skip to main content
10.1145/3575882.3575929acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesic3inaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Extended Reality Technologies for Sustainable Development of Learning and Education in Indonesia

Published:27 February 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The development of Extended Reality (XR) technologies has reached a new advanced level today, which could be proposed as the main support in solving education problems in Indonesia. As a result, this manuscript seeks to provide an initial framework to support the idea of suggesting the most recent XR technologies as primary instruments in promoting the Sustainable Development of Learning and Education (SDLE). Based on the literature review, the old but gold Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework is extended with several constructs in proposing this initial framework. Several constructs proposed in this initial proposed framework are Perceived Easy-of-Use (PEOU), Perceived Usefulness (PU), Attitude Toward Use (ATU), Intention to Use (ITU), User Satisfaction (US), Learner Flexibility (LF), Self-Efficacy (SF), and Perceived Health Risk (PRH). Certainly, further research is needed to assess and determine the validity of this preliminary framework in order to serve as a guide for scientists, experts, and other stakeholders interested in integrating XR technologies for SDLE.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

IC3INA2022-47-Video.mp4

mp4

112.8 MB

References

  1. Icek Ajzen. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 2 (1991), 179–211. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mahmud Akhter Shareef, Vinod Kumar, Uma Kumar, and Ahsan Akhter Hasin. 2009. Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action in Predicting Technology Adoption Behavior. In Handbook of Research on Contemporary Theoretical Models in Information Systems. IGI Global, 544–562. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-659-4.ch031Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Wadee S Alhalabi. 2016. Virtual reality systems enhance students ’ achievements in engineering education. Behav. Inf. Technol. 3001, July (2016). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212931Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Santi Ambarrukmi. 2022. Kemendikbudristek Harap Skor PISA Indonesia Segera Membaik. Radio Edukasi KEMDIKBUD. Retrieved August 9, 2022 from https://radioedukasi.kemdikbud.go.id/read/3341/kemendikbudristek-harap-skor-pisa-indonesia-segera-membaik.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ibrahim Arpaci. 2017. Antecedents and consequences of cloud computing adoption in education to achieve knowledge management. Comput. Human Behav. 70, (2017), 382–390. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Eddie W.L. Cheng. 2019. Choosing between the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the technology acceptance model (TAM). Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 67, 1 (2019), 21–37. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9598-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. George B. Cunningham and Hyungil Kwon. 2003. The Theory of Planned Behaviour and Intentions to Attend a Sport Event. Sport Manag. Rev. 6, 2 (2003), 127–145. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(03)70056-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 13, 3 (September 1989), 319. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/249008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Irene Esteban-Millat, Francisco J. Martínez-López, Maria Pujol-Jover, Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad, and Alejandro Alegret. 2018. An extension of the technology acceptance model for online learning environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 26, 7 (2018), 895–910. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1421560Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Min Gong, Yan Xu, and Yuecheng Yu. 2004. An Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for Web-Based Learning. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 15, 4 (2004), 365–374. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/200114529?accountid=6579%5Cnhttp://novacat.nova.edu:4550/resserv?genre=article&issn=10553096&title=Journal+of+Information+Systems+Education&volume=15&issue=4&date=2004-12-01&atitle=An+EnhancGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Xingrong Guo, Yiming Guo, and Yunqin Liu. 2021. The development of extended reality in education: Inspiration from the research literature. Sustain. 13, 24 (2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413776Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hewlett-Packard. 2022. HP Reverb G2 Version 2. Hewlett-Packard Official. Retrieved from https://www.hp.com/us-en/vr/reverb-g2-vr-headset.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Eun Jung Kim, Jinkyung Jenny Kim, and Sang Ho Han. 2021. Understanding student acceptance of online learning systems in higher education: Application of social psychology theories with consideration of user innovativeness. Sustain. 13, 2 (2021), 1–14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020896Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. William R. King and Jun He. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 6 (2006), 740–755. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Murielle G. Kluge, Steven Maltby, Angela Keynes, Eugene Nalivaiko, Darrell J.R. Evans, and Frederick R. Walker. 2022. Current State and General Perceptions of the Use of Extended Reality (XR) Technology at the University of Newcastle: Interviews and Surveys From Staff and Students. SAGE Open 12, 2 (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221093348Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ann Knabe. 2012. Applying Ajzen's Theor s Theory of Planned Beha y of Planned Behavior to a Study of Online o a Study of Online Course Adoption in Public Relations Education. Marquette University. Retrieved from https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=dissertations_muGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Valentin Kuleto, Ilić P. Milena, Monica Stanescu, Marko Ranković, Nevenka Popović Šević, Dan Păun, and Silvia Teodorescu. 2021. Extended reality in higher education, a responsible innovation approach for generation y and generation z. Sustain. 13, 21 (2021), 1–19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111814Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Chia Chen Lee, Stephen W. Wang, Maxwell K. Hsu, and Shih Ming Jan. 2018. Air passenger's perception toward pre-flight safety briefing videos: Does it matter? J. Air Transp. Manag. 72, July (2018), 20–31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.07.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Junghyo Lee, Junghun Kim, and Jae Young Choi. 2019. The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telemat. Informatics 39, (2019), 37–48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Wei Lin, Zhaoju Zhu, Bingwei He, Yuqing Liu, Wenyao Hong, and Zhengjian Liao. 2022. A novel virtual reality simulation training system with haptic feedback for improving lateral ventricle puncture skill. Virtual Real. 26, 1 (2022), 399–411. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00578-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Niu Lung-Guang. 2019. Decision-making determinants of students participating in MOOCs: Merging the theory of planned behavior and self-regulated learning model. Comput. Educ. 134, October 2018 (2019), 50–62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Alejandra J. Magana. 2022. The role of frameworks in engineering education research. J. Eng. Educ. 111, 1 (January 2022), 9–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/JEE.20443Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kerry T. Manis and Danny Choi. 2019. The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. J. Bus. Res. 100, August 2018 (2019), 503–513. