Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penerimaan dan penggunaan pendekatan Pembelajaran Teradun

451

mediation, and conditional process modeling. White paper. Diambil dari
http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3),
451–470. http://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028

Heckman, R., Østerlund, C. S., & Saltz, J. (2015). Blended learning at the boundary: Designing a
new internship. Online Learning, 19(3), 111–128. Diambil dari http://files.eric.ed.gov
/fulltext/EJ1067509.pdf

Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive
longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 131–155. Diambil dari
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2015/3386

Herkersdorf, M. (2014). Virtual blended learning. Global English PEARSON. Diambil dari
http://now.eloqua.com/e/er?s=2111&lid=439&elq=%3Cspanclass=eloquaemail%3Erecipien
tid%3C/span%3E

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Using blended learning: Evidence-based practices. New
York: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-089-6

Hiong, S. N., & Umbit, A. F. (2015). A pilot study on factors affecting the use of frog virtual
learning environment. Jurnal Pendidikan IPG, 12, 1–17. Diambil dari
http://www.ipbl.edu.my/portal/penyelidikan/jurnalpapers/jurnal2015/Siaw NH_Agatha.pdf

Hisham, D., Mohd Sobri, D. @ A. W., & Hamzah, A. R. (2012). Action research on blended
learningtransformative potential in higher education- learners’ perspectives. Business and
Management Research, 1(2), 125–134. http://doi.org/10.5430/bmr.v1n2p125

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Boston. Diambil dari
https://www.insynctraining.com/pages/SolutionstotheTop10ChallengesofBlendedLearning.p
df

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Diambil dari http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=buschmanart

Hoque, K. E., Ahmad Zabidi, A. R., & Fatema Zohora, M. (2012). ICT utilization among school
teachers and principals in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development, 1(4), 17–34. Diambil dari
https://umexpert.um.edu.my/file/publication/00005891_85801.pdf

Huang, R., Ma, D., & Zhang, H. (2008). Towards a design theory of blended learning curriculum.
Dalam J. Fong, R. Kwan, & F. L. Wang (Ed.), Hybrid Learning and Education (hal. 66–78).
Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85170-7

Hung, M. (2015). Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher
perception. Computers & Education, 94, 120–133. http://doi.org/10.1016
/j.compedu.2015.11.012

452

Hur, W.-M., Kim, H., & Kim, W.-M. (2014). The moderating roles of gender and age in tablet
computer adoption. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 17(1), 33–39.
http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0435

Hussein, A. (2009). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and
quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work, 1, 1–12. Diambil
dari http://www.bnemid.byethost14.com/NURSING RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.pdf?i=1

Ibrahim, M., Ahmad Shidki, M. Y., Wan Salihin Wong, A., & Fahmi Zaidi, A. R. (2015). Factors
contributing pre-school trainees teachers adoption of virtual learning environment:
Malaysian evidence. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 73–79.
Diambil dari http://www.tojet.net/articles/v14i2/14210.pdf

Isiguzel, B. (2014). The blended learning environment on the foreign language learning process:
A balance for motivation and achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-
TOJDE, 15(3(10)), 108–122.

Isman, A., Abanmy, F. A. A., Hussein, H. B., Al Sandany, M. A., Barakat, H., Saadany, A., &
Abdelrahman, M. (2012). Using blended learning in developing student teachers teaching
skills. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 336–345.

Jackson, S. L. (2015). Research methods and statistics a critical thinking approach. Cengage
Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. Diambil dari
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=rTZ-BAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=
gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers
balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information Technology
Education, 13, 121–140. Diambil dari http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13
ResearchP121-140Jeffrey0460.pdf

Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Qualitative
Methodology, 24(4), 602–611. http://doi.org/10.2307/2392366

Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Diambil dari
http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf

Kabakçi Yurdakul, I., Ursavaş, Ö. F., & Becit İşçitürk, G. (2014). An integrated approach for
preservice teachers’ acceptance and use of technology: UTAUT-PST scale. Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, (55), 21–36. http://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2014.55.2

Kahn, J. (2014). Reporting Mediation and Moderation. Diambil dari http://my.ilstu.edu/~jhkahn
/medmod.html

Kazu, I. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Effect of blended learning environment model on high
school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 13(1), 78–87.

Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia. (2014). Maklum balas ke atas laporan Ketua Audit Negara
siri 3. Putrajaya, Malaysia. Diambil dari https://www.audit.gov.my/images/pdf/LKAN2013
/Persekutuan/Siri3/LKAN2013 _ Persekutuan MaklumBalas Siri 3 MASTER.pdf

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013 -
2025. Putrajaya, Malaysia. Diambil dari http://www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/

453

Preliminary-Blueprint-ExecSummary-BM.pdf

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2016). Kajian antarabangsa pengajaran dan pembelajaran
2013. Putrajaya, Malaysia.

