Integrasi Model Kesiapan Teknologi Dan Model Penerimaan Teknologi Untuk Memprediksi Adopsi Blended Learning Pada Mahasiswa

Tafrizi Tafrizi, Novi Suprapti

Abstract


Blended learning semakin banyak diterapkan di perguruan tinggi, namun keberhasilannya dipengaruhi oleh kesiapan dan penerimaan teknologi oleh mahasiswa. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengintegrasikan Technology Readiness (TR) dan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) dalam kerangka Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM) untuk memprediksi adopsi pembelajaran campuran di Universitas Respati Indonesia. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif eksplanatori dengan melibatkan 134 mahasiswa. Data dikumpulkan secara daring menggunakan Google Forms selama tiga minggu dan dianalisis menggunakan Structural Equation Modeling berbasis Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) melalui SmartPLS 4.0. Model penelitian mencakup delapan konstruk, yaitu Optimisme, Inovasi, Ketidaknyamanan, Ketidakamanan, Persepsi Kegunaan, Persepsi Kemudahan Penggunaan, Sikap, dan Perilaku. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa Ketidaknyamanan dan Ketidakamanan berpengaruh signifikan terhadap Persepsi Kegunaan dan Persepsi Kemudahan Penggunaan, sedangkan Optimisme dan Inovasi tidak berpengaruh signifikan. Persepsi Kegunaan berpengaruh positif terhadap Sikap, tetapi berpengaruh negatif terhadap Perilaku, sementara Sikap menjadi prediktor terkuat Perilaku penggunaan pembelajaran campuran. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa hambatan psikologis dalam kesiapan teknologi memiliki pengaruh lebih besar dibandingkan faktor pendorong positif dalam membentuk adopsi teknologi. Penelitian ini memberikan kontribusi teoretis melalui validasi integrasi TR dan TAM dalam konteks Blended Learning, serta implikasi praktis bagi perguruan tinggi dalam mengembangkan platform pembelajaran yang lebih aman, mudah digunakan, dan efektif untuk meningkatkan pengalaman serta hasil belajar mahasiswa.
Kata kunci: Blended Learning, Technology Readiness, Technology Acceptance Model. Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model

Full Text:

PDF

References


Daftar Pustaka

Alamri, M. M. (2022). Investigating Students’ Adoption of MOOCs during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Students’ Academic Self-Efficacy, Learning Engagement, and Learning Persistence. Sustainability, 14(2), 714. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020714

Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Investigating the effect of learning styles in a blended e-learning system: An extension of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2741

Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004

Al-Maatouk, Q., Othman, M. S., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Aljeraiwi, A. A. (2020). Task-Technology Fit and Technology Acceptance Model Application to Structure and Evaluate the Adoption of Social Media in Academia. IEEE Access, 8, 78427–78440. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990420

Al-Maroof, R. A. S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students Acceptance of Google Classroom: An Exploratory Study using PLS-SEM Approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(06), 112. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i06.8275

Anthony B. (2024). Exploring the role of blended learning for teaching and learning effectiveness in institutions of higher learning: An empirical investigation. EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, 24(6).

Ashraf, M. A., Shabnam, N., Tsegay, S. M., & Huang, G. (2023). Acceptance of Smart Technologies in Blended Learning: Perspectives of Chinese Medical Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2756. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032756

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Fahmi, Muhammad Ainul, Nenden Kostini, and W. B. T. S. P. (2022). Exploring hybrid learning readiness and acceptance model using the extended TAM 3 and TPB approach: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science, 11(8).

Geng, S., Law, K. M. Y., & Niu, B. (2019). Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0

Graham Carlos, W., Dela Cruz, C. S., Cao, B., Pasnick, S., & Jamil, S. (2020). Novel Wuhan (2019-NCoV) coronavirus. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 201(4), P7–P8. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2014P7

Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069

Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use.” In Organizational Research Methods, MIS Quarterly, and International Journal (Vol. 1, Issue 2).

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Ichsan, D. S., Hafid, F., Ramadhan, K., & Taqwin, T. (2021). Determinan Kesediaan Masyarakat menerima Vaksinasi Covid-19 di Sulawesi Tengah. Poltekita : Jurnal Ilmu Kesehatan, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.33860/jik.v15i1.430

Kothari, S. P., Li, X., Short, J. E., Wright, P., Guay, W., Kurtzman, J., Lutchen, M., Misser, S., Thomas, A., & Wong, G. (n.d.). The Effect of Disclosures by Management, Analysts, and Financial Press on Cost of Capital, Return Volatility, and Analyst Forecasts: A Study Using Content Analysis We acknowledge financial support from Pricewaterhouse Coopers and the MIT Center for eBusiness. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1113337

Laifa, M., Giglou, R. I., & Akhrouf, S. (2023). Blended Learning in Algeria: Assessing Students’ Satisfaction and Future Preferences Using SEM and Sentiment Analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 48(5), 879–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09658-5

Lin, C. H., Shih, H. Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model. Psychology and Marketing, 24(7), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20177

Lin, Y., & Yu, Z. (2023). Extending Technology Acceptance Model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00403-8

Ling dan Moi. (2007). Professional Students’ Technology Readiness, Prior Computing Experience and Acceptance of an E-Learning System. 6(1), 85–100.

Mailizar, M., Burg, D., & Maulina, S. (2021). Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7057–7077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5

Nadlifatin, R., Ardiansyahmiraja, B., & Persada, S. F. (2020). The measurement of university students’ intention to use blended learning system through technology acceptance model (tam) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) at developed and developing regions: Lessons learned from Taiwan and Indonesia. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(9), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i09.11517

Parasuraman, (2000). Index ( TRI ) A Multiple-Item Scale to Embrace New Technologies. Parasuraman, 2(May), 307–320.

Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. L. (2014). An Updated and Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730

Rizun, M., & Strzelecki, A. (2020). Students’ Acceptance of the COVID-19 Impact on Shifting Higher Education to Distance Learning in Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186468

Salloum, S. A., Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, A., Al-Emran, M., Abdel Monem, A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 7, 128445–128462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467

Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. In Computers in Human Behavior (Vol. 27, Issue 6, pp. 2067–2077). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Walczuch. (2007). The effect of service employees ’ technology readiness on technology acceptance §. 44, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.005

Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of service employees’ technology readiness on technology acceptance. Information and Management, 44(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.005

Yu, T., Dai, J., & Wang, C. (2023). Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 390. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01904-7




DOI: https://doi.org/10.52643/jam.v16i3.9263

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Flag Counter

  

StatCounter

View My Stats

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.