Exploring Factors that Influence the Use and Acceptanceof

Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12No.3 (2021), 476-488

Research Article

476

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.

Exploring Factors that Influence the Use and Acceptance of Virtual Learning Environment on Teaching and

Learning Accounting

477

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’ 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.

2. Literature Review

Noor Lela Ahmad*, Zuriadah Ismail, Rohaila Yusuf, Hapini Awang

478

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


Learning Accounting

479

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


480

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

Sections CronbachAlphaValue Level


Learning Accounting

481

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

Male

26

16.7


482

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.

3.33 1.127

Average


Learning Accounting

483

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


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


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.

3.65

0.913

High


484

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


Learning Accounting

485

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


486

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

technology. Journal of Accounting Education, 29 (2), 100-121.


Learning Accounting

487

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_useoflearningplatforms_report.pdf

36. 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.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1485/1/becta_2010_use

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.017


488

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/

Documents

Exploring Factors that Influence the Use and Acceptanceof