Khan, A., Fleva, E., & Qazi, T. (2015). Role of self-esteem and general self-efficacy in teachers’
efficacy in primary schools. Psychology, 6(January), 117–125. http://doi.org/
10.4236/psych.2015.61010

Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A. (2014). UTAUT model for blended learning:
The role of gender and age in the intention to use webinars. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-
Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 33–52.

Khlaisang, J., & Mingsiritham, K. (2016). Engaging virtual learning environment system to
enhance communication and collaboration skills among ASEAN higher education learners.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 103–113. http://doi.org/
10.3991/ijet.v11i04.5503

Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. a B., & Powers, S. M. (1994). Computer technologies: Attitudes and
self efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 35(6), 745–
768. Diambil dari http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED357064.pdf

Klimova, B. F. (2015). Teaching and learning enhanced by information and communication
technologies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 898–902. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.112

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice Of structural equation modeling (3rd. Ed.). New
York: The Guilford Press.

Kong, S. C., Chan, T.-W., Griffin, P., Hoppe, U., Huang, R., Kinshuk, … Yu, S. (2014). E-
learning in school education in the coming 10 years for developing 21st century skills:
Critical research issues and policy implications. Education Technology & Society, 17(1),
70–78. Diambil dari http://chan.lst.ncu.edu.tw/publications/2014-E-learning in school
education.pdf

Korkmaz, O., & Karakus, U. (2009). The impact of blended learning model on student attitudes
towards geography course and their critical thinking dispositions and levels. The Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(4), 51–63. Diambil dari http://files.eric.ed.gov
/fulltext/EJ859497.pdf

Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational And Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. http://doi.org/10.1177
/001316447003000308

Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. Handbook of Survey
Research. Diambil dari http://books.google.com/books?id=mMPDPXpTP-0C&pgis=1

Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G. C., & Neelankavil, J. P. (2014). Self-efficacy as an antecedentce of
cognition and affect in technology acceptance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(3), 190–
199. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Kumutha, R., & Hamidah, Y. (2014). Barriers teachers face in integrating ICT during english
lessons: A case study. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 11–
19.

454

Lai, E. R., & Viering, M. (2012). Assessing 21st century skills: Integrating research findings.
National Council on Measurement in Education, (April), 66. Diambil dari
http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp-content/uploads/Assessing_21st_Century_Skills_
NCME.pdf

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. http://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Lauri, M. A. (2011). Triangulation of data analysis techniques. Papers of Social Representations,
20, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153842

Lee, L.-T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-learning: A case study in higher education
tax learning setting. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 5(1), 13.
http://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-015-0024-3

Leila, K., & Tunku Badariah, T. A. (2013). Perceived learning and satisfaction in a blended
teacher education program: An experience of Malaysian teacher trainees. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 4(3), 197–211. Diambil dari http://www.cedtech.net/
articles/43/434.pdf

Lihitkar, S. R. (2013). Designing a prototype virtual learning environment for library and
information science students. Library Hi Tech News, 30(4), 13–15.
http://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-04-2013-0019

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. Blended Learning: Differences in
instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 11, 27–42. http://doi.org/184.168.109.199

Lim, K., & Hwa, M. (2015). A case study of the experiences of instructors and students in a
Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) with different cultural backgrounds. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 16(4), 613–626. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9400-y

Lin, Q. (2009). Student views of hybrid learning: A one-year exploratory study. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 57–66.

Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. London: Routledge.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00870_8.x

Liu, W., & Yu, H. (2012). Effectiveness study of english learning in blended learning
environment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 524–530.
http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.524-530

Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., & Mohamad, A. A. (2015). Does intention really lead to actual use of
technology? A study of an e-learning system among university students in Malaysia.
Croatian Journal of Education, 17(3), 835–863. http://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i3.1085

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing
ResearchResearch, 35(6), 382–385. http://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017

Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals’ role and effect.
International Education Studies, 8(5), 43–53. http://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n5p43

Maitland, A. (2009). Should I label all scale points or just the end points for attitudinal questions?
Survey Practice, 2(4). Diambil dari http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/
SurveyPractice/rt/printerFriendly/172/html

455

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.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

Marcinkowski, B., & Wrycza, S. (2015). CASE tools’ acceptance in higher education -
assessment and enhanced UTAUT model. Dalam 2015 Proceedings of the Conference on
Information Systems Applied Research (hal. 1–9). Diambil dari
http://proc.conisar.org/2015/pdf/3671.pdf

Martin, J. S., Kreiger, J. E., & Apicerno, A. L. (2015). Effectiveness of a hybrid classroom in the
delivery of medical terminology course content relative to a traditional classroom format.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(5), 72–81.
http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i5.13994

Masitah, M. Y., Azizi, M., Ahamad Makmom, A., Bahaman, A. S., Ramli, B., & Noriati, A. R.
(2013). Faktor- faktor yang mempengaruhi efikasi kendiri guru sekolah menengah di
Malaysia dalam pelaksanaan pendidikan alam sekitar. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators
and Education, 28, 131–153.

McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective
domain: School and corporate applications. Springer Science+Business Media (3rd ed.).
New York: Springer Science+Business Media. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6

McWilliams, S. A. (2013). A 21st-century personal construct psychology upgrade. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 26(3), 164–171. http://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2013.787321

Mehta, A. (2014). Technology acceptance of e-learning within a blended vocational course in
West Africa. Dalam Multi Conference On Computer Science And Information Systems 2014
(hal. 324–328). Diambil dari http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557293.pdf

Menzies, R., Petrie, K., & Zarb, M. (2015). A case study of Facebook use: Outlining a multi-layer
strategy for higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–15.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9436-y

Mirriahi, N., Alonzo, D., McIntyre, S., Kligyte, G., & Fox, B. (2015). Blended learning
innovations: Leadership and change in one Australian institution. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 11(1), 4–
16. Diambil dari http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1061471.pdf

Mohamed Amin, E., Norazah, M. N., & Ebrahim, P. (2014). Overview of blended learning.
Dalam E. Mohamed Amin (Ed.), Blended & Flipped Learning : Case Studies in Malaysian
HEIs (hal. 1). Centre for Teaching & Learning Technologies, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia & Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education Malaysia. Diambil dari
http://www.moe.gov.my/cms/upload_files/publicationfile/2015/pubfile_file_002071.pdf

Mohammed Jaber, S. A., Rosnaini, M., Kamariah, A. B., & Ahmad Fauzi, M. A. (2012). Factors
influencing the use of learning management system in Saudi Arabian higher education: A
theoretical framework. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 125–137.
http://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v2n2p125

Mohd Awang, I., & Dollard, M. F. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate, work conditions, and
emotions in the workplace: A Malaysian population-based work stress study. International
Journal of Stress Management, 18(4), 324–347. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024849

456

Mohd Nazri, A. R. (2014). Pembangunan model homeschooling berasaskan nilai dan amalan
masyarakat bagi kanak-kanak orang asli. (Tesis Kedoktoran, Universiti Malaya). Diambil
dari http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/4716/

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–
222. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192

Muhamad Azhar, S., Mohamad, I., & Amri, Y. (2015). Engaging vocational college students
through blended learning: Improving class attendance and participation. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 204(November 2014), 127–135. http://doi.org/10.1016
/j.sbspro.2015.08.125

Muraina, I. D. (2015). The factors that contribute to the continuous usage of broadband
technologies among youth in rural areas: A case of northern region of Malaysia. (Tesis
Kedoktoran). Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia.

Nachtigall, C., Kroehne, U., Funke, F., & Steyer, R. (2003). (Why) Should we use SEM? Pros
and cons of structural equation modeling. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 1–22.
Diambil dari http://www.dgps.de/fachgruppen/methoden/mpr-online/issue20/art1/
mpr127_11.pdf

Newby, P. (2014). Research methods for education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Newsom, J. (2017). Improper solutions in SEM. Diambil dari http://web.pdx.edu/~newsomj/
semclass/ho_improper.pdf

Nguyen, T. N. (2015). Motivational effect of web-based simulation game in teaching operations
management. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 9–15.
http://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i2.565

Nor Fadzleen, S., Halina, M. D., & Haliza, Z. (2013). Derivation for design of Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE) framework for Malaysian schools. Dalam 3rd International Conference
on Research and Innovation in Information Systems, ICRIIS. http://doi.org/10.1109
/ICRIIS.2013.6716772

Norazilawati, A., Noraini, M. N., Nik Azmah, N. Y., & Rosnidar, M. (2013). Aplikasi
persekitaran pengajaran maya (Frog VLE) dalam kalangan guru sains. Jurnal Pendidikan
Sains dan Matematik, 3(2), 63–76.

Nuanmeesri, S. (2014). A design of the infrastructure and computer network for distance
education, online learning via new media, e-learning and blended learning. International
Journal of Computer, Electrical, Automation, Control and Information Engineering, 8(9),
1579–1582.

