Research Article
Exploring Factors that Influence the Use and Acceptanceof Virtual Learning
Environment onTeaching and Learning Accounting
Noor Lela Ahmad1*,ZuriadahIsmail2, Rohaila Yusuf3, Hapini Awang4
1*,2,3Department of Accounting and Finance, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia 4School of Computing, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021; Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract: Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is rapidly becoming an important educational model for teaching and learning purposes. This study aims to explore the factors that influence the use and acceptance of VLE among Malaysian accounting teachers in teaching the accounting subject. This study adapts the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to improve the understanding of factors that influence the usage of VLE. The study is descriptive in nature and was conducted using a quantitative approach.Researchrespondentswho participated in this studyconsist of 156accounting teachers from urban and ruralMalaysiangovernment schools. Data were analyzed using the descriptive analysis to measure mean, percentages, frequency and standard deviations. Descriptive statistical analysis indicated that accounting teachers have positive perceptions and highly motivated towards using VLE tools in teaching and learning accounting.However, the frequency of using Frog VLE among teachers is still at a low level. Furthermore, the result shows thatcomplete infrastructure facilities and teachers’ interests have a significant effect on the use and acceptance of Frog VLE. It is concluded that teachers are able to conduct flexible teaching and learning using Frog VLE application if resources are available, appropriate technology and continuous supports are providedby all parties responsible for the integration of ICT in teaching and learning accounting. More importantly, teachers need to be given ongoing training and motivation to promote and improve their skills to use the latest technology toencourage effective educational processes.
Keywords: Frog VLE, Accounting Teacher, VLE Usage, VLE Acceptance, Virtual Learning Environment 1. Introduction
The learning trend of the 21st-century highlights technology as a product that is given the priority in
education. Informative and digital communities use technology as a platform to develop knowledge and to facilitate their works (Sanchez&Hueros, 2010).Conceptually, e-learning is defined as a learning alternative in which structured training, education and information are integrated. This is then delivered by computers over the Internet which can be accessed through websites, social networks, or systems developed by certain organizations (van Raaij&Schepers, 2008). Since it was first introduced, e-learning has become an important education model and tool for universities and schools to achieve education visions and missions(Sanchez &Hueros, 2010).
Basically, e-learning is a fundamental platformof knowledge acquisition in education (Alabdulkareem, 2015). In this context, Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is the latest e-learning alternative that uses electronic media such as the Internet, DVD, CD-ROM, mobile phones and other technologies for teaching and learning. More importantly, itfacilitates distance education, which enables students to access learning facilities anywhere and at any time (Barker & Grossman, 2013; Hoskins, 2011).As such, various VLE has been developed to fulfill the needs of institutions and schools, for example,WebCT, FirstClass Collaborative Classroom, Blackboard, Moodle, EdmodoandFrog VLE(Smith, Murphy &Teng, 2001). VLE has been widely used in education (Veletsianos, Kimmons& French, 2013; Balaam, 2013) in which according to Trowler (2010),most of the institutions have used this platform in their teaching activities. Innovative education through e-learning is the best channel to facilitate teachers and students to communicate via a single platform, thus, the interactive teaching and learning process can be conducted successfully (Herrador-Alcaide& Hernandez-Solis, 2016). The advantages of e-learning enable students to continue their learning outside classrooms, but at the same time, teachers still play their role as facilitators (Sanchez &Hueros, 2010).
In achieving the vision in the education of the 21st century, the Ministry of Education (MOE), through the
Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (MEB), aims to develop and renew the implementation of e-learning in schools (Ahmad et al., 2019). One of the efforts in this transition is the implementation of the Frog Virtual Learning Environment (Frog VLE) as a Learning Management System (LMS) to improve the quality of teaching and learning in Malaysian schools. Therefore, the implementation of Frog VLE in education is one of the mediums to vary the teaching and learning styles (Awang et al., 2018). VLE is considered as aneducation transformation platformthatisimplemented by the MOEasan initial step towards bringing Malaysian educationto the same par with the education in other developed countries.
Frog VLEis chosen by MOE because it is comparatively considered as the most advanced platform that facilitates schools and educational institutions to provide an interesting learning environment (MOE, 2012). Furthermore, FrogVLEis also implemented to support the long-term planning oftechnologyintegration in Malaysian schools (1BestariNet, 2012). Itisthe latest LMS implemented in Malaysian schools under the 1BestariNet project with a budget of RM1.475 Billion (MOE, 2014).MOE has allocated a significant amount of investment for the implementation of Frog VLE in which RM250.50 million is spent for the license and RM262.81millionis spent on the maintenance (Auditor General Report, 2013; MOF, 2014). This has proven that MOE puts a high emphasis on the successful implementation of Frog VLEapplication in all Malaysian schools.
The main purpose of VLE is to create borderless learning through a virtual environment and to promote self-learning using ICT tools (Gooley& Lockwood, 2012). VLE is a technology, which develops students’ self-learning experience by using the Internet to improve the teaching and learning process (Veletsianos, Kimmons& French, 2013).Moreover, the integration of this technology in the teaching and learninghasthe potential to produce good impacts on students’ achievements (Maki et al., 2000), improves students’ academic performances (Stonebraker&Hazeltine, 2004; Potter & Johnston,2006), learning quality, promotes self-learning, increase students’ motivation as well as promoting collaborative communication (Barker danGossman, 2013).
On top of this, through the Frog VLE platform, web-based communication enables students to access different learning information without limitations of time and place, for example,program information, program content, discussion page, document sharing system and learning resources (Martins &Kellermanns, 2004). Itis also a flexible cloud-based platform and can be accessed anywhere, whether in schools or outside schools’ compound (MOE, 2012). Other than this, files and data are stored in the cloudand can be accessed anywhere and at any time through the Internet (Martins &Kellermanns, 2004). As apedagogicalinnovation platform, Frog VLE brings positive effects in education (Giroux, 2013; Alves, Miranda &Morais, 2017). Meanwhile, the differences of main characteristics between e-learning and the traditional learning system are the use of technology and the ability of students to control of learning, since e-learning application gives them opportunities to learn according to their own suitable time (Zhang & Zhou, 2003; Tselios, Daskalakis, &Papadopoulou, 2011). On the other hand, traditional learning needs teachers and students to be present at a certain place throughout the teaching and learning process (Zhao, Wu, Ding, & Wang, 2017).
