skip to main content
10.1145/3626641.3627020acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessietConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Online Learning Interest and Learning Outcomes Through Mobile and Desktop Application Based on the Indonesian Information Technology Majoring Vocational High School Student's Perspective

Published:27 December 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study aims to reveal whether there is a difference in the learning interest (LI) and learning outcomes (LO) of online learning through desktop and mobile applications based on student perceptions. The research occurs at the four Indonesian Information Technology Majoring Vocational High School, Malang City, East Java Province, Indonesia. The research design uses two major stages: the application development stage and the experiment stage under static-group pretest-posttest design. The application development stage uses a predictive product development approach, and an expert audit process is carried out to check the feasibility of the product so that it can be used in the learning process. The group that received a desktop application treatment (Desktop Application Group/ DAG) was set as the control group, and another was appointed as the experimental group, which received a mobile application treatment (Mobile Application Group/ MAG). LI data was collected through questionnaires, while LO data was collected through performance tests. Data was collected before and after the treatment was applied to each group. The data analyzed in the experimental research design were 240 data, of which 120 data were for the desktop application group and 120 for the mobile application group. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent-sample t-tests. The MAG-LI score (M=85.28; SD=5.89) was higher than the DAG-LI score (M=79.66; SD=0.39). Independent-sample t-test analysis on the DAG-LI and MAG-LI scores yielded t(238)=8.50, p<0.01, and Cohen's d=1.35. The MAG-LI score significantly differs from the DAG-LI score. The MAG-LO score (M=74.44; SD=0.54) was higher than the DAG-LO score (M=72.53; SD=0.44). Independent-sample T-Test analysis on the DAG-LO and MAG-LO scores yielded t(238)=2.66, p<0.01, and Cohen's d=3.88. The MAG-LO score significantly differs from the DAG-LO score.