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be
done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Nurain, R., Balakrishnan, M., & Wan Ahmad Jaafar, W. Y. (2015). Attitude and motivation of
Malaysian secondary school students’ learning of ESL in a blended learning environment.
Dalam e-Proceeding of the Global Conference on Technology in Language Learning 2015.

457

http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4966.6646

Nur Syamimi, M. R., & Noraffandy, Y. (2010). Blended learning: Overcome the weaknesses of
e-learning and traditional approach. Edupress 2010. Diambil dari http://eprints.utm.my
/14929/

Nurul Farhana, J. (2013). Cabaran dalam mengimplementasi Virtual Learning Environment
(VLE) Frog dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran oleh guru di sekolah-sekolah di Malaysia.
(Tesis Sarjana). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.

O’Leary, R. (2002). Virtual learning environments. LTSN Economics and Manager of the
Learning Technology Support Service, University of Bristol. Diambil dari
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190701/

Obiedat, R., Eddeen, L. N., Harfoushi, O., Koury, A., & Alassaf, N. (2014). Effect of blended-
learning on academic achievement of students in the University of Jordan. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(2), 37–45. http://doi.org/
10.3991/ijet.v9i2.3220

Ofsted. (2009). Virtual learning environments: An evaluation of their development in a sample of
educational settings. Alexandra House. The Office for Standards in Education. Diambil dari
www.ofsted.gov.uk

Oke, A. E., Ogunsami, D. R., & Ogunlana, S. (2012). Establishing a common ground for the use
of structural equation modelling for construction related research studies. Australasian
Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12(3), 89–94. http://doi.org/
10.5130/ajceb.v12i3.2658

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “Blended Learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17–
26. http://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.17

Osborne, J. W. (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis? Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 20(2), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1037/e558952014-001

Padilla-Melendez, A., Del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived
playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning
scenario. Computers and Education, 63, 306–317. http://doi.org/10.1016
/j.compedu.2012.12.014

Perez-Marin, D., & Pascual-Nieto, I. (2012). A case study on the use of blended learning to
encourage computer science students to study. Journal of Science Education Technology,
21, 74–82. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9283-6

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,
63(1), 539–569. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the cvi an acceptable indicator of content
validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health (Vol. 30).

Poon, J. (2012). Use of blended learning to enhance the student learning experience and

458

engagement in property education. Property Management, 30(2), 129–156. http://doi.org/
10.1108/02637471211213398

Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative
strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. Newyork Free Press (3rd Editio). New York: The
Free Press. http://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:126680

Rouhollah, K., Habibah, A. J., Wan Zah, W. A., & Shaffe, M. D. (2015). Presence and perceived
learning in different higher education blended learning environments. International Journal
of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(3), 59–70. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.2015070104

Şad, S. N. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability
studies. Computers and Education, 58(3), 900–907. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2011.10.017

Saiful Afzan, B., Lazim, A., Ali, A., & Yusoff, H. (2014). Pemodelan penerimaan pelajar
terhadap persekitaran pembelajaran maya (VLE). Journal of Business and Social
Development, 2(2), 36–47.

Saltson, E., & Sharon, N. (2015). The mediating and moderating effects of motivation in the
relationship between perceived organizational support and employee job performance.
International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 3(7), 654–667. Diambil
dari http://ijecm.co.uk/

Sam, H. K., Othman, A. E. A., & Nordin, Z. S. (2005). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety,
and attitudes toward the Internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Educational
Technology and Society, 8(4), 205–219. http://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.8.4.205

Sankaran, S., & Norazlinda, S. (2017). Adoption of technology: school location as moderator.
The Social Sciences, 12(7), 1270–1274. Diambil dari http://docsdrive.com/pdfs
/medwelljournals/sscience/2017/1270-1274.pdf

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6th
ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.

Sauro, J. (2010). Should you use 5 or 7 point scales? Diambil dari http://www.measuringusability
.com/blog/scale-points.php

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling
(3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2009). Research methods for business (5th. ed.). West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental
research. Research in Human Development, 6(2–3), 144–164. http://doi.org/10.1080/
15427600902911247

Seri Rahayu, H. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs and use of ICTs in malaysian smart schools: A case
study. Dalam Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011
(hal. 522–525). Diambil dari http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads
/papers/Hamid-poster.pdf

459

Shamsuddin, H. (n.d.). Integrating ICT in teaching and learning: Countrty report: Malaysia.
Diambil dari http://woulibrary.wou.edu.my/weko/eed502/Shamsuddin_-_ICT_in_Malaysia
_Education.pdf

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Richard Francis. (2006). The undergraduate experience
of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. London: Higher Education
Academy. Diambil dari https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/sharpe_benfield
_roberts_francis_0.pdf

Shi, J., Mo, X., & Sun, Z. (2012). Content validity index in scale development. Journal of
Central South University (Medical Sciences), 37(2), 152–155. http://doi.org/
10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007

Shin, W. S., & Kang, M. (2015). The use of a mobile learning management system at an online
university and its effect on learning satisfaction and achievement. International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 110–130.

