International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 9 (September 2025), Pages: 230-240

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Exploring the role of virtual reality in preserving and promoting traditional straw weaving crafts

 Author(s): 

 Mo Lili 1, 2, Velan Kunjuraman 1, *, Novel Anak Lyndon 1

 Affiliation(s):

  1Center for Research in Development, Social and Environment, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
  2Faculty of Art and Media, Nanning College of Technology, Nanning, China

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5616-4712

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.09.023

 Abstract

This study examines the acceptance of virtual reality (VR) technology in preserving traditional straw weaving by extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with cultural heritage authenticity and user engagement. Using a mixed-methods approach with surveys and follow-up interviews, data from 287 Chinese university students, artisans, museum visitors, and cultural enthusiasts were analyzed through PLS-SEM. Findings show that perceived ease of use strongly influences attitude (β = 0.699, p < 0.001), and attitude is the main predictor of behavioral intention (β = 0.769, p < 0.001). Perceived usefulness had a moderate effect on attitude (β = 0.320, p = 0.004), but perceived ease of use did not significantly affect usefulness, and neither authenticity nor user engagement significantly affected attitudes. High Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios indicate conceptual overlap, suggesting that authenticity may be embedded within usefulness, which was supported by interview data. The study highlights the need to adapt technology acceptance models to cultural heritage contexts.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Virtual reality, Technology acceptance, Cultural heritage, User engagement, Straw weaving

 Article history

 Received 8 April 2025, Received in revised form 9 August 2025, Accepted 25 August 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study, and their responses were collected anonymously to ensure confidentiality.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Lili M, Kunjuraman V, and Lyndon NA (2025). Exploring the role of virtual reality in preserving and promoting traditional straw weaving crafts. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(9): 230-240

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  Table 5  Table 6

----------------------------------------------   

 References (46)

