## 5 Discussion  
### Discussion of Findings  
This study is based on the UTAUT2 model and adapted to the context of the digital twin learning system. It explores the impact of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation, and usage habit on students' intention to use the digital twin learning system as a teaching tool, as well as the relationships among these variables. According to [PERSON] et al. 's [85] unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model, effort expectancy generally has a positive influence on usage intention. This finding fills a gap in existing research on the effectiveness of digital twin technology in education, emphasizing the potential of the technology to improve learning performance. However, research by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [90] indicates that in highly autonomous learning environments, complex technology can decrease user intention. This study finds that effort expectancy has a significant negative impact on usage intention, which differs from the main conclusions of the UTAUT model. A possible explanation is that the complexity of the digital twin learning system makes students feel that significant effort is required, thus reducing their usage intention. In subsequent interviews, one \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dimension** & **Index** & **Standard Load** & **Cronbach’s Alpha** & **CR** & **AMOS** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Performance expectation} & PE1 & 0.753 & & & \\  & PE2 & 0.836 & 0.834 & 0.872 & 0.541 \\  & PE3 & 0.698 & & & \\  & EE1 & 0.583 & & & \\  & EE2 & 0.694 & 0.712 & 0.724 & 0.502 \\  & EE3 & 0.732 & & & \\  & SI1 & 0.684 & & & \\ Social influence & SI2 & 0.586 & 0.762 & 0.753 & 0.453 \\  & SI3 & 0.648 & & & \\  & EF1 & 0.754 & & & \\ Enabling factor & EF2 & 0.768 & 0.812 & 0.819 & 0.535 \\  & EF3 & 0.643 & & & \\  & HM1 & 0.796 & & & \\ Hedonic motive & HM2 & 0.724 & 0.857 & 0.845 & 0.703 \\  & HM3 & 0.719 & & & \\  & UH1 & 0.865 & & & \\ Using habit & UH2 & 0.821 & 0.834 & 0.875 & 0.634 \\  & UH3 & 0.783 & & & \\  & BI1 & 0.782 & & & \\ Behavior Intention & BI2 & 0.725 & 0.826 & 0.845 & 0.652 \\  & BI3 & 0.810 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Reliability and convergence validity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Hypothetical Path** & **Beta** & **SE** & **CR** & \(p\) & **Inspection Results** \\ \hline HM \(\leftarrow\) EE & 0.865 & 0.143 & 9.354 & *** & remarkable \\ PE \(\leftarrow\) EE & 0.376 & 0.125 & 2.532 & ** & remarkable \\ UH \(\leftarrow\) HM & 0.782 & 0.053 & 10.351 & *** & remarkable \\ EE \(\leftarrow\) EF & 0.834 & 0.056 & 9.431 & *** & remarkable \\ PE \(\leftarrow\) SI & 0.652 & 0.127 & 6.578 & *** & remarkable \\ BI \(\leftarrow\) PE & 0.276 & 0.145 & 2.347 & * & remarkable \\ BI \(\leftarrow\) EE & -0.349 & 0.315 & \(-\)2.237 & * & remarkable \\ BI \(\leftarrow\) SI & 0.067 & 0.167 & 0.645 & 0.512 & unremarkable \\ BI \(\leftarrow\) EF & 0.458 & 0.148 & 2.643 & * & remarkable \\ BI \(\leftarrow\) HM & 0.165 & 0.087 & 1.258 & 0.125 & unremarkable \\ BI \(\leftarrow\) UH & 0.574 & 0.056 & 8.033 & *** & remarkable \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Path check table. participant stated, \"I prefer systems that are easy to operate. Previously, systems provided by teachers required considerable time and effort to understand the interface and functions, which was frustrating\". Another student remarked, \"The system's steps are relatively simple, and I could adapt to it quickly\". Additionally, the course instructor noted that the use of the \"visual cockpit\" helped her manage the class and understand students' learning statuses in real time. This indicates that when designing learning systems, it is crucial to focus on user experience and ensure the system is easy to operate. This finding highlights the importance of designing learning systems that are easy to use and provides an empirical basis for future educational technology design.