References

  1. K. Komalasari, S. Fitriasari, and D. N. Anggraini, “Living values-based digital learning resources in civic education,” New Educational Review, vol. 63, pp. 85–96, 2021, doi: 10.15804/tner.2021.63.1.07.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Leshchenko, Y. Lavrysh, and N. Kononets, “Framework for assessment the quality of digital learning resources for personalized learning intensification,” New Educational Review, vol. 64, pp. 148–159, 2021, doi: 10.15804/tner.2021.64.2.12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Y. Q. Bai and J. W. Jiang, “Meta-analysis of factors affecting the use of digital learning resources,” Interactive Learning Environments, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2091608.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. E. Abdoh, “Online health information seeking and digital health literacy among information and learning resources undergraduate students,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 48, no. 6, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. E. Lacka and T. C. Wong, “Examining the impact of digital technologies on students’ higher education outcomes: the case of the virtual learning environment and social media,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1621–1634, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1698533.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. D. Herlambang, S. H. Wijoyo, and A. Rachmadi, “Intelligent Computing System to Predict Vocational High School Student Learning Achievement Using Naïve Bayes Algorithm,” Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 15–25, 2019, doi: 10.25126/jitecs.20194169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. F. Amalia, T. Afirianto, and A. D. Herlambang, “Weblog Acceptance as an Communication and Alternative Media Learning for Senior High School in Millenium Era,” International Conference on Socio-Political Entrepreneurship, pp. 136–142, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. K. Kulasegaram, D. Axelrod, and C. Ringsted, “Do One Then See One: Sequencing Discovery Learning and Direct Instruction for Simulation-Based Technical Skills Training,” Academic Medicine, vol. 93, no. 11S, pp. S37–S44, 2018, doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J. Torrente , “Development of game-like simulations for procedural knowledge in healthcare education,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 69–82, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2013.35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. V. Garneli and K. Chorianopoulos, “Programming video games and simulations in science education: exploring computational thinking through code analysis,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 386–401, 2018, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2017.1337036.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. H. J. Dong, R. Abdulla, S. K. Selvaperumal, S. Duraikannan, R. Lakshmanan, and M. K. Abbas, “Interactive on smart classroom system using beacon technology,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4250–4257, 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v9i5.pp4250-4257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. A. Sung, K. Leong, and C. Lee, “A study of learners’ interactive preference on multimedia microlearning,” Journal of Work-Applied Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 96–119, 2022, doi: 10.1108/JWAM-01-2022-0007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. I. Boerma, F. van der Wilt, R. Bouwer, M. van der Schoot, and C. van der Veen, “Mind Mapping during Interactive Book Reading in Early Childhood Classrooms: Does It Support Young Children's Language Competence?,” Early Educ Dev, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1077–1093, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1929686.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. E. P. Lousã and M. D. Lousã, “Effect of technological and digital learning resources on students’ soft skills within remote learning: The mediating role of perceived efficacy,” Int J Train Dev, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. C. Kong, “Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy,” Comput Educ, vol. 78, pp. 160–173, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. Schmid and D. Petko, “Does the use of educational technology in personalized learning environments correlate with self-reported digital skills and beliefs of secondary-school students?,” Comput Educ, vol. 136, pp. 75–86, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. B. Klimova and P. Poulova, “Personalized learning environment—a case study,” Adv Sci Lett, vol. 22, no. 5–6, pp. 1129–1132, 2016, doi: 10.1166/asl.2016.6678.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. N. A. Samah, N. Yahaya, and M. B. Ali, “Individual differences in online personalized learning environment,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 516–521, 2011, [Online]. Available: https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/79961058803Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. S. Cheng, J. C. Huang, and W. Hebert, “Profiles of vocational college students’ achievement emotions in online learning environments: Antecedents and outcomes,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 138, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107452.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. W. C. V. Wu, J. S. C. Hsieh, and J. C. Yang, “Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance efl learners’ oral proficiency,” Educational Technology and Society, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 142–157, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85018761456Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Y. Ariyanto, B. Harijanto, and A. N. Asri, “Analyzing Student's Learning Interests in the Implementation of Blended Learning Using Data Mining,” International journal of online and biomedical engineering, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 153–160, 2020, doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v16i11.16453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. B. Svoen, S. Dobson, and L. T. Bjørge, “Let's talk and share! Refugees and migrants building social inclusion and wellbeing through digital stories and online learning resources,” International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 94–107, 2021, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1678802.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. C. L. Lai and G. J. Hwang, “A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course,” Comput Educ, vol. 100, pp. 126–140, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. J. Torres-Gordillo and E. A. Herrero-Vázquez, “PLE: Personal learning environment vs. Personalized learning environment,” Revista Espanola de Orientacion y Psicopedagogia, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 26–42, 2016, doi: 10.5944/reop.vol.27.num.3.2016.18798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. S. M. Syed-Khuzzan and J. S. Goulding, “Personalised learning environments (part 2): A conceptual model for construction,” Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 47–56, 2009, doi: 10.1108/00197850910927769.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. F. Sucu and Ü. Çakiroğlu, “ICT teachers’ adaptations to online instruction during Covid-19 pandemic,” International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 209–226, 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJILT-09-2021-0149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. T. Trust and E. Pektas, “Using the ADDIE Model and Universal Design for Learning Principles to Develop an Open Online Course for Teacher Professional Development,” Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 219–233, 2018, doi: 10.1080/21532974.2018.1494521.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. A. K. N. Hess and K. Greer, “Designing for engagement: Using the ADDIE model to integrate high-impact practices into an online information literacy course,” Communications in Information Literacy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 264–282, 2016, doi: 10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. E. Alepis and M. Virvou, “Mobile versus desktop educational applications,” Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol. 64, pp. 65–72, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-53851-3_6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. M. Lahham, H. Hazimeh, and M. Malli, “A survey on trends on mobile app development and applications,” International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 3–4, pp. 350–360, 2022, doi: 10.1504/ijwmc.2022.127604.