Shivam, R., & Singh, S. (2015). Implementation of blended learning in classroom: A review
paper. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(11), 369–372.

Siang, J. J., & Santoso, H. B. (2015). Students ’ perspective of learning management system: An
empirical evidence of technology acceptance model in emerging countries. Journal of Arts,
Science & Commerce, 6(2), 1–14.

Siew-Eng, L., & Muuk, M. A. (2015). Blended learning in teaching secondary schools’ english:
A preparation for tertiary science education in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 167(October), 293–300. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.677

Simelane, S., & Mji, A. (2014). Impact of technology-engagement teaching strategy with the aid
of clickers on student’s learning style. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136,
511–521. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.367

Simeonova, B., Bogolyubov, P., Blagov, E., & Kharabsheh, R. (2014). Cross-cultural validation
of UTAUT: The case of university VLEs in Jordan, Russia and the UK. The Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 25–34. Diambil dari
http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/69681

Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6),
51–54. http://doi.org/10.1021/es2033229

Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. ASTD
State of the Industry Report, American Society for Training & Development (CENTRA),
(March), 1–11. Diambil dari http://facilitateadultlearning.pbworks.com/f
/blendedlearning.pdf

Siti Nazuar, S. (2014). Barriers influencing teacher ’s technology integration in their teaching
practice. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(23), 352–357.

Smith, J., Groves, M., Bowd, B., & Barber, A. (2012). Facilitating the development of study
skills through a blended learning approach. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(2),
108–117. http://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v1n2p108

Songkram, N. (2015). E-learning system in virtual learning environment to develop creative
thinking for learners in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
674–679. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.600

460

Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Essentials for blended learning: A standards-based guide.
New York: Routledge.

Stratton, T. M. (2014). A case study of the integration of 21st century technology within the
place-based, expeditionary learning outward bound (ELOB) approach to education.
Instructional Technology Education Specialist Research Papers, (16), 1–59.
http://doi.org/http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/edu-papers/16 This

Swanson, R. A. (2007). Theory framework for applied disciplines: boundaries, contributing, core,
useful, novel, and irrelevant components. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 321–
339. http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307303770

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson
Education. Inc.

Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the use of english e-
learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1177/
2158244013503837

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on e-
learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended
technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 163–
184. http://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.2.b

Tay, H. Y. (2016). Investigating engagement in a blended learning course. Cogent Education,
3(1), 13. http://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1135772

Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2012). Blended learning or e-learning? International Magazine on
Advances in Computer Science and Telecommunications, 3(1), 103–110.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144

Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does
gender matter ? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 235–251.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.v0i0.1672

Teo, T., Khlaisang, J., Thammetar, T., Ruangrit, N., Satiman, A., & Sunphakitjumnong, K.
(2014). A survey of pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology in Thailand. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 15(4), 609–616. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-014-9348-3

Teo, T., Luan, W. S. L., & Sing, C. C. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use
technology between Singaporean And Malaysian pre-service teachers: An application of the
technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Educational Technology and Society,
11(4), 265–280. Diambil dari http://www.ifets.info/download_pdf.php?j_id=41
&a_id=903

Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2016). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on
their technology acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments, 4820(March), 1–15.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1143844

Termit, K., & Noorma, H. (2015). Teachers’ readiness to utilize Frog VLE: A case study of a
Malaysian secondary school. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science,

461

5(1), 20–29. http://doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2015/11965

The JISC infoNet Service. (2006). Effective use of VLEs: Introduction to VLEs. Diambil dari
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/effective-use-of-VLEs/intro-to-
VLEs/printable_version.pdf

The Oxford Group. (2013). Blended learning - current use, challenges and best practices.
Diambil dari http://www.kineo.com/elearning-reports/blended-learning-current-use-
challenges-and-best-practice.html

Thomas, T., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining
mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education
and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(3), 71–85. Diambil
dari http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1687

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts
and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.
http://doi.org/10.1037/10694-000 Thompson,

Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. . (1991). Personal computing: Toward a
conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
http://doi.org/10.2307/249443

