Perbandingan Sikap Menggunakan Komputer antara Dosen dan Anggota e-Learning Community

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.25247

Fidelis Jacklyn Adella(1*), Elisabeth Rukmini(2)

(1) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya Jakarta
(2) 
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: E-learning community (eLC) of the School of Medicine Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia consisted of twelve students. eLC trained lecturers  about e-learning in personal or small group format. This study aimed to compare the differences between the development of computer-related attitude between lecturers and e-learning community members upon the service from e-learning community for lecturers.

Method: This research was an experimental quantitative and qualitative study. Subjects were 12 students of eLC and 32 lecturers who received eLC’s services. The quantitative data was collected through questionnaires of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS) and Computer Self-Efficacy (CSE). The qualitative data was collected through focus group discussion and in-depth interviews. CARS and CSE data were collected four times: (1) prior to the eLC trainings, (2) right after the eLC first training, (3) after the second training of eLC, and (4) right after one month of the last training from eLC. Data analysis was conducted using Friedman test, Mann-Whitney test. Qualitative data analysis were performed using content analysis.

Results: There was a significant decrease from the score of CARS 1 to the score of CARS 4 for the eLC members (p=0,045). Results of CSE for eLC members showed no significant differences across the data collection. For faculty members, the significant differences were found between CARS 3 and CARS 4 (p=0,014). CSE scores of faculty members showed no significant differences. Comparison of CARS and CSE between faculty members and eLC members showed no significant differences. The qualitative data analysis showed some important aspects found in both of the groups. There are communication, interaction, the importances of eLC trainings, as well as suggestions to both of the groups about e-learning. Subjects’ opinions were divided into two groups: one who experienced positive changes in their computer-related attitude and one who did not experience any changes.

Conclusion: Faculty members found that eLC were important in relation to e-learning training for lecturers. Students strongly agreed that being the member of eLC made him/her had a great opportunity to closely communicate to their lecturers. The faculty members’ anxiety level of computer using was low; on the other hand, their awareness of computer technology was good enough. The institution should employ this opportunity to apply e-learning more seriously and extensively.

 


Keywords


E-learning, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, lecturer, tutoring

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Horton W. e-Learning by Design. John Wiley and Sons; 2011. 638
  2. p. Lau F, Bates J. A Review of e-Learning practices for undergraduate medical education. Journal of Medical Systems. 2004 Feb;28(1):71–87.
  3. Abdelhai R, Yassin S, Ahmad MF, Fors UG. An e-learning reproductive health module to support improved student learning and interaction: a prospective interventional study at a medical school in Egypt. BMC Medical Education. 2012;12(1):11.
  4. Jamero DJ, Borghol A, Mihm L. Comparison of computer-mediated learning and lecture-mediated learning for teaching pain management to pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Edu. 2009;73(1):5.
  5. Varghese J, Faith M, Jacob M. Impact of e-resources on learning in biochemistry: first-year medical students’ perceptions. BMC Medical Education. 2012;12(1):21.
  6. Morgulis Y, Kumar RK, Lindeman R, Velan GM. Impact on learning of an e-learning module on leukaemia: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Education. 2012;12(1):36.
  7. Kononowicz AA, Krawczyk P, Cebula G, Dembkowska M, Drab E, Fraczek B, et al. Effects of introducing a voluntary virtual patient module to a basic life support with an automated external defibrillator course: a randomised trial. BMC Medical Education. 2012;12(1):41.
  8. Wagner N, Hassanein K, Head M. Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2008;11(3):n/a.
  9. Prensky M. Don’t bother me mom - I’m learning! St. Paul: Paragon House; 2006.
  10. Prensky M. Listen to the natives. Educ Leadership. 2006;63(4):8–13.
  11. Rukmini E, Linarto R. Studi mengenai perspektif mahasiswa dan staf pengajar terhadap e-learning. Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya Jakarta: Fakultas Kedokteran; 2012.
  12. Chen C, Liu C-C. A case study of peer tutoring program in higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal. 2011 Jun;11:1–10.
  13. Hauer KE, O’Brien BC, Hansen LA, Hirsh D, Ma IH, Ogur B, et al. More is better: students describe successful and unsuccessful experiences with teachers differently in brief and longitudinal relationships. Acad Med. 2012 Oct;87(10):1389–96.
  14. Glynn LG, MacFarlane A, Kelly M, Cantillon P, Murphy AW. Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning. BMC Medical Education. 2006 Mar 8;6(1):18.
  15. Heinssen Jr. RK, Glass CR, Knight LA. Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale. Computers in Human Behavior. 1987;3(1):49–59.
  16. Torkzadeh G, Koufteros X. Factorial validity of a computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educ Psychol Meas. 1994;54(3):813–21.
  17. Durndell A, Haag Z. Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior. 2002 Sep;18(5):521–35.
  18. Teo T, Lee C b., Chai C. Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model. J Comput Assist Lear. 2008;24(2):128–43.
  19. Fagan MH, Stern N, Wooldridge BR. An Empirical Investigation into the Relationship Between Computer Self-Efficacy, Anxiety, Experience, Support and Usage. J Comput Inform Syst. 2003 Winter /2004;44(2):95–104.
  20. Ktoridou D, Eteokleous-Grigoriou N. Developing digital immigrants’ computer literacy: the case of unemployed women. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 2011;28(3):154–63.
  21. Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly. 1995;19(2):189.
  22. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform Syst Res. 2000;11(4):342–65.
  23. Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(5):678–707.
  24. Computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2005;8(4):205-19.
  25. Malliari A, Korobili S, Togia A. IT self-efficacy and computer competence of LIS students. Electron Libr. 2012;30(5):608–22.
  26. Hudson Z. Sample size, power and effect size - What all researchers need to know. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2009;10(2):43–4.
  27. Lenth RV. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. The Am Stat. 2001;55(3):187–93.
  28. Smith E. Are adult educators and learners “Digital Immigrants”? Examining the evidence and impacts for continuing education. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 Oct 24];39(1). Available from: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/ index.php/cjuce-rcepu/article/view/20722



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.25247

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1311 | views : 1066

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Fidelis Jacklyn Adella, Elisabeth Rukmini

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

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:

  

 JPKI Stats