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Nikola Marangunić and Andrina Granić. 2015. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 14, 1 (2015), 81–95. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kieran Mathieson. 1991. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2, 3 (1991), 173–191. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Microsoft. 2022. Mixed Reality Technology for Education. Microsoft US. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/industry-educationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Som Naidu. 2017. How flexible is flexible learning, who is to decide and what are its implications? Distance Educ. 38, 3 (September 2017), 269–272. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1371831Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Siwage Dharma Negara. 2019. Commentary: Indonesia has big plans for education but severely lacks good teachers. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/indonesia-education-quality-teachers-budget-jokowi-schools-1318036Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jing Yu Pan and Dothang Truong. 2018. Passengers’ intentions to use low-cost carriers: An extended theory of planned behavior model. J. Air Transp. Manag. 69, February (2018), 38–48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.01.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Sung Youl Park. 2009. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding University students’ behavioral intention to use e-Learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12, 3 (2009), 150–162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Adhistya Erna Permanasari, Dian Anggriawan Hidayat, Sunu Wibirama, Intan Sulistyaningrum Sakkinah, and Dayang Rohaya Awang Rambli. 2021. Development of a hospital virtual tour with virtual reality-based panorama. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 30, 2 (2021), 119. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2021.117218Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jennifer Dickman Portz, Elizabeth A. Bayliss, Sheana Bull, Rebecca S. Boxer, David B. Bekelman, Kathy Gleason, and Sara Czaja. 2019. Using the technology acceptance model to explore user experience, intent to use, and use behavior of a patient portal among older adults with multiple chronic conditions: Descriptive qualitative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, 4 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/11604Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Gholamreza Pourmand, Leila Doshmangir, Ayat Ahmadi, Mohammad Noori, Atiyeh Rezaeifar, Rahil Mashhadi, Rezvan Aziminia, Amirhossein Pourmand, and Vladimir S. Gordeev. 2020. An application of the theory of planned behavior to self-care in patients with hypertension. BMC Public Health 20, 1 (2020), 1–8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09385-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Adhi Prasetio, Grisna Anggadwita, and Rina D. Pasaribu. 2021. Digital Learning Challenge in Indonesia. In IT and the Development of Digital Skills and Competences in Education. 56–71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4972-8.ch004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Camille Sagnier, Emilie Loup-Escande, Domitile Lourdeaux, Indira Thouvenin, and Gérard Valléry. 2020. User Acceptance of Virtual Reality: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 36, 11 (2020), 993–1007. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Ardianto Satriawan, Wildan Trusaji, Muhammad Ogin Hasanuddin, Septia Susanti Rahadini, Mayang Cendikia Selekta, and Ellyana Sungkar. 2022. Design of Virtual Reality-Based Hippotherapy Simulator Exergaming Software and Its Controller for Rehabilitation of Children with Cerebral Palsy in Indonesia: An Engineering Concept. Designs 6, 5 (2022), 76. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/designs6050076Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. David A. Sprenger and Adrian Schwaninger. 2021. Technology acceptance of four digital learning technologies (classroom response system, classroom chat, e-lectures, and mobile virtual reality) after three months’ usage. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 18, 1 (2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00243-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Yawen Su and Moyan Li. 2021. Applying Technology Acceptance Model in Online Entrepreneurship Education for New Entrepreneurs. Front. Psychol. 12, October (2021), 1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713239Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Nyoman Sri Subawa, Ni Wayan Widhiasthini, I. Putu Astawa, Christantius Dwiatmadja, and Ni Putu Intan Permatasari. 2021. The practices of virtual reality marketing in the tourism sector, a case study of Bali, Indonesia. Curr. Issues Tour. 24, 23 (December 2021), 3284–3295. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1870940Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Zeynep Turan, Sevda Kucuk, and Sinem Cilligol Karabey. 2022. The university students’ self-regulated effort, flexibility and satisfaction in distance education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 19, 1 (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00342-wGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. UNESCO. 2021. When schools shut: Gendered impacts of COVID-19 school closures. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379270Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 27, 3 (2003), 425. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu. 2012. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Q. 36, 1 (2012), 157. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Viswanath Venkatesh and Hillol Bala. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis. Sci. 39, 2 (May 2008), 273–315. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis. 2000. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 2 (February 2000), 186–204. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Tom Warren. 2019. Google Maps AR walking directions arrive on iOS and Android. The Verge. Retrieved August 10, 2022 from https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20776247/google-maps-live-view-ar-walking-directions-ios-android-featureGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Wecka Imam Yudhistyra and Chalita Srinuan. 2022. Sustainable Learning Development Utilizing Extended Reality (XR) Technology for the Indonesian Education Sector. In 40th International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2022: Information Systems Management, IBIMA. Retrieved from https://ibima.org/accepted-paper/sustainable-learning-development-utilizing-extended-reality-xr-technology-for-the-indonesian-education-sector-an-exploratory-research-methodology/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Liqiu Zhou, Sijia Xue, and Ruiqian Li. 2022. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore Students’ Intention to Use an Online Education Platform at a University in China. SAGE Open 12, 1 (March 2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221085259/FORMAT/EPUBGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Extended Reality Technologies for Sustainable Development of Learning and Education in Indonesia

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      IC3INA '22: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and Its Applications
      November 2022
      415 pages
      ISBN:9781450397902
      DOI:10.1145/3575882

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      © 2022 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 February 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)109
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format