VLE also indicates the positive impactson students’ performance on accounting subject(Potter & Johnston,2006). Studies reveal that there is a positive relationship between the use of technology in learning accounting and students’ academic performance (Herrador-Alcaide& Hernandez-Solis, 2016; Lopez Perez, Perez Lopez & Rodriguez Ariza, 2013). In the process of learning and facilitation of accounting subjectwhich involves numerical operations, applying blended learning methodusingFrog VLEis considered as an effective method to overcome the variety of students’ learning styles and speed up students’ progress (Martin, Evans & Foster, 1995; Herrador-Alcaide& Hernandez-Solis, 2016). Besides, in the era of digital industries, professional accounting that is equipped with the necessary Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills is highly demanded (Smith, 2012).Therefore, it is important for accounting students to be given early exposure in the aspects of technology (Togo &McNamme, 1997).
To fully harvest the advantages of VLE, teachers need to have the appropriate skills to use iteffectively. VLE is able to assist the delivery of effective, efficient and engagingteaching(Halabi, 2005). However, the success in implementing VLE in teaching and learning depends on the acceptance and use by teachers and students. Based on the discussion above, this study aims to understand the factors which influence the use and acceptance of VLE among teachers as well as the challenges in implementing it for teaching and learning accounting. Although studies have demonstratedabundance advantages of VLE (van Raaij&Schepers, 2008; Herrador-Alcaide& Hernandez-Solis, 2016; Awang et al., 2018; Sanchez &Hueros, 2010; Alabdulkareem, 2015),there is an audit report which shows that the rate of using Frog VLE among teachers is still low with only 0.01% and 4.69%teachers who only use ICT less than an hour a week (MOF, 2014; Awang et al., 2018).Thus, based on the discussion above, the aims of this study are:
a) To examine teachers’ use of Frog VLE in teaching accounting.
b) To investigate accounting teachers’ perceptions towards the use of Frog VLE in Malaysian secondary schools. c) To determine motivational factors that influence teachers’ acceptance and use of Frog VLE in Malaysian secondary schools.
TheoreticalBackground
This study uses the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to understand factors which influence the acceptance and use of VLEin teaching and learning accounting subject. Since the introduction of TAM, this model has been used to explain the acceptance of all types of computer-based systems, software, and the use of hardware in a broader context (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012). TAMexplainsthe attitudes of technology users which influence the user'sbelieves, intentions or goals and behaviors(Lu, Yu, & Yao, 2003).Due to its good validity, this model is widely used by researchers to investigate the users’ acceptance towards ICT tools and software (Sanchez &Hueros, 2010, van Raaij&Schepers, 2008; Ngai,Poon& Chan, 2007; Selim, 2003). TAMwas developed by Davis et al. (1989),inspiredby the TRAbyFishbeinand Ajzen (1975). TRA, on the other hand, explained that attitude towards certain behaviors gives an effect towards the behavioral intention which finally determines the actualbehaviors(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).This theory conceptualizes one’s behavior (behavioral intention) as an attitude that determines the action, influence by the choices around them (subjective norms). In addition, this model also explains that intention needs to be driven by good actions to encourage positive and good behaviors. Therefore, if teachers’ interest in using the Frog VLE application is high, most probably the level of acceptance and the use of this applicationwillincrease.
Virtual Learning Environment as a Learning Tool
VLE is known as LMS or e-learning used in various educational institutions such as universities, training centers and schools to support systematic online learning and education (Mueller &Strohmeier, 2011).It is also studied by Mosquera(2017), Berns, Gonzalez-Pardoand Camacho (2013), Zhang et al. (2015), Abdelhagand Osman (2014),and Baker and Grossman (2013)which explained that VLE is normally used in schools and educational institutions and acknowledged as an Internet-based platform supporting various educational activities such as online workshops, quizzes and tutorials. All these virtual educational activities have a positive influence on educational technology management, teaching and learning flexibility as well as digital competence among stakeholders (Zhang et al., 2015). Presently,VLEhas become an important part of the teaching and learning process, support blended learning, and thus, improve the quality of education (Abdelhag& Osman, 2014; Raman &Rathakrishnan, 2018). Developed countries like the United Kingdom, Finland and the United Stateshave long integrated ICT in their educational systems and its effectiveness is proven and agreed by the teachers(Niebel, 2018; Dimelis&Papaioannou, 2010).
There are various e-learning platforms implemented by schools and higher educational institutions. Some of them are Frog VLE, Moodle, Blackboard, WebCT, CMS–Course Management System, LCMS–Learning Content Management System, LSS–Learning Support System, LP–Learning Platform, MLE–Managed Learning Environment and interestingly, all these platforms are identicalin terms of e-learning concept (Kanninen, 2008). Nevertheless, Giroux (2010) explained that the use of Frog VLE is the most effective and suitable for teaching in schools compared to other e-learning platforms. This happens because Frog VLEprovides many benefits to all type of users, for examples, schools administrators could use VLE application in managing schools activities (memo), facilitate teachers and students interactions and parents could access to any activities or information organized by schools (Abdelhag& Osman,2014; Raman &Rathakrishnan, 2018).
Moreover, VLE technology uses Google Cloudplatforms such as Google (Gmail), Google (drive)and others. This platform provides quality teaching materials for free, for example,Khan Academy, Ted Education, National Geographicand British Council (1BestariNet, 2012). This enables teachers to search for relevant teaching materials which are of students’ interests and capabilities. Thus, teachers can also create their teaching materials and share with other teachers across the schools(Togo &McNamme, 1997).VLE platform enables teachers to teach, give tests and marks, while students cansubmit their homework, refer to tutorials and retrieveinformation(Veletsianos, Kimmons& French, 2013). It is also possible to initiate communication between parents and schools, while the school administration can manage and organize school calendars and display notices (Bennet et al., 2011). In this sense, the VLE is integrated with conventional or face-to-face learning to develop positive and interesting communication between teachers and students (Alves, Miranda &Morais, 2017), in which teachers can upload songs, videos, pictures, exercises via Microsoft Word, PowerPointand use the forum or chatting website to communicate with students (Wells &Freelon, 2011).
