SINTA

2.5

Impact

Google Scholar

10

h-index

Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER)

Open Access Journal

Analyzing University Students’ Attitude And Behavior Towards Jesi Program Using Technology Acceptance Model

Brandon N. Obenza
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
bobenza@umindanao.edu.ph
June Clyde A. Galido
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
Tristan John M. Madridano
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
Kris Bryan V. Mocallay
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
Kenta Quio
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
Erika Mae H. Rojo
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
Jilian C. Sedot
University of Mindanao ROR
Philippines
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to examine university students’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the JESI Interactive Learning Module using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), focusing on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.

    Methodology: A structured 5-point Likert scale questionnaire adapted from Davis (1989) was distributed via Google Forms. A total of 269 university students were selected using stratified random sampling. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) through SmartPLS 4.0 and descriptive statistics via Jamovi software.

    Main Findings: The findings revealed that PU (β = 0.495, p < 0.000) has significant direct effects toward attitude, while PEOU  (β = 0.117, p < 0.144) has no significant direct effects toward attitude.  Additionally, attitude (β = 0.594, p < 0.00)  has also been found to have a significant direct effect toward behavioral intention to use. Additionally, the structural model demonstrated a good-fit in all PLS-SEM indices.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study is the first to apply TAM to evaluate JESI, a context-specific ILM in Philippine higher education. It advances theoretical understanding of technology acceptance and offers practical insights for improving ILM design and adoption across similar digital platforms in higher education institutions.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    B. N. Obenza, “Analyzing University Students’ Attitude And Behavior Towards Jesi Program Using Technology Acceptance Model”, Ind. Jou. Edu. Rsc, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 177–186, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.37251/ijoer.v6i2.1402.