  1. Abdullah F and Ward R (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56: 238–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdullah F, Ward R, and Ahmed E (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students' perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63: 75–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adhikari G (2021). Calculating the sample size in quantitative studies. Scholars’ Journal, 4(1): 14-29.  https://doi.org/10.3126/scholars.v4i1.42458    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldosari B (2012). User acceptance of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) in a Saudi Arabian hospital radiology department. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12: 44.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-44    [Google Scholar] PMid:22640490 PMCid:PMC3423046
  5. Ali I and Warraich NF (2024). Meta-analysis of technology acceptance for mobile and digital libraries in academic settings using technology acceptance model (TAM). Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.  https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-09-2023-0360    [Google Scholar]
  6. Allcoat D and von Mühlenen A (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology, 26: 2140.  https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2140    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andrade C (2020). Sample size and its importance in research. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(1): 102–103.  https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_504_19    [Google Scholar] PMid:31997873 PMCid:PMC6970301
  8. Bakı R, Bırgoren B, and Aktepe A (2018). A meta analysis of factors affecting perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the adoption of e-learning systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(4): 4-42.  https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.471649    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bansah AK and Agyei DD (2022). Perceived convenience, usefulness, effectiveness and user acceptance of information technology: Evaluating students’ experiences of a learning management system. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(4): 431–449.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2027267    [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun V and Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis FD (1989). Technology acceptance model: TAM. In: Al-Suqri MN and Al-Aufi AS (Eds.), Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: 205-219. IGI Global, Hershey, USA.    [Google Scholar]
  12. Doherty K and Doherty G (2018). Engagement in HCI: A conceptual framework and survey of the state of the art. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5): 99. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234149    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Jeyaraj A, Clement M, and Williams MD (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21: 719–734.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y    [Google Scholar]
  14. Farrelly F, Kock F, and Josiassen A (2020). Cultural heritage authenticity: A producer view. Annals of Tourism Research, 80: 102770.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102770    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hair J and Alamer A (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3): 100027.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hu J (2024). Individually integrated virtual/augmented reality environment for interactive perception of cultural heritage. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 17(1): 9.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3631145    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kang X, Li X, and Chen C (2023). An acceptance model of digital education in intangible cultural heritage based on cultural awareness. Digital Creativity, 34(4): 331–346.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2023.2280028    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim Y, Chun JU, and Song J (2009). Investigating the role of attitude in technology acceptance from an attitude strength perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 29(1): 67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.011    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakens D (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1): 33267.  https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee M, Lee SA, Jeong M, and Oh H (2020). Quality of virtual reality and its impacts on behavioral intention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90: 102595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102595    [Google Scholar]
  21. Li M, Chen Y, Zhang L, Wu X, and Huang C (2022a). Investigating learners’ engagement and Chinese writing learning outcomes with different designs of SVVR-based activities. Sustainability, 14(8): 4767.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084767    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li M, Sun X, Zhu Y, and Qiu H (2024). Real in virtual: The influence mechanism of virtual reality on tourists’ perceptions of presence and authenticity in museum tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(11): 3651-3673.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2023-0957    [Google Scholar]
  23. Li X, Chen C, Kang X, and Kang J (2022b). Research on relevant dimensions of tourism experience of intangible cultural heritage lantern festival: Integrating generic learning outcomes with the technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 943277.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943277    [Google Scholar] PMid:36160520 PMCid:PMC9495712
  24. Lin X, Li B, Yao Z, Yang Z, and Zhang M (2024). The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom–A critical review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 15: 1360574.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360574    [Google Scholar] PMid:38659670 PMCid:PMC11040080
  25. Liu Y and Yang Y (2018). Empirical examination of users’ adoption of the sharing economy in China using an expanded technology acceptance model. Sustainability, 10(4): 1262.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041262    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ma Q and Liu L (2005). The role of internet self-efficacy in the acceptance of web-based electronic medical records. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(1): 38–57.  https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2005010103    [Google Scholar]
  27. Makransky G and Lilleholt L (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66: 1141–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2    [Google Scholar]
  28. Netemeyer RG and Bearden WO (1992). A comparative analysis of two models of behavioral intention. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1): 49–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039202000105    [Google Scholar]
  29. O'Brien HL and Toms EG (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59: 938–955.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pan S and Jordan-Marsh M (2010). Internet use intention and adoption among Chinese older adults: From the expanded technology acceptance model perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5): 1111–1119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.015    [Google Scholar]
  31. Park E, Choi B, and Lee TJ (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 74: 99–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.03.001    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pescarin S, Città G, Gentile M, and Spotti S (2023). Authenticity in VR and XR experiences: A conceptual framework for digital heritage. In the Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, The Eurographics Association, Lecce, Italy: 21-25.  https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20231153   [Google Scholar]
  33. Purwandaru PS (2023). Rice straw craft preservation and development in Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Mudra Jurnal Seni Budaya, 38(4): 443-451.  https://doi.org/10.31091/mudra.v38i4.2276    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sinha N, Dhingra S, Sehrawat R, Jain V, and Himanshu (2024). Customers’ intention to use virtual reality in tourism: A comprehensive analysis of influencing factors. Tourism Review, 80(3): 742-766.  https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2023-0488    [Google Scholar]
  35. Su J (2018). Conceptualising the subjective authenticity of intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(9): 919–937.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428662    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tang X, Zainal SRBM, and Li Q (2023). Multimedia use and its impact on the effectiveness of educators: A technology acceptance model perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10: 923.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02458-4    [Google Scholar]
  37. Verma P and Sinha N (2018). Integrating perceived economic wellbeing to technology acceptance model: The case of mobile based agricultural extension service. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126: 207–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.013    [Google Scholar]
  38. Vichnevetskaia A (2021). Implications of the use of virtual reality in heritage conservation. In the IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality (ICVR), IEEE, Foshan, China: 215-222.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR51878.2021.9483868    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang X and Goh DHL (2017). Video game acceptance: A meta-analysis of the extended technology acceptance model. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(11): 662–671.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0086    [Google Scholar] PMid:29125789
  40. Warshaw PR and Davis FD (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3): 213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wen X, Sotiriadis M, and Shen S (2023). Determining the key drivers for the acceptance and usage of AR and VR in cultural heritage monuments. Sustainability, 15(5): 4146.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054146    [Google Scholar]
  42. Xin Y (2022). Influence of learning engagement on learning effect under a virtual reality (VR) environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(5): 226–237.  https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i05.29451    [Google Scholar]
  43. Yan X, Wang X, and Zhao D (2020). Research on 3R design of straw woven living products based on green design concept. E3S Web of Conferences, 179: 01023.  https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017901023    [Google Scholar]
  44. Yang R, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhu Q, Wang N, Song Y, Tian F, and Xu H (2024). Enhancing the sustainability of intangible cultural heritage projects: Obtaining efficient digital skills preservation through binocular half panoramic VR maps. Sustainability, 16(13): 5281.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135281    [Google Scholar]
  45. Yu Z and Xu W (2022). A meta‐analysis and systematic review of the effect of virtual reality technology on users' learning outcomes. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30: 1470–1484.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22532    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhang T, Tao D, Qu X, Zhang X, Lin R, and Zhang W (2019). The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 98: 207–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018    [Google Scholar]