More importantly, the Frog VLE application offers unlimited advantages and benefits to teachers.One of the advantages is they can create and share their teaching materials and resources anywhere and at any time (Boeve, Meljer, Bosker, Vugteveen, Hoekstra & Albers, 2016). Therefore, students do not have to depend on textbooks and learning will not be limited only in classrooms (Zhao, Wu, Ding, & Wang, 2017). On top of this, a study by
Ghavifekrand Wan Athirah (2015) revealed that the teaching and learning process in classrooms using the technology method is comparatively more effective than traditional methods. The use of Frog VLE provides unique opportunities and interesting teaching and facilitation activities for teachersas well as hedonic learning experiences for students compared to classroom-based education(Boeve et al., 2016; Ghavifekr& Wan Athirah, 2015). Similarly, the teaching activities will not be solelydepending on teaching aids in classrooms but go beyond the limit of students’ thinking with the assistance of VLE. Consequently, using the Frog VLE application, an extra value is added to the aspects of teaching, learning and students’ own experiences (Barker dan Grossman, 2013).
As flexible as it sounds, VLE doesnot only displaying the learning content but also createsarelationship and developsa learning community among teachers, students and the learning content itself (Kamalludeen& Ahmad, 2016;Adegbenro, Gumbo &Olakanmi, 2017). As online learning is applied in the teaching and facilitation process, the roles of teachers and students change accordingly (Boeve et al., 2016). The role of students changes from fixed timetable learners to flexible and free learners.On the other hand, teachers’ roles also change from teachers to facilitators (Abdelhag& Osman, 2014; Hoskins, 2011).
According to Cavanaugh et al. (2004), VLE provides easy and flexible access to information resources, unlimited learning time, and many opportunities in education. These are supported byastudy(Holtzblalt&Tschakert, 2011) which discovered that students who use online environmentare able to communicate with their teachers, while at the same time develop their understanding and analysis skills. Their study also concluded that Frog VLE can maximize students’ reflections and encourage progressive and critical thinking.Smith(2012) identified three benefits in using VLE: (i)improves the organization of information and communication in the entire schools, (ii) increases the involvement of parents in which increases the learning support at home, and (iii) increases the opportunities for independent and personal learning among students. To summarize, many previous studies have reported positive effects on the use of Frog VLE application in various contexts. Nevertheless, there are some challenges in the application of VLE, which need to be overcome to ensure its success.
Challenges and Factors Influencing the Use of Virtual Learning Environment
There are many factors thataffect the acceptance and use of Frog VLE among teachers in learning accounting, which are partsofthe challenges in its implementation. Finding from a study conducted by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) in 2014 indicated that the use of ICT including Frog VLE is still low in Malaysian schools although a big budget was allocated forit(MOF, 2014). Additionally, only one-third of students stated that their teachers used ICT in the process of teaching and learning(Hew &SharifahLatifah, 2016). The level of computer usage in schools was also low (Shahfiezul&Fariza, 2015). Besides, only 2% of teachers used Frog VLE in their teaching (MOF, 2014).Rabah (2015) listed a number of challenges in the integration of ICT in schools among teachersnamely, lack of support from schools’ leaders, inconsistent investment in ICT, inadequate or improper infrastructure and resources as well as lacking funds.
These challenges are the reasons for the failure of drawing teachers’ attention to use VLE as the main teaching platform. One of the factorsofteacher resistancetoward using VLE is the lack of knowledge and time barriers to prepare materials for online teaching (Shahfiezul&Fariza, 2015).In other words, teachers are not ready to use the VLE platform because they do not have the required knowledge and skills. This issue has beendiscussed by Othman and Lukman (2008) who investigated the affective behaviorthat encourages teachers to use ICT for teaching purposes. Other than these factors, the majority of teachers are not interested to use Frog VLE because of low Internet accessibility. Thisled to the perception of time-wasting because they have other tasks to be completed (Nor Zaira, Zolkefli&MohdKasri, 2017).Lack of skills and knowledge is the main issue of teachers’ acceptance towards VLE. The Frog VLE cannot be implemented in schools because there are still many teachers who are lack of ICT skills (Adegbenro et al., 2015; 2017). The findings also indicate that senior teachers need more time to learn and apply Frog VLE in their classes compared to young teachers (Nico, Ruttena&Wouter, 2012). Some teachers stated that the presence of technology in their classes gives more pressure as it requires ICT skills (Sang, Valcke, van Braak, Tondeur, & Zhu, 2011).This is stressed by Nico, RuttenaandWouter (2012), who stated that the implementation of VLEwill not be successful if teachers are lacking ICT skills.
Adegbenro et al. (2015; 2017),and Flanagan and Shoffner (2011) added that among the challenges faced by teachers in integrating ICT in schools are the low level of confidence, lack of training, time constraints as well as lack of technical and infrastructure supports (Dnyaneshwar, 2011). Improper or inadequate resources will hinder
the full implementation of ICT in education (Adeosun, 2010; Niebel, 2018). Similarly, other obstacles in ICT integration in education are weak schools’ facilities, lack of information and knowledge, as well as lack of interests and motivation among teachers (Lazar, 2015). As an example, some computers in schools are old, broken or need to be repaired, and this is among the main factors of teacher’s resistancetowardtechnology integration in teaching and learning(Nico, Ruttena&Wouter, 2012).Thus, technical problems have also become the main obstacle for teachers to teach using technology (Uche, Chineze, Kaegon, Chiemezie&Okata, 2016). Meanwhile, the data has shown that teachers who are teaching in rural area schools face more problems in terms of VLE facilities and Internet access (NurulFarhana, 2013; Ghavifekr, Kunjappan, Ramasamy& Anthony, 2016).According to Halabi (2005) and Ghavifekret al. (2016)problems such as Internet access, technical supports, lack of training, lack of time and inefficient teachers in using Frog VLE application are the significant problems ofschools inrural areas.
