testing (UAT)*? Examples. Guru99. https://www.guru99.com/user-acceptance-testing.html Hollister, B., White, E., Cooley, A., & Salas, S. (2022). Engagement in online learning: Student attitudes and behavior during COVID-19. *Frontiers in Education*, 7, 851019. Ko, E., Kim, E. Y., & Lee, E. (2009). Modeling consumer adoption of mobile shopping for fashion products in Korea. *Psychology & Marketing*, *26*(7), 669–687. Kong, C., Cheung, C., & Yuen, N. (2022). An analysis of the attitudes and behaviours of university students and perceived contextual factors in alternative assessment during the pandemic using the Attitude–Behaviour–Context model. *Heliyon*, *8*(10), e11180. Lee, Y. K., & Kozar, K. A. (2012). User satisfaction with web-based applications: An exploratory study. *Information & Management*, *49*(1), 21–29. Mazana, M. Y., Montero, C. S., & Casmir, R. O. (2019). Investigating students’ attitude towards learning mathematics. *International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education*, *14*(1), 207–231. Meng, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2023). The influence of academic self-efficacy on university students’ academic performance: The mediating effect of academic engagement. *Sustainability*, *15*(7), 5767. Mohd Basar, Z., Mansor, A., Jamaludin, K., & Alias, B. (2021). The effectiveness and challenges of online learning for secondary school students: A case study. *Asian Journal of University Education*, *17*(3), 119–129. Nugroho, M., Dewanti, P., & Novitasari, B. (2018). The impact of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on students’ performance in mandatory e-learning use. In *2018 International Conference on Applied Information Technology and Innovation (ICAITI)* (pp. 26–30). IEEE. Nurkaliza, K. (2018). The role of perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment in assessing students’ intention to use LMS using 3-TUM. [Unpublished manuscript]. PractiTest. (2023, April 8). *5 user acceptance testing best practices to be more productive*. https://www.practitest.com/qa-learningcenter/resources/user-acceptance-testing-best-practices/ Rawashdeh, A., Youssef, E., Alarab, A., Alarab, M., & Al-Rawashdeh, B. (2021). Advantages and disadvantages of using e-learning in university education: Analyzing students’ perspectives. *Electronic Journal of e-Learning*, *19*(3), 107–117. Smith, J., & Johnson, A. (2018). A systematic literature review to support the selection of user acceptance testing techniques. *ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology*, *27*(3), 1–25. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. *MIS Quarterly*, *36*(1), 157–178. Xie, K. L., & Lee, Y. J. (2015). Social media and brand purchase: Quantifying the effects of exposures to earned and owned social media activities in a two-stage decision making model. *Journal of Management Information Systems*, *32*(2), 204–238. Yuan, G. (2011). Study of implementation of software test management system based on web. In *2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN)* (pp. 708–711). IEEE. Zaki, A. S., & Ahmad, A. (2017). The level of integration among students at secondary school: A study in Limbang, Sarawak. *The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention*, *4*(2), 3284–3288. | | | | --- | --- | | ![A picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated](data:image/png;base64...) | © 2025 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). | 1. \* Corresponding author. *E-mail address*: nurha9129@uitm.edu.my [↑](#footnote-ref-1)