Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
ejet-logo

Articles

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024): Edutechnium Journal of Educational Technology

An Analysis of The Acceptance of Mobile-based Assessment for Student’s Creative and Critical Thinking

DOI
https://doi.org/10.71365/edujet.v2i2.49
Submitted
May 21, 2024
Published
2024-07-15

Abstract

Creative and critical thinking are two very important abilities to 21st Century. Previous mobile-based assessments have been carried out, but nothing has been used to measure creative and critical thinking. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is used to see the acceptability of mobile-based assessments for creative and critical thinking. In this research, TAM is used at the prototype stage, where it is important to see the initial response of prospective users. One external variable is added to the main TAM version, namely Skill to use a smartphone. The sample of this research was 71 Informatics Engineering students. The results obtained are: (1) Mobile-based assessment for creative and critical thinking can be accepted by prospective users, (2) Skill to use a smartphone can be ignored, considering that this variable is not significant for acceptance. In other words, even though their skills are low or high, participants will still accept technology, (3) Perceived Ease to Use must be of concern because this variable is the one that has the greatest influence in the acceptance model. How to design applications that are clear, easy to understand, and have a good interaction experience will drive user acceptance.

References

  1. Abramson, J., Dawson, M., & Stevens, J. (2015). An Examination of the Prior Use of E-Learning Within an Extended Technology Acceptance Model and the Factors That Influence the Behavioral Intention of Users to Use M-Learning. SAGE Open, 5(4), 215824401562111. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621114
  2. Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 125, 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.008
  3. Andrews, K., Zimoch, M., Reichert, M., Tallon, M., Frick, U., & Pryss, R. (2018). A Smart Mobile Assessment Tool for Collecting Data in Large-Scale Educational Studies. Procedia Computer Science, 134, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.145
  4. Aydin, C. H., & Tasci, D. (2005). Measuring readiness for e-learning: Reflections from an emerging country. Educational Technology and Society, 8(4), 244–257.
  5. Azman, M. N. A., Kamis, A., Kob, C. G. C., Abdullah, A. S., Jerusalem, M. A., Komariah, K., & Budiastuti, E. (2020). How good is myguru: The lecturers’ perceived usefulness and attitude. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(2), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i2.30790
  6. Barreiro-Gen, M. (2020). Evaluating the effects of mobile applications on course assessment: A quasi-experiment on a macroeconomics course. International Review of Economics Education, 34(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2020.100184
  7. Battelleforkids.org. (2020). P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning. https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21
  8. Briz-Ponce, L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2015). An Empirical Assessment of a Technology Acceptance Model for Apps in Medical Education. Journal of Medical Systems, 39(11), 176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-015-0352-x
  9. Chen Tsai, K. (2013). Being a Critical and Creative Thinker: A Balanced Thinking Mode. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS), 1(2). www.ajhss.org
  10. Chou, P. N., Chang, C. C., & Lin, C. H. (2017). BYOD or not: A comparison of two assessment strategies for student learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.024
  11. DiYanni, R. (2016). Critical and Creative Thinking: A Brief Guide for Teachers. Wiley-Blackwell.
  12. DongPing Tang & LianJin Chen. (2011). A review of the evolution of research on information Technology Acceptance Model. 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information, 2, 588–591. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBMEI.2011.5917980
  13. Farahat, T. (2012). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Online Learning in the Egyptian Universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.012
  14. Fatmawati, A., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Sutopo. (2019). Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Learning Achievement: How They are Related. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1417(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012070
  15. Fuad, M., Deb, D., Etim, J., & Gloster, C. (2018). Mobile response system: A novel approach to interactive and hands-on activity in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 493–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9570-5
  16. Hardyanto, W., Sugiyanto, S., Purwinarko, A., & Adhi, A. (2019). Research on Academic Information System Unnes Using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). KnE Social Sciences, 2019, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i18.4694
  17. Hidayati, N., Zubaidah, S., Suarsini, E., & Praherdhiono, H. (2019). Examining the Relationship between Creativity and Critical Thinking through Integrated Problem-based Learning and Digital Mind Maps. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(9A), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071620