In the aspect of support in using VLE application, Guma, HaoladerandKhushi (2013) explained that teaching and learning sessions that involve technology will succeed if the administration and technical supports are given.In some cases, teachers do not receive full encouragement from school administrators, and this leads to a lack of motivation and interests to implement VLE (Uche et al., 2016). However, Yang and Wang (2012) stated that schools in developed countries like the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Finlandhave acknowledged the importance of technical and moral supports to assist teachers in using ICT in their classrooms. Besides, the low level of awareness among teachers in changing their teaching techniques to meet the needs of education in the 21st-century learning also plays a significant role (Uche et al., 2016; Ahmad et al., 2019). Teachers’ roles are
very important to foster students’ interest inacertain subject. According to Lopez-Perez, Perez-Lopez and Rodriguez-Ariza (2011),students will be interested to understand, learn and develop their knowledge if the teaching methods and strategies used by teachers are good and suitable. In the same manner, StonebrakerandHazeltine (2004) and Parker (2008) discovered that using interactive VLE application can develop students’ interests towards learning because it offers active learning experiences and develop thinking skills among students. It has been proven that Frog VLE application could develop students’ interests, and thus, couldimprovetheir academic performance. This is confirmed by Barker andGossman (2013)who stated that VLE can improve the learning process and motivate students to learn and gain knowledge.
3. Methodology
This is a quantitative study that uses a survey method to answer the research questions (Uma& Roger, 2010). A survey method can provide descriptive information to the researcher and can collect data directly from the respondents (Wiersma, 2000; Creswell, 2014). According to Austin and Sutton (2015), the advantage of the quantitative method is it can state the problem accurately and help in collecting the data from samples with a large population. The questionnaire is used as a research instrument for data collection. The questionnaire is also used because the possibility of collecting data from the respondents is high, produces consistent and reliable items, a high level of confidentiality, and effective use of time (Ary, Jacobs &Razavieh, 2009; Hair et al., 2010). The respondentswere selected based onapurposive sampling method(Johnson & Christensen, 2008), which consists of156 accounting teachers from 38 secondary schools in the states of Perak and Selangor. The reason behind the chosen of teachers as the sample is based on the rationale that teachers are the agent of change for Frog VLE application because teachers play an important rolein the success of this application. The questionnaire consists of four sections, A, B, CandD in which Section A is the respondents’ profile, Section B focuses on the perceptions related to VLE, Section C related to the infrastructure and ICTfacilities,and Section D investigates the teachers’ interests.This study uses five-options Likert Scales: 5 = Strongly disagree, 4= Disagree, 3=Neutral, 2=Agree, and 1= Strongly agree, to measure the teachers’ agreement related to factors influencing the use, acceptance and problems towards VLE. The data collected are analyzed using the descriptive analysis (frequency, percentages, mean and standard deviation).
Reliability
To determine the reliability, the researcher uses Cronbach Alpha to measure the consistency of the items in which acceptable reliability in a questionnaire should be between 0.71-0.99, the best level (71%-99%). Nevertheless, the coefficient reliability of CronbachAlphamore than 0.60 (ά > 0.60) is still acceptable to be used in the real study (Bond & Fox, 2007;Creswell, 2014).
Table 1.Reliability Test
Respondents’ perceptions about VLE
0.717 Acceptable
Infrastructure supports and ICT facilities
0.731 Acceptable
Interests towards the use of VLEapplication
0.824 Good
Total 0.857 Good
Resource: Bond & Fox (2007)
In this study, the value of the CronbachAlphareliability for each section of the questionnaire is between 0.717 and 0.824. This indicates that the items arereliable and can be used in the real study. The data is collected in two months by distributing the questionnaire to respective schools. Respondents are given 3-5 days to complete the questionnaire and return it to the researcher to facilitate the data collection and data analysis process. After completing the questionnaire collection, the data aregatheredandanalyzed to obtain the research findings.
The data analysis was done descriptively to explain the respondents’ profile, the acceptance and use of VLEas well as the challenges faced in the implementation of VLE. The descriptive analysis is used to obtain the mean value, frequency, standard deviation and percentages of the variables and items under investigation (Hair et al., 2010). The mean obtained in the analysis is interpreted using the scales in Table 2 to measure the level of usage, priority of learning method and ICT skills of the respondents. The interpretation table of the mean score as shown in Table 2 will be used as aguide to measure the level of Frog VLE usage.
Table 2.Mean score and measurement of VLE acceptance and use Mean score Interpretation/measurement
0.00 – 2.33 2.34 – 3.64 3.65 – 5.00 Low Average High (Resource: Hair et al., 2010)
4. Findings and Discussions
Profile of the respondents
As shown in Table 3, there are 156 accounting teachers involved in this study. From this number, 26 (16.7%) are male and 130 (83.3%) are female teachers. In terms of location, 75 respondents (48.1%) teach in urban schools whereas half, which is 81 respondents (51.9%)teach in rural schools.
Frequency of using Frog VLE
Table 3illustrates the distribution of samples based on the frequency of using Frog VLE in schools for a duration of one week. There are 53 respondents (34.0%) stated that they never used Frog VLEin their teaching. Another 86respondents (55.1%) stated that they used Frog VLE application between 1-3 times in a week to teach Accounting. This frequency is the highest number. Another 11 respondents (7.1%) used Frog VLE for about 4-6 times in their teaching activities in a week. The remaining 6 respondents (3.8%) used Frog VLE more than 7 times in a week. From this analysis, it can be concluded that the frequency of using Frog VLE more than 7 times a week has the lowest frequency.