Torrisi-steele, G. (2011). This thing called blended learning - a definition and planning approach.
Research and Development in Higher Education: Higher Education on the Edge, 34, 360–
371. Diambil dari http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/42960/
70212_1.pdf?sequence=1

Touray, A., & Salminen, A. (2013). The impact of moderating factors on behavioral intention
towards internet: A transnational perspective. International Journal of Computer and
Information Technology, 2(6), 1035–1041. Diambil dari www.ijcit.com

Tsai, C. W. (2015). Investigating the effects of web-mediated design thinking and co-regulated
learning on developing students’ computing skills in a blended course. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 14(2), 295–305. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0401-8

Turisiana, A. B., & Fauziah Saadah, A. H. (2014). Lecturers ’ perceptions of blended learning
readiness. Journal of Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 50–63. Diambil
dari http://www.kedah.uitm.edu.my/CPLT/images/stories/v2n2/Article4.pdf

USCLibraries. (2016). Organizing your social sciences research paper: Theoretical framework.
Diambil dari http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Uysal, R., Satici, S. A., Satici, B., & Akin, A. (2014). Subjective vitality as mediator and
moderator of the relationship between life satisfaction and subjective happiness.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(2), 489–497. http://doi.org
/10.12738/estp.2014.2.1828

VanDerLinden, K. (2014). Blended learning as transformational institutional learning. Dalam
New Directions for Higher Education (hal. 75–85). http://doi.org/10.1002/he

Vatanartiran, S., & Karadeniz, S. (2015). A needs analysis for technology integration plan:
Challenges and needs of teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(3), 206–220.
Diambil dari http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezpustaka.upsi.edu.my/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=02839cfb-7b1d-47cb-871a-361f9d93bc8f@sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid

462

=4204

Vatuiu, T., & Udricǎ, M. (2013). Virtual learning environment as part of lifelong learning.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 252–259. Diambil dari
http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/tojde/article/view/5000102268

Vaughan, N. (2014). Student engagement and blended learning: Making the assessment
connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247–264. http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040247

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. Diambil dari
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., & Morris, G. M. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for direction? Gender,
social influence and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour. MIS
Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139. http://doi.org/10.2307/3250981

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., & Ackerman, P. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender
differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 83(1), 33–60. http://doi.org/
10.1006/obhd.2000.2896

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
http://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: Extending the unified theory. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. Diambil dari
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002388

Virginia, W. (2014). Research methods: Triangulation. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 9(1), 74–75. http://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8WW3X

Wai, C. C., & Seng, E. L. K. (2014). Exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of blended
learning tools in a school of business. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
123(2002), 470–476. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1446

Wan Fariza Alyati, W. Z. (2012). Alvin Toffler: Knowledge, technology and change in future
society. International Journal of Islamic Thought, 1(June), 54–61. Diambil dari
http://www.ukm.my/ijit/IJIT Vol 1 2012/7wan fariza.pdf

Wan Zah, W. A., Hajar, M. N., Azimi, H., & Hayati, A. (2009). The conditions and level of ICT
integration in Malaysian Smart Schools. International Journal of Education and
Development using ICT, 5(2), 21–31. Diambil dari http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//
viewarticle.php?id=618&layout=html

Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a
Complex Adaptive Systems Framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–
393. Diambil dari http://www.ifets.info/journals/18_2/28.pdf

Wayne, J. (2012). Effective learning - blended learning and virtual learning environment. Diambil

463

dari http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/effective-learning-blended-learning-and-virtual-
learning-environment

Wei, W. (2009). A technology acceptance model: Mediate and moderate effect. Asia Pacific
Management Review, 14(4), 461–476. Diambil dari http://apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw/
comm/updown/DW0911102983.pdf

Wong, G. K. W. (2014). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers of primary
mathematics: A pilot study in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
31(6), 713–735. Diambil dari http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/viewFile/1890/1326

Wong, K. T., Rosma, O., Goh, P. S. C., & Mohd Khairezan, R. (2013). Understanding student
teachers ’ behavioural intention to use technology: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
validation and testing. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 89–105. Diambil dari
http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2013_1_6.pdf

Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Goh, P. S. C. (2014). Development of the interactive whiteboard
acceptance scale (IWBAS): an Anitial study. Educational Technology and Society, 17(4),
268–277. Diambil dari http://www.ifets.info/journals/17_4/18.pdf

Wong, L., Tatnall, A., & Burgess, S. (2014). A framework for investigating blended learning
effectiveness. Education + Training, 56(2), 233–251. http://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-
0049

Wu, Y., Wen, M., Chen, C., & Hsu, I. (2016). An integrated BIM and cost estimating blended
learning model – acceptance differences between experts and novice. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1347–1363. http://doi.org
/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1517a

Xin, H., Kempland, M., & Blankson, F. H. (2015). Adaptability and replicability of web-
facilitated, hybrid, and online learning in an undergraduate exercise psychology course.
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 19–30. Diambil dari
http://www.tojet.net/articles/v14i1/1413.pdf

Yaghmale, F. (2003). Content validity and its estimation. Journal of Medical Education, 3(1),
25–27. Diambil dari http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/jme/article/download/870/769.