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. M. Fautch, “The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small classes: Is it effective?,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 179–186, 2015, doi: 10.1039/c4rp00230j.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. I. Leontyeva, N. Pronkin, and M. Tsvetkova, “Visualization of learning and memorization: Is the mind mapping based on mobile platforms learning more effective?,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 173–186, 2021, doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14411a.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. H. Yildiz Durak, “The Effects of Using Different Tools in Programming Teaching of Secondary School Students on Engagement, Computational Thinking and Reflective Thinking Skills for Problem Solving,” Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 179–195, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10758-018-9391-y.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. A. D. Herlambang, Y. Tyroni Mursityo, M. C. Saputra, and L. Novianti, “Criteria-Based Evaluation of Academic Information System Usage at Brawijaya University Based On Modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),” in 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology, SIET 2018 - Proceedings, 2018, pp. 272–277. doi: 10.1109/SIET.2018.8693159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. R. A. Karim, N. Idris, I. Ismail, N. H. M. Saad, and A. G. Abu, “The impact of utilizing mobile-assisted mind mapping technique (Mammat) on the development of undergraduate students’ writing performance,” Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, vol. 11, no. 12 Special Issue, pp. 674–680, 2019, doi: 10.5373/JARDCS/V11SP12/20193264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. D. Novaliendry, A. Huda, LatifahAnnisa, R. R. K. Costa, Yudhistira, and F. Eliza, “The Effectiveness of Web-Based Mobile Learning for Mobile Subjects on Computers and Basic Networks in Vocational High Schools,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 20–30, May 2023, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v17i09.39337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. A. D. Herlambang, B. Budiman, and W. S. Wardhono, “Interactive Procedural Knowledge Learning Resources Development in The Context of Competency-Based Training Instructional Approach and Interactive Media Design Subjects for Information Technology Vocational High School,” Elinvo (Electronics, Informatics, and Vocational Education); Vol 7, No 1 (2022): Mei 2022DO - 10.21831/elinvo.v7i1.48215 , Aug. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.21831/elinvo.v7i1.48215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. P. Goodyear, “Technology and the articulation of vocational and academic interests: Reflections on time, space and e-learning,” Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 83–98, 2006, doi: 10.1080/01580370600750973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. A. Pantoja, “Vocational Interests of Students in an International Network Learning Environment,” REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educacion, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 185–203, 2022, doi: 10.15366/reice2022.20.3.010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. M. J. Rodriguez-Triana, L. P. Prieto, A. Holzer, and D. Gillet, “Instruction, Student Engagement, and Learning Outcomes: A Case Study Using Anonymous Social Media in a Face-to-Face Classroom,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 718–733, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2020.2995557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Baedhowi , “Effectiveness of school operational support funds to quality of students learning process and outcomes in vocational high school,” Adv Sci Lett, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 524–527, 2017, doi: 10.1166/asl.2017.7242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw Hill LLC, 2022. Accessed: Jun. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/how-design-evaluate-research-education-fraenkel-wallen/M9781259913839.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. L. R. Aiken, “Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings,” Educ Psychol Meas, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 131–142, Mar. 1985, doi: 10.1177/0013164485451012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. J. A. Levin, J. A. Fox, and D. R. Forde, Elementary Statistics in Social Research. USA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. S. Fox and C. Griffy-Brown, “Technology philosophies, politics and policies in society: Technology in Society Briefing,” Technol Soc, vol. 73, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. N. A. Farah, A. D. Herlambang, and A. Rachmadi, “Comparison of Indonesian Population Information System Service Performace Based On Information System Functional Scorecard Theory,” Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 297–307, 2021, doi: 10.25126/jitecs.202163306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Y. Hanafi, N. M. Murtadho, A. Ikhsan, and T. N. Diyana, “Reinforcing public university student's worship education by developing and implementing mobile-learning management system in the ADDIE instructional design model,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 215–241, 2020, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v14i02.11380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. T. Lersilp and S. Lersilp, “Use of information technology for communication and learning in secondary school students with a hearing disability,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 9, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.3390/educsci9010057.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. I. Jahnke, Y. M. Lee, M. Pham, H. He, and L. Austin, “Unpacking the Inherent Design Principles of Mobile Microlearning,” Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 585–619, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10758-019-09413-w.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. M. Sandesara , “Design and Experience of Mobile Applications: A Pilot Survey,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 14. 2022. doi: 10.3390/math10142380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. L. Vorona-Slivinskaya, D. Bokov, and O. Li, “Visualization of Learning and Memorizing Processes Using Mobile Devices: Mind Mapping and Charting,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 14, no. 21, pp. 136–152, 2020, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v14i21.18475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. M. Zhang and X. Li, “Design of Smart Classroom System Based on Internet of Things Technology and Smart Classroom,” Mobile Information Systems, vol. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/5438878.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. S. Abulhaija, S. Hattab, A. Abdeen, and W. Etaiwi, “Mobile Applications Rating Performance: A Survey,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 16, no. 19, pp. 133–146, 2022, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v16i19.32051.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. T. C. Hsu, W. L. Chen, and G. J. Hwang, “Impacts of interactions between peer assessment and learning styles on students’ mobile learning achievements and motivations in vocational design certification courses,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 2020, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1833351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Suharno, N. A. Pambudi, and B. Harjanto, “Vocational education in Indonesia: History, development, opportunities, and challenges,” Child Youth Serv Rev, vol. 115, no. 2020, p. 105092, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105092.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. L. K. J. Baartman and E. De Bruijn, “Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence,” Educational Research Review, vol. 6, no. 2. pp. 125–134, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The Online Learning Interest and Learning Outcomes Through Mobile and Desktop Application Based on the Indonesian Information Technology Majoring Vocational High School Student's Perspective
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          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
            SIET '23: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology
            October 2023
            722 pages
            ISBN:9798400708503
            DOI:10.1145/3626641

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 27 December 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate45of57submissions,79%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

            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