Table 3. Profile of the respondents
Frequency Percentage(%)
Gender
Female Total School location Urban Rural Total Use of Frog VLEin a week 0 times 1-3 times 4-6 times 7 times and more Total 130 156 75 81 156 53 86 11 6 156 83.3 100.0 48.1 51.9 100.0 34.0 55.1 7.1 3.8 100.0
Table 4 illustrates the perceptions among the teachers on the purpose of using Frog VLE(M=3.53, SP=0.992).The respondents agreed that using Frog VLE in the process of teaching and learning is more interesting than the traditional method used in schools, showing a high level (M=3.58, SP=1.221). Besides, the Frog VLE method helped to develop the teachers’ knowledge and skills in ICT (M=3.88, SP=1.183). Furthermore, respondents stated that using Frog VLE in teaching was easy and fun and this is confirmed in the findings which shows a high level (M=3.76, SP=1.143). Nevertheless, the item of teachers’ perception that using Frog VLE can help students in the Principles of Accounting subject only at the average level (M=3.33, SP=1.127). The teachers were aware that the Frog VLE application could improve their teaching techniques.However, the teachers’ skills to prepare interactive learning elements using VLE is only at an average level.In conclusion, the findings reveal that the respondents have positive perceptions on the use of Frog VLE (M=3.44, SP=1.157).
From the aspect of technology and infrastructure supports, Table 5 indicates that two items are at the high level which means the schools are supplied with Chromebook(M=3.94, SP=1.086) and the environment in the computer labs is comfortable and conducive for using VLE in teaching and learning (M=3.77, SP=1.040). The finding also indicated that schools have provided comfortable computer labs so that teachers and students can use ICT properly and optimally. While the lowest item is Item 1 in which the respondents could not access Frog VLE easily because of poor Internet connection in their schools (M=3.13, SP=1.113) and the agreement is at the average level. Schools should ensure the internet functions well so that the teachers and students can use it effectively and efficiently. The teachers also agreed that ICT facilities in schools have helped students to develop their knowledge and skills in using ICT (M=3.43, SP=1.106).
The study discovers that the support from the administration for the teachers to implement Frog VLE is at the average level (M=3.23, SP=1.086). There are 29 respondents agreed that the administration provided support and assistance in the application of Frog VLE in schools. This can ease the teachers’ and students’ teaching and learning process in schools and classrooms. The assistance from technicians and relevant parties to tackle the problems in the application of Frog VLE is at the average level (M=3.42, SP=1.095). This indicates that the ICT facilities in schools need to be improved so that the application of VLE in schools can be maximized. Overall, the opinions of the respondents about the infrastructure and the ICT facilities in schools are at the average level (M=3.33, SP=1.145).
Table 4. Teachers’ perceptions towards Frog VLE implementation
No Details Mean SD Level
1 I really understand the purpose of implementing the Virtual Learning Environment (Frog VLE) in my schools.
3.53 0.992 High 2 Using Frog VLE in the teaching and learning process is easy and fun. 3.15 1.143 Average 3 Frog VLEapplication can help me in the teaching and facilitation of
Accounting to make it easier.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The teaching and learning process using Frog VLE sis more interesting than the traditional teaching method in theclassrooms.
I am expert in preparing interactive learning elements using Frog VLE. I am expert in using Frog VLEto prepare an open and flexible learning environment for the teaching and facilitation process.
I know that the Frog VLEapplication can vary my teaching techniques. I am expert in sharing the teaching and facilitation materials in the Frog VLE application.
I am expert in using the technology approach and Frog VLEtocreate collaborative learning (groups).
Frog VLEmethod can increase my knowledge and skills in Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
Overall 3.58 3.04 3.10 3.71 3.09 3.19 3.88 3.44 1.221 1.028 1.088 0.937 1.012 1.002 1.183 1.157 Average Average Average High Average Average High Average
Table 5.Infrastructures, technical ability and support system
No Details Mean SD Level
1 I can easily access or use Frog VLEbecause the internet connection in my school is very good.
3.13 1.113 Average 2 The ICT facilities in my school’s computer labs (for example: computers,
LCD Projector, photocopy machine and others) are complete and satisfying.
3.27 1.040 Average 3 The ICT facilities in the school have helped to increase my knowledge and
skills in using ICT.
3.43 1.106 Average 4 5 6 7 8
The environment in the computer lab is very comfortable and conducive for learning using the Frog VLE method.
My school receives Chromebook supplies.
The administration always supports and assists in the implementation of the Frog VLE application in TnL.
The technicians and officers always help if there is any problem in using the Frog VLE application.
The facilities and tools for Frog VLE applications are always improved and maintained. Overall 3.77 3.94 3.23 3.42 3.49 3.33 1.040 1.086 1.077 1.095 0.983 1.145 High High Average Average Average Average
Based on Table 6, the analysis on the factors which influence the teachers’ interests in using VLE in their teaching shows that only one item is at the high level which is the teachers agreed that the teaching and learning process based on Frog VLE can produce students who are creative and innovative (M=3.65, SP=0.913). On the other hand, other factors are at the average level: efficient and effective ICT facilities factor is very important to influence the use and acceptance of teachers in using VLE (M=3.23, SP=01.090). The teachers were confident that using VLE can improve students’ performances in Principles of Accounting subject. Overall, the teachers’ interest in using the Frog VLE method is at the average level (M=3.44, SP=1.091).This could be because there are other factors such as skills, knowledge and the effectiveness of ICT in schools which can also be influential.
Table 6.Factors influence the use and acceptance of Frog VLE
No Details Mean SD Level
1 I am interested to teach Principles of Accounting subject using Frog VLE application.
3.43 1.181 Average 2 The ICT facilities used in Frog VLE virtual-based learning attract my
attention to teach Principles of Accounting.
3.23 1.090 Average 3 I am ready to continue using Frog VLEin the teaching and learning process of
Principles of Accounting.
3.49 1.130 Average 4 I am keen on the teaching and learning process based on Frog VLE to produce
creative and innovative students.
5 6 7
Using the Frog VLEmethod can develop my students’ performances in Principles of Accounting subject.
I am always ready to use the Frog VLE application in the teaching and learning process.