Yapici, İ. Ü., & Akbayin, H. (2012). The effect of blended learning model on high school
students’ biology achievement and on their attitudes towards the internet. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 228–237. Diambil dari
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ989031.pdf

Yeasmin, S., & Rahman, K. F. (2012). “Triangulation” research method as the tool of social
science research. Bup Journal, 1(1), 154–163. Diambil dari http://www.bup.edu.bd
/journal/154-163.pdf

Yeou, M. (2016). An investigation of students acceptance of moodle in a blended learning setting
using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(3),
300–318. http://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515618464

Yu, Z., & Yuexiu, Z. (2015). Blended learning over two decades. International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education, 11(3), 1–19. http://doi.org/
10.4018/IJICTE.2015070101

Zaharah, H., Saedah, S., Ghazali, D., & Nur Hasbuna, M. S. (2015). Kajian model blended

464

learning dalam jurnal terpilih: Satu analisa kandungan. Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran
Asia Pasifik, 3(1), 20–31. Diambil dari juku.um.edu.my

Zainudin, A. (2015). SEM Made Simple: A gentle approach to learning structural equation
modeling. Bangi: MPWS Rich Publication.

Zainudin, A., Asyraf, A., & Mustafa, M. (2016). The Likert scale analysis using parametric based
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 4(1), 13–
21. Diambil dari http://cmss.univnt.ro/wp-content/uploads/vol/split/vol_IV_issue_1/
CMSS_vol_IV_issue_1_art.002.pdf

Zhang, M., Liu, Y., Yan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Users’ continuance intention of virtual
learning community services: The moderating role of usage experience. Interactive
Learning Environments, 1–19. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1172242

Zuraidah, Z. (2014). The effects of customer-brand relationship investments on customer
engagement. (Tesis Kedoktoran). Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.

Zuraidah, Z., Norjaya, M. Y., Nor Asiah, O., & Nik M. Hazrul, N. H. (2014). Determining the
key factors of customer–brand relationship investment dimensions: Insights from Malaysian
mobile phone users. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 13(4), 318–342.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2014.965649

LAMPIRAN 465
Lampiran A

466

467

468

469

470

471
Lampiran B

Surat Kebenaran menjalankan Kajian daripada EPRD

472
Lampiran C

Keputusan Pengujian SEM

Notes for Group (Group number 1)
The model is recursive.
Sampel size = 630

Notes for Model (Default model)
Computation of degrees of freedom (Default model)

Number of distinct sample moments: 780
Number of distinct parameters to be estimated: 96

Degrees of freedom (780 - 96): 684

Result (Default model)
Minimum was achieved
Chi-square = 2500.483
Degrees of freedom = 684
Probability level = .000

Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)
Scalar Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)
Maximum Likelihood Estimates
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

FC <--- TEF .330 .066 5.029 *** par_47

FC <--- UE .042 .069 .615 .539 par_48

FC <--- SI .553 .064 8.579 *** par_49

BI <--- UE .358 .046 7.713 *** par_42

BI <--- SI .183 .045 4.096 *** par_43

BI <--- TEF .377 .044 8.528 *** par_44

BI <--- FC -.130 .034 -3.786 *** par_45

PE <--- UE .898 .032 27.822 *** par_23

EE <--- UE 1.000

UB <--- BI .099 .069 1.431 .152 par_35

UB <--- UE .012 .065 .189 .850 par_39

UB <--- SI .027 .064 .419 .675 par_40

UB <--- TEF .659 .068 9.745 *** par_41

UB <--- FC .152 .050 3.058 .002 par_46

a48ub <--- UB .982 .028 35.667 *** par_1

a45ub <--- UB 1.074 .029 37.609 *** par_2

a47ub <--- UB 1.049 .027 39.284 *** par_3

a44ub <--- UB 1.021 .027 37.367 *** par_4

a49ub <--- UB 1.033 .028 37.521 *** par_5

a43ub <--- UB 1.000

a39bi <--- BI 1.000

a40bi <--- BI 1.148 .043 26.443 *** par_6

473

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
*** par_7
a42bi <--- BI 1.142 .041 28.091 *** par_8
*** par_9
a38bi <--- BI 1.205 .041 29.747
*** par_10
a36bi <--- BI 1.194 .041 29.127 *** par_11
*** par_12
a22fc <--- FC 1.000 *** par_13