  18. Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers and Education, 56(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.002
  19. Jan, A. U., & Contreras, V. (2011). Technology acceptance model for the use of information technology in universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.009
  20. Khamaruddin, P. F. M., Sauki, A., Othman Kadri, N. H., Rahim, A. N. C. A., & Kadri, A. (2017). Technology Acceptance Model Analysis on Students’ Behavioral Intention of Using Moodle for FYP. 2017 7th World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF), 724–727. https://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF.2017.8467082
  21. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers and Education, 85, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011
  22. Louhab, F. E., Bahnasse, A., & Talea, M. (2018). Towards an Adaptive Formative Assessment in Context-Aware Mobile Learning. Procedia Computer Science, 135, 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.195
  23. Luan, W. S., & Teo, T. (2011). Student Teachers’ Acceptance of Computer Technology: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In Technology Acceptance in Education (pp. 43–61). Sense Publishers.
  24. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
  25. Meletiou, G., Voyiatzis, I., Stavroulaki, V., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2012). Design and implementation of an e-exam system based on the Android platform. Proceedings of the 2012 16th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI 2012, 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1109/PCi.2012.76
  26. Moore, W. E. (1967). Creative and Critical Thinking. Houghton Mifflin Company.
  27. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2014). A model for Mobile-based Assessment adoption based on Self-Determination Theory of Motivation. 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL2014), Imcl, 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011111
  28. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2015). The effects of Perceived Mobility and Satisfaction on the adoption of Mobile-based Assessment. Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning, IMCL 2015, November, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCTL.2015.7359579
  29. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’ science motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.025
  30. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005
  31. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-Based micro-Learning and Assessment: Impact on learning performance and motivation of high school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12240
  32. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2019). Factors that influence behavioral intention to use mobile-based assessment: A STEM teachers’ perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12609
  33. OECD. (2019). Pisa 2021 Creative Thinking Framework (Third Draft).
  34. Planing, P. (2014). Innovation Acceptance. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05005-4
  35. Santos, P., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Hernández-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2011). QuesTInSitu: From tests to routes for assessment in situ activities. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2517–2534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.020
  36. Setianto, F. & Suharjito. (2018). Analysis the Acceptance of Use for Document Management System Using Technology Acceptance Model. 2018 Third International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAC.2018.8780462
  37. Statcounter. (2020). Desktop vs Mobile vs Tablet Market Share in Indonesia—November 2020. https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet/indonesia
  38. Stowell, J. R. (2015). Use of clickers vs. Mobile devices for classroom polling. Computers and Education, 82, 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.008
  39. Tarighat, S., & Khodabakhsh, S. (2016). Mobile-Assisted Language Assessment: Assessing speaking. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.014
  40. Tsai, K. C. (2019). Investigating the empirical links between creative and critical thinking. Psychology, Society and Education, 11(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v11i3.1064
  41. Ulfa, S. (2013). Mobile Technology Integration into Teaching and Learning. IEESE International Journal of Science and Technology (IJSTE), 2(1), 1–7.
  42. Ulfa, S. (2017). Exploring Student’s Perceptions of Computer based Testing for University Entrance Examination By Using Technology Acceptance Model_ Case Study State University of Malang, Indonesia. The International Journal of Educational Researchers, 8(2), 0–8.
  43. UNESCO. (2014). Strategy Education Strategy. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1–63.
  44. WeAreSocial & Hootsuite. (2020). Digital 2020 Indonesia.
  45. Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundim, M. C., & Franco, A. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27(January 2017), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003
  46. Ying Zhao & Qi Zhu. (2010). Influence Factors of Technology Acceptance Model in Mobile Learning. 2010 Fourth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing, 542–545. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGEC.2010.139