I am ready to develop my knowledge and skills in using the Frog VLE application from time to time.
Overall 3.37 3.42 3.30 3.44 0.972 1.083 1.090 1.091 Average Average Average Average 5. Conclusions
To achieve the objective of making Malaysia as an education hub in the fourth industrial revolution, the MOE has taken the necessary approaches by organizing various educational programs and symposiums tostay in the competition with other developed countries. One of them is through the use of the Frog VLE application meant to improve teachers’ delivery in the teaching and learning process towards the best educational system. Therefore, teachers and educational institutions, as agents of implementation, have the roles to accept the challenge to change the education as suggested by MOE.
This study discovers that teachers’ perceptions towards the application of VLE, the factor on the infrastructure facilities and teachers’ interests have a significant effect on the use and acceptance of Frog VLE. The teachers have good perceptions towards the use of Frog VLE in which teachers agreed that the process of teaching and learning using Frog VLE is more interesting than the traditional teaching in schools.Besides, the Frog VLE method improves the knowledge and skills in ICT and teachers also confident that teaching using Frog VLE is easy and fun. Though they had positive perceptions towards the application of Frog VLE, the frequency of Frog VLE usage among teachers is still at a low level. This study identifies 50%of the teachersusedVLEduring their teaching process at the frequency of only 1 to 3 times a week. While another 34% had never used Frog VLE in their teaching.This might be because the teachers have fewer skills or knowledge in using ICT (Flanagan &Shoffner, 2011). This is aligned with a study by Uche et al. (2016), where many teachers lack the skills in using ICT and resulting in not using Frog VLE application in schools.Adegbenro et al. (2017) explained that less skill in ICT, inefficient in accessing ICT, lack of training, have limited time and have problems in technical supports will hinder teachers from applying ICT in their teaching.
The research findings indicate that teachers are able to conduct flexible teaching and learning using Frog VLEapplication if complete facilities and supports are provided by all responsible parties. A proper and thorough planning, as well as adequate trainings, can help teachers to know more about the best ways to use the innovation of VLE in the teaching and facilitation process (Sanchez &Hueros, 2010). Infrastructure, facilities, technological capabilities and support systems are identified as some challenges for teachers to apply Frog VLE in their teaching and learning. However, infrastructure, equipment and ICT facilities are not the main obstacles that prevent the use of Frog VLE. Instead, it is essential to provide the good infrastructure and ICT facilities in schools as well as complete computer lab facilities in terms of hardware and software in using the Frog VLE application. This finding reveals that schools have provided computer labs so that teachers and students can use ICT properly and optimally. Nevertheless, the teachers explained that the facilities and equipment provided by schools are not improved and maintained from time to time. Therefore, according to Sanchez andHueros (2010) and Venkatesh, CroteauandRabah (2014),adequate and efficient maintenance of the technicalequipment is needed to ensure the integration of technology in the teaching and learning process can be conducted smoothly.
In terms of Internet access, the research findings discover that teachers have problems accessingFrogVLE due to poor access to the Internet in schools. This problem leads to ineffective and inefficient of using Frog VLE. Good Internet access is unavailable in schools and therefore, the use of Frog VLE willcomplicatethe process of teaching and learning.Ngai et al.(2007) explained that good technical supports in terms of human resources and technology are very helpful to improve the quality of teachers’ delivery using VLE. More importantly, the teachers also explained that many students do not have personal computers to access Frog VLE application at home or outside schools especially among students from low-income families. Ghavifekrand Wan Athirah (2015) stated that most low-income families cannot afford to provide computers and Internet access at home. Other than this, the study has also discovered that schools in rural areas face greater problems accessing the Internet compared to schools in urban areas which has supportedthe findings of a study by Ghavifekr et al. (2016).
Besides, the time limitation is also a challenge for the teachers in using Frog VLE. The findings of this study aresimilar to a study conducted by Abdirahman, Hidayatiand Ahmed (2012), in which they found that teachers
were not comfortable with the idea of technology in education, as they believed that it will lead to a problem to their teaching methods and demanded more time in the preparations. As such, problems that hinder the use of Frog VLE such as ICT facilities, technical supports, Internet access and others need to be resolved in the best ways (Ghavifekr et al., 2016; Niebel, 2018).
In the context of cultivating innovation practices in schools, administrators play important roles to ensure the success of Frog VLE. Hence, the supports and motivation from colleagues and school administrations are important, in addition to enabling school culture. According to Guma, HaoladerandKhushi (2013), the experts and technical supports are another main reason for the success of implementing VLE in the process of teaching and learning. Without these supports, any technological implementations or improvements will not be successful.Therefore, school administrators need to conduct continuous monitoring andprovide constant awareness about Frog VLE application to all teachers (Sanchez &Hueros, 2010).Untenable supports from schools in the implementation of Frog VLE coupled with lack of assistance from experts (technicians and officers) when problems occur lead to poor implementation of Frog VLE in schools.
Next, the study discovers that Frog VLE can attract students towards active participation in the teaching and learning process, including for the accounting subject. The results of using technology-based teaching and learning approach indirectly produce students who are creative and innovative (van Raaij&Schepers, 2008; Selim, 2003; Smith, 2012).There are many advantages and benefits of Frog VLE over the other multimedia technology such as expanding the accounting classroom using video and using interactive multimedia(Stanley & Edward, 2005; Holtzblalt&Tschakert, 2011; Mosquera, 2017). One of the advantages of Frog VLE is the ability to defy time barriers as it enables students and teachersto access it at any time (Halabi, 2005). Therefore,schools should have plans to prepare and add better ICT facilities so that teachers in rural areas are able to implement Frog VLE effectively (Smith, 2012).
As a conclusion, using Frog VLE in teaching can provideanengaging learning environment that is rich with interactive media. Moreover, teachers can relate the content of Principles of Accounting subject to the learning context (Stanley & Edward, 2005; Smith, 2012). Therefore, it is hoped that MOE will allocate sufficient funds and budget to upgrade the ICT facilities. Also, everyone involved in the provision of Frog VLE needs to play their roles, for example,provide sufficient facilities, provide training and supports to motivate teachers to give the highest commitments to usethis technology in the teaching and learning process.
