Role of Technology Access and Technical Self-Efficacy Towards Lecturers’ Readiness in Blended Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.88.10684Abstract
Landscape of classroom teaching and learnings has changed Integrating information and communication technology (ICT) as a source of blended teaching and learning, either in the classroom or outside the classroom, has become one of the evolutions in classroom learning. To be part of this evolution, UTMSPACE has started to implement blended learning in teaching and learning. Therefore, the study intended to examine the readiness of UTMSPACE lecturers towards the implementation of blended learning and to explore the current practice of blended learning among the lecturers. The findings confirmed the lecturers’ readiness for blended learning implementation.
This study also examines how personal factors affected the success of e-learning systems and provided better results. Structural equation models on the data of 101 targeted respondents showed that online communication self-efficacy, attitude, and online media are the multiple mediators between the technology access and technical usage self-efficacy and lead to increased blended learning readiness among the lecturers at UTMSPACE. It appears that despite technological factors, the lecturers with a high belief in their ability and attitude are more prepared to adopt the alternative ways of teaching and learning as they gain more experience.
Keywords: Blended learning, UTMSPACE, readiness.
References
Hrastinski, S., What Do We Mean by Blended Learning? TechTrends, 2019. 63, 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Rasheed Abubakar Rasheed, Amirrudin Kamsin, Nor Aniza Abdullah, Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 2020. Volume 144, 103701, ISSN 0360-1315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701.
Chen, L., Chen, T. L., & Chen, N. S., Students’ Perspectives of Using Cooperative Learning In A Flipped Statistics Classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2015. 31(6).
Safford, K., & Stinton, J., Barriers to Blended Digital Distance Vocational Learning for Non-Traditional Students, British Journal of Educational Technology,2016. 47(1), 135-150. 96 Al-Adawiah, S. R. (2021). Role of Technology Access and Technical Self-Efficacy Towards Lecturers’ Readiness in Blended Learning. Advances in
Mohd Ayub, Ahmad fauzi & Zaini, Syaza & Luan, Wong & Wan Jaafar, Wan Marzuki, The Influence of Mobile Selfefficacy, Personal Innovativeness and Readiness towards Students’ Attitudes towards the use of Mobile Apps in Learning and Teaching. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences7. 10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i14/3673.
Devecı Topal, Arzu, Examination of University Students’ Level of Satisfaction and Readiness for E-Courses and the ̇ Relationship between Them. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2016. 15. 10.13187/ejced.2016.15.7.
Konak, A., Kulturel-Konak, S., & Cheung, G. W., Teamwork Attitudes, Interest and Self-Efficacy Between Online and Face-To-Face Information Technology Students, Team Performance Management, 2018. http://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-05-2018-0035
Elisabeth Coyne, Valda Frommolt, Hazel Rands, Victoria Kain, Marion Mitchell, Simulation videos presented in a blended learning platform to improve Australian nursing students' knowledge of family assessment. Nurse Education Today. 2018. Volume 66, Pages 96-102, ISSN 0260-6917, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.04.012.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., &Thornhill, A., Research Method for Business Students, 2009. 5th edition. New York: Prentice Hall Publications.
Creswell, J.W., Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 2015. 4th edition. London: Pearson New International Edition.
Ong, M.H.A., &Puteh, F., Quantitative Data Analysis: Choosing Between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in Social Science Research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 2017. Vol. 3 (1), pp.14-25
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., &Sarstedt, M., A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. (PLS-SEM), 2017. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A., An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science,2012. 40(3), 414–433.
Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W., A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2010. 17 (1), 82–109.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G.J., & Chen, Q., Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truth about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research,2010. Vol. 17, 197-206.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X., A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equation models perform better than regression. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2007. Vol. 7(2), 140-154.
Monteiro, E., & Morrison, K., Challenges for Collaborative Blended Learning in Undergraduate Students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2014. 20(7-8), 564-591.
Y. A. Mohammed, E-Learning Readiness Assessment of Medical Students in University of Fallujah, 1st Annual International Conference on Information and Sciences (AiCIS), 2018. pp. 201-207, doi: 10.1109/AiCIS.2018.00046.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M., "SmartPLS 3." Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, 2015. http://www.smartpls.com.
Chin, Wynne & Marcolin, Barb & Newsted, Peter, A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study, Information Systems Research, 2003. 14. 189-217. 10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S., Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2012. 13(7), 546-580.
Kock, N., Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach, International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2012. 11(4), 1-10.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 1988. 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M., When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM, European Business Review, 2019. Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A., Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0: An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis, 2018. 2nd edition. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pearson.
Franke, George and Marko Sarstedt, Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 2018. forthcoming.
Cain, Meghan & Zhang, Zhiyong & Yuan, Ke-Hai, Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods, 2016. 17. 10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1.
Hahn, E.D., & Ang, S.H., From the editors: New directions in the reporting of statistical results in the Journal of World Business. Journal of World Business, 2017.52, 125-126.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 SYARIFAH RABIYAH AL ADAWIAH
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