    More Citation Formats

  • 752
    Abstract views
    318
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. C. Albrecht, O. Scrivner, G. Allen, and C. Albrecht, “Introduction to the Minitrack on Advances in Teaching and Learning Technologies,” Proc. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., vol. 1, 2020, doi: 10.24251/hicss.2020.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.002
    2. I. Sudarsana et al., “Technology application in education and learning process,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1363, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1363/1/012061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1363/1/012061
    3. M. Pastushkova, O. Savateeva, A. Trotsenko, and D. Savateev, “The practical guidelines for implementing modular training in higher education,” Eur. J. Contemp. Educ., vol. 2019, doi: 10.13187/ejced.2019.2.328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2019.2.328
    4. B. Kim, W. Richard, and J. Dattilo, “Students’ perception of interactive learning modules,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 34, pp. 453–473, 2002, doi: 10.1080/15391523.2002.10782361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2002.10782361
    5. JESI, “FAQs,” JESI, https://um.jesiportal.net/faqs.
    6. F. Leow, “Interactive multimedia learning: Innovating classroom education in a Malaysian university,” Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 13, pp. 99–110, 2014.
    7. E. Goode, J. Nieuwoudt, and T. Roche, “Does online engagement matter? The impact of interactive learning modules and synchronous class attendance on student achievement in an immersive delivery model,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 2022, doi: 10.14742/ajet.7929. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7929
    8. W. Tarigan, H. Sipahutar, and F. Harahap, “The effect of interactive digital learning module on student’s learning activity and autonomy,” Bioedukasi: J. Pendidik. Biol., vol. 14, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.20961/bioedukasi-uns.v14i2.49366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/bioedukasi-uns.v14i2.49366
    9. A. Liem, S. Lau, and Y. Nie, “The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 33, pp. 486–512, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001
    10. S. Kim, “Motivators and concerns for real-time online classes: Focused on the security and privacy issues,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 31, pp. 1875–1888, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1863232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1863232
    11. X. Jiang, T. Goh, and M. Liu, “On students’ willingness to use online learning: A privacy calculus theory approach,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.880261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.880261
    12. A. Farooq, F. Ahmad, N. Khadam, B. Lorenz, and J. Isoaho, “The impact of perceived security on intention to use e-learning among students,” in Proc. IEEE 20th Int. Conf. Adv. Learn. Technol. (ICALT), 2020, pp. 360–364, doi: 10.1109/icalt49669.2020.00115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00115
    13. S. Sudarman and A. Ardian, “The development of interactive module to support student-centered learning,” Akademika, vol. 10, pp. 77–92, 2021, doi: 10.34005/AKADEMIKA.V10I01.1344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34005/akademika.v10i01.1344
    14. P. Muthulakshmi and A. Veliappan, “Effectiveness of an interactive multimedia learning package in developing attitude towards mathematics,” J. Sch. Educ. Technol., vol. 11, pp. 40–46, 2016, doi: 10.26634/JSCH.11.3.4789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.11.3.4789
    15. A. Hanif, F. Q. Jamal, and M. Imran, “Extending the technology acceptance model for use of e-learning systems by digital learners,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 73395–73404, 2018, doi: 10.1109/access.2018.2881384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2881384
    16. D. Lemay, M. Morin, P. Bazelais, and T. Doleck, “Modeling students' perceptions of simulation-based learning using the technology acceptance model,” Clin. Simul. Nurs., vol. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.004
    17. F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Q., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 319, 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
    18. V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies,” Manage. Sci., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, Feb. 2000, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
    19. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Q., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003, doi: 10.2307/30036540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
    20. S. Y. Yousafzai, G. R. Foxall, and J. G. Pallister, “Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1,” J. Model. Manage., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 251–280, 2007, doi: 10.1108/17465660710834453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660710834453
    21. R. P. Bagozzi, “The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift,” J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 8, no. 4, 2007, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122
    22. M. Y. Chuttur, “Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments, and future directions,” Work. Pap. Inf. Syst., Indiana University, USA, 2009. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/290.
    23. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 6th ed. SAGE Publications, 2023.
    24. J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet,” J. Market. Theory Pract., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 139–152, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
    25. H. O. A. Wold, “Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions,” in Systems Under Indirect Observations: Part II, J. G. Jöreskog and H. O. A. Wold, Eds. North-Holland, 1982, pp. 1–54, doi: 10.4236/tel.2018.811132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2018.811132
    26. M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and J. F. Hair, “Partial least squares structural equation modeling,” in Handbook of Market Research, C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, and A. Vomberg, Eds. Springer, 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1
    27. N. Kock and P. Hadaya, “Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods,” Inf. Syst. J., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 227–261, 2018, doi: 10.1111/isj.12131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
    28. J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017.
    29. M. R. A. Hamid, W. Sami, and M. H. M. Sidek, “Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 890, 2017, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
    30. J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2014.
    31. K. G. Jöreskog, “Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 109–133, 1971, doi: 10.1007/bf02291393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291393
    32. P. Kusumawardani, N. Hajarisman, and A. I. Achmad, “Calculation of composite reliability and maximal reliability on confirmatory factor analysis,” Semanticscholar, 2016.
    33. R. P. Bagozzi and Y. Yi, “On the evaluation of structural equation models,” J. Acad. Market. Sci., vol. 16, pp. 74–94, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
    34. C. G. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” J. Market. Res., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981, doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
    35. J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics, “The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing,” in New Challenges to International Marketing, R. R. Sinkovics and P. N. Ghauri, Eds., vol. 20. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009, pp. 277–319, doi: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
    36. J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” J. Acad. Market. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 115–135, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
    37. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2011.
    38. A. H. Gold and A. H. Malhotra, “Title of the article,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 18, pp. 185–214, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
    39. J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM,” Eur. Bus. Rev., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–24, 2019, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
    40. C. H. Mason and W. D. Perreault, “Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis,” J. Market. Res., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 268–280, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800302
    41. J. Becker, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, and F. Völckner, “How collinearity affects mixture regression results,” Market. Lett., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 643–659, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11002-014-9299-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9299-9
    42. C. Buabeng-Andoh, “Exploring university students’ intention to use mobile learning: A research model approach,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 26, pp. 241–256, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10267-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10267-4
    43. J. Hwang, K. Joo, H. Kim, and J. Lee, “The difference between service robots and human staff in the extended TPB model in airports,” Curr. Issues Tourism, vol. 27, pp. 1916–1929, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2023.2215975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2215975
    44. R. Rahmiati and I. Yuannita, “The influence of trust, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude on purchase intention,” J. Kajian Manaj. Bisnis, 2019, doi: 10.24036/jkmb.10884800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24036/jkmb.10884800
    45. T. Indarsin and H. Ali, “Attitude toward using m-commerce: The analysis of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived trust: Case study in Ikens wholesale trade, Jakarta – Indonesia,” Saudi J. Bus. Manage. Stud., vol. 2, no. 11, 2017, doi: 10.21276/sjbms.2017.2.11.7.
    46. M. Raksadigiri and S. Wahyuni, “Perceived ease of use effect on perceived usefulness and attitude towards use and its impact on behavioral intention to use,” Int. J. Adv. Res., 2020, doi: 10.21474/ijar01/12167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/12167
    47. M. Islami, M. Asdar, and A. Baumassepe, “Analysis of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to the actual system usage through attitude using online guidance application,” Hum. J. Bus. Stud., vol. 3, pp. 52–64, 2021, doi: 10.26487/HJBS.V3I1.410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26487/hjbs.v3i1.410
    48. E. Kim, J. Kim, and S. Han, “Understanding student acceptance of online learning systems in higher education: Application of social psychology theories with consideration of user innovativeness,” Sustainability, vol. 13, 2021, doi: 10.3390/SU13020896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020896
    49. S. Park and J. Lee, “The influence of theory of planned behavior (TPB) on the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness in accounting information users,” Korean Assoc. Comput. Account., 2022, doi: 10.32956/kaoca.2022.20.2.23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32956/kaoca.2022.20.2.23
    50. H. Mohammadi, “A study of mobile banking loyalty in Iran,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 44, pp. 35–47, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.015
    51. N. Nuryakin, N. Rakotoarizaka, and H. Musa, “The effect of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on student satisfaction: The mediating role of attitude to use online learning,” Asia Pac. Manage. Bus. Appl., vol. 11, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.21776/ub.apmba.2023.011.03.5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.apmba.2023.011.03.5
    52. N. Um, “Learners’ attitude toward e-learning: The effects of perceived system quality and e-learning usefulness, self-management of learning, and self-efficacy,” [Journal Name Missing], vol. 2021.
    53. N. Purnawirawan, P. De Pelsmacker, and N. Dens, “Balance and sequence in online reviews: How perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions,” J. Interact. Market., vol. 26, pp. 244–255, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2012.04.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.04.002
    54. J. Sample and R. Warland, “Attitude and prediction of behavior,” Social Forces, vol. 51, pp. 292–304, 1973, doi: 10.1093/SF/51.3.292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2577135
    55. M. Kim and J. Hunter, “Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior,” Commun. Res., vol. 20, pp. 331–364, 1993, doi: 10.1177/009365093020003001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020003001
    56. C. Shao, “An empirical study on the identification of driving factors of satisfaction with online learning based on TAM,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Econ., Manage., Law Educ. (EMLE 2019), 2020, pp. 1067–1073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.191225.205
    57. T. Hodson, “Root-mean-square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE): When to use them or not,” Geosci. Model Dev., vol. 15, pp. 5481–5492, 2022, doi: 10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022