6. Appreciation
This research was funded by a research grant from Sultan Idris University of Education (2019-0071-107-01). References
1. Abdelhag, M.E. & Osman, S.E.F. (2014). SOA for effective data integration of virtual learning environment systems. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4(6), 680-685.
2. Adegbenro, B. J., Gumbo, M. T. &Olugbara, O.O. (2015). Exploring technological knowledge of Office Data Processing teachers: Using factor analytic methodology. In M.L. Niess& H. Gillow-Wiles (eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age.
3. Abdirahman A. Abdulahi, NorHidayatiZakaria, & Ahmed Hussein Elmi (2012). An Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environment Readiness in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation, Vol.2, 86–94.
4. Adegbenro, J. B., Gumbo, M. T., &Olakanmi, E. E. (2017). In-Service Secondary School Teachers’ Technology Integration Needs in an ICT-Enhanced Classroom TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.16(3).
5. Adeosun, O. (2010). Quality basic education development in Nigeria: Imperative for use of ICT. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 13(2), 193-211.
6. Ahmad, N.L, Looi, S.S., Ab Wahid, H. &Yusof, R. (2019). The significance of 21st century teaching and learning practices toward student development. International Journal of Education, Psycholgy and Counseling. Vo. 4, Issues 28. pp. 28-51.
7. Alabdulkareem, S.A. (2015). Exploring the use and the impacts of social media on teaching and learning science in Saudi. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 182, 213-224.
8. Auditor General Report. (2013). Auditor general report: Activities of the federal ministries/departments and management of the government companies. National Audit Department Malaysia
9. Alves, P., Miranda, L. &Morais, C. (2017). The influence of virtual learning environments in students’ performance. Universal Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 5(3), 517-527
10. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., &Razavieh, A. (2009). Introduction to Research in Education. London: Wensworth.
11. Austin, Z. & Sutton, J. (2015). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis and management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226-231.
12. Awang, H., Aji, Z.M., Yaakob, M.F.M., Osman, W.R.S., Mukminin, A. &Habibi, A. (2018). Teachers’ intention to continue using virtual learning environment (VLE): Malaysia context. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 8(4), 439-452.
13. Balaam, M. (2013). A response from M. Balaam. Computers & Education, 69, 517-519. ISSN: 0360-1315. htpps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.009
14. Barker, J., &Gossman,P., (2013). The learning impact of a virtual environments: students’ view. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal, 5(2), 19-38.
15. Boeve, A. J., Meljer, R.R., Bosker, R. J., Vugteveen, J., Hoekstra, R., & Albers, C. J. (2016). Implementing the flipped classroom: an exploration of study behaviour and student performance. Higher Education, 74(6),1015-1032.
16. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
18. Davis, F. D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
19. Dimelis, S.P. &Papaioannou, S.K. (2010). FDI and ICT effects on productivity groeth: a comparative analysis of developing and developed countries. The European Journal of Development Research, 22(1), 79-96.
20. Dnyaneshwar, S. (2011). Use of virtual classroom in teaching through distance mode:A case study of SCDL. ELT-India. International Journal for the Teachers of English, 1(3), 35–42.
21. Fishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: M.A Addison-Wesley.
22. Flanagan, S., &Shoffner, M. (2011). Two teachers’ technology use: Recommendations for English teacher preparation. Research highlights in technology and teacher education. Society for Information & Teacher Education. USA.
23. Ghavifekr, S., Kunjappan, T., Ramasamy, L., & Anthony, A. (2016). Teaching and learning with ICT tools: Issues and challenges from teachers’ perceptions. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 38-57.
24. Ghavifekr, S., & Wan Athirah, W. R. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 1(2), 175-191.
25. George, G., &Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
26. Gooley, A., & Lockwood, F. (Eds.). (2012). Innovation in open and distance learning: successful development of online and web-based learning. Routledge.
27. Guma, A., Faruque, A., Haolader&Khushi M. (2013). The Role of ICT to Make Teaching Learning Effective in Higher Institutions of Learning in Uganda.
28. Giroux, A. (2013). VLE, CMS, LMS or LCMS? Available online at http://www.alexandragiroux.net/vle-cms-lmsor-lcms/ Accessed 11/9/2013.
29. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7thed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
30. Halabi, A. K. (2005). Accounting tele teaching lectures: issues of interaction and performance. Accounting Forum, 29 (2), 207-217.
31. Herrador-Alcaide, T.C & Hernandez-Solis, M. (2017). Numerical-Technological skills and work experience in the perceived usefulness in an accounting virtual learning environment. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 16(3).
32. Hew, T. S., &SharifahLatifah Syed Abdul Kadir (2016). Understanding cloud-based VLE from the SDT and CET perspectives: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Computers & Education, Vol.101, 132-149.
33. Hoskins, B. (2011). Demand, growth and evolution. Journal Contin. Higher Education, 59(1), 57-60. 34. Holtzblatt, M., &Tschakert, N. (2011). Expanding your accounting classroom with digital video
35. Jewitt, C., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., Clark, W., Banaji, S., & Selwyn, N. (2010). School use of learning platforms and associated technologies. London Knowledge Lab Institute of Education, University of
London. Retrieved from
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1485/1/becta_2010_use
oflearningplatforms_report.pdf36. Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2008). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Kamalludeen, R., Hassan, A., & Ahmad Nasaruddin, N.S. (2016). Student usage patterns of VLE-Frog. Journal of Personalized Learning, 2(1), 93-101.
38. Kanninen, E. (2008). Learning styles and e-learning. Tesis Master, Tampere University of Technology. 39. Lazar, S. (2015). The importance of educational technology in teaching. International Journal of
Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 3(1).
40. Lopez-Perez, V.M., Perez-Lopez, C.M. & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education. Vol. 56(3), 818-826.
41. Lu, J., Yu, C. & Yao (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless internet. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 13,206-222.
42. Maki, R. H., Maki, W.S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P.D. (2000). Evaluation of a Web-based introductory psychology course: Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & computers, 32 (2), 230-239.
43. Martin, E., Evans, P., & Foster, E. (1995). The use of videos in the teaching of accounting. Accounting Education, 4(1), 77-86
44. Martins, L.L. &Kellermanns, F.W. (2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 7-26. 45. Ministry of Education Malaysia (2012). Handling projects in schools 1Bestari Net 6MOE.
46. Ministry of Education, Malaysia (2014). Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013–2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Education).Putrajaya: MOE Malaysia.
47. MOF (2014). Maklumbalaskeataslaporanketua audit Negara 203 siri 3 (Feedback Audit Report 2013 Series 3). Putrajaya, Malaysia. Ministry of Finance, Malaysia.
48. Mosquera, L.H. (2017). Impact of implementing a virtual learning environments (VLE) in the EFL classroom. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(3), 479-498.
49. Mueller, D., &Strohmeier, S. (2011). Design characteristics of virtual learning environments: state of
research. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2505-2516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.017
50. Ngai, E.W.T., Poon, J.K.L., & Chan, Y.H.C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267.
51. Nor ZairaRazali, ZolkefliBahador&MohdKasriSaidon (2017). Faktor-faktormempengaruhipenggunaan VLE Frog dalamkalangan guru di sekolahmenengah. Proceeding of ICECRS, 1(1), 1023-1032. https://ojs.umsida.ac.id/index.php/icecrs
52. Niebel, T. (2018). ICT and economic growth-comparing developing, emerging and developed countries. World Development, 104, 197-211.
53. NurulFarhanaJunus (2013). Cabarandalammengimplementasi virtual learning environment (VLE) Frog dalampengajarandanpembelajaranoleh guru di sekolah-sekolah di Malaysia. JurnalPendidikan Malaysia.
54. Othman Md. Johan &LukmanDinyati (2008). Persepsi guru-guru pendidikan Islam terhadappenggunaan ICT untuktujuanpengajarandanpembelajaransekolahkebangsaan di daerahKluang. Journal of Social Science,3(1), 179-205.
55. Parker, E. A. (2008). Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity. A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42(3), 151-157. 56. Potter, B. N., & Johnston, C. G. (2006). The effect of interactive on-line learning systems on student
learning outcomes in accounting. Journal of accounting education, 24 (1), 16-34.
57. Rabah, J. (2015). Benefits and Challenges of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Integration in Québec English Schools, 14(2), 24–31.
58. Raman, A., &Rathakrishnan, M. (2018). Frog VLE: Teachers’ technology acceptance using UTAUT model. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), 9(3), 529-538. 59. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2011). Predicting ICT integration
into classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: exploring the complex interplay of teacher‐related variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 160-172.
60. Sanchez, R. A., &Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632-1640.
61. Selim, H.M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education. 40, 343-360.
62. ShahfiezulShahaimi,&Fariza Khalid. (2015). PersekitaranPembelajaran Maya Frog (VLE Frog) di sekolah-sekolah di Malaysia: Pelaksanaandancabaran. Prosiding Seminar KebangsaanPendidikan Negara Kali Ke-5 (pp. 28-37). AKEPT Negeri Sembilan.
63. Smith, C., Murphy, T., &Teng, T. (2001). The perfect fit: selecting the online learning environment of tomorrow today. Consortium for Information Technology in Education, New Brunswick Community College, Saint John.
64. Smith, G. (2012). Designing and instructing managerial and cost accounting courses consisting of students in a combined classroom and online environment. The Journal of International Management Studies, 7(1), 70–79.
65. Stanley, T., & Edwards, P. (2005). Interactive multimedia teaching of Accounting Information System (AIS) cycles: Student perceptions and views. Journal of Accounting Education, 23 (1), 21-46.
66. Stonebraker, P.W. &Hazeltine, J.E. (2004). Virtual learning effectiveness: an examination of the process. The Learning Organization, 11(2/3), 209-225.
67. Togo, D.F. &McNamme, A.H. (1997). Computer integration in accounting education: guideline and pitfalls. Accounting Forum, 20(3/4), 381-397.
68. Uche, Chineze, Kaegon&Chiemezie, Okata (2016). Teachers’ level of awareness of 21st century occupational roles in Rivers State secondary schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies,4(8). 69. Uma, S. & Roger, B. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. 5th Edition.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. United Kingdom.
70. VanRaaij, E.M. &Schepers, J.J.L. (2008). The acceptance and use of virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50, 838-852.
71. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., & French, K.D. (2013). Instructor experiences with a social networking site in a higher education setting: Expectations, frustrations, appropriation, and compartmentalization. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9284-z
72. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., &Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. 73. Venkatesh, V., Croteau, A.M.&Rabah, J. (2014). Perceptions of effectiveness of instructional uses of
technology in higher education in an era of web 2.0. Proceeding of Annual Hawaii International System Science. pp.110-119.
74. Wiersma, W. (2000). Research method in education. An introduction. Neetdham Heights: Ally & Bacon.
75. Yang, K. T., & Wang, T. H. (2012). Interactive white board: Effective interactive teaching strategy designs for Biology teaching. Tech, E-learning-Engineering, On-Job Training and Interactive Teaching, 139-154.
76. Zhang, X., Gao, Y., Yan, X., de Pablos, P.O, Sun, Y., & Cao, X. (2015). From e-learning to social-learning: mapping development of studies on social media-supported knowledge management. Computers in Human Behaviour, 51, 803-811.
77. Zhang, D. & Zhou, L. (2003). Enhancing e-learning with interactive multimedia. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(4),1-14.
78. Zhao, Z., Wu, T., Ding, X., & Wang, A. (2017). Teaching Strategies of Innovative Talents Training in Colleges and Universities Based on AHP. Paper presented at the 2017 8th International Computer Systems and Education Management Conference (ICSEMC), 208-211.
79. Bestari Net, YTL Communications Sdn. Bhd. (2012). Frog VLE. Retrieved from http://www.frogasia.com/v2/