a25fc <--- FC .857 .034 25.026 *** par_14
*** par_15
a26fc <--- FC .796 .036 22.061 *** par_16
*** par_17
a23fc <--- FC 1.014 .041 24.962
*** par_18
a24fc <--- FC .774 .037 20.873 *** par_19
*** par_20
a18si <--- SI 1.000 *** par_21
*** par_22
a17si <--- SI .903 .039 23.273
*** par_24
a21si <--- SI .877 .037 23.773 *** par_25
*** par_26
a16si <--- SI .891 .038 23.362 *** par_27
*** par_28
a15si <--- SI .881 .039 22.321 *** par_29

a32tef <--- TEF 1.000 *** par_30
*** par_31
a30tef <--- TEF .818 .029 28.059 *** par_32
*** par_33
a35tef <--- TEF .983 .024 41.591

a33tef <--- TEF .947 .025 38.609

a31tef <--- TEF .607 .031 19.639

a34tef <--- TEF .955 .023 41.735

a3pe <--- PE 1.000

a2pe <--- PE .986 .026 37.559

a1pe <--- PE .991 .029 34.267

a7pe <--- PE .918 .029 31.656

a6pe <--- PE .950 .029 32.981

a4pe <--- PE .868 .029 29.955

a5pe <--- PE .978 .032 30.337

a11ee <--- EE 1.000

a14ee <--- EE 1.033 .026 39.380

a8ee <--- EE .957 .026 36.222

a13ee <--- EE .945 .027 34.518

a9ee <--- EE .957 .030 32.069

474

Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

FC <--- TEF Estimate a2pe <--- PE .908
FC <--- UE .318 a1pe <--- PE .877
FC <--- SI .037 a7pe <--- PE .849
BI <--- UE .475 a6pe <--- PE .864
BI <--- SI .395 a4pe <--- PE .828
BI <--- TEF .196 a5pe <--- PE .833
BI <--- FC .453 a11ee <--- EE .914
PE <--- UE -.162 a14ee <--- EE .919
EE <--- UE .895 a8ee <--- EE .892
UB <--- BI .998 a13ee <--- EE .876
UB <--- UE .076 a9ee <--- EE .850
UB <--- SI .010
UB <--- TEF .022 Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)
UB <--- FC .609
a48ub <--- UB .146 FC Estimate a49ub .888
a45ub <--- UB .923 BI .599 a44ub .885
a47ub <--- UB .943 EE .733 a47ub .920
a44ub <--- UB .959 PE .997 a45ub .890
a49ub <--- UB .941 UB .801 a48ub .853
a43ub <--- UB .942 a34tef .651 a9ee .722
a39bi <--- BI .874 a31tef .871 a13ee .767
a40bi <--- BI .797 a33tef .420 a5pe .693
a42bi <--- BI .880 a35tef .828 a4pe .685
a38bi <--- BI .916 a30tef .869 a6pe .746
a36bi <--- BI .951 a32tef .635 a7pe .720
a22fc <--- FC .938 a15si .838 a1pe .769
a25fc <--- FC .850 a16si .585 a2pe .825
a26fc <--- FC .831 a21si .622 a8ee .796
a23fc <--- FC .766 a17si .637 a14ee .844
a24fc <--- FC .827 a18si .619 a11ee .835
a18si <--- SI .732 a24fc .715 a3pe .828
a17si <--- SI .846 a23fc .536
a21si <--- SI .787 a26fc .685
a16si <--- SI .798 a25fc .587
a15si <--- SI .789 a22fc .690
a32tef <--- TEF .765 a36bi .722
a30tef <--- TEF .915 a38bi .880
a35tef <--- TEF .797 a42bi .904
a33tef <--- TEF .932 a40bi .839
a31tef <--- TEF .910 a39bi .775
a34tef <--- TEF .648 a43ub .635
a3pe <--- PE .933 .764
.910

475

Model Fit Summary
CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 96 2500.483 684 .000 3.656

Saturated model 780 .000 0

Independence model 39 29963.297 741 .000 40.436

RMR, GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .230 .818 .792 .717

Saturated model .000 1.000

Independence model 2.711 .074 .025 .070

Baseline Comparisons

Model NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI

Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2

Default model .917 .910 .938 .933 .938

Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Parsimony-Adjusted Measures

Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI

Default model .923 .846 .866

Saturated model .000 .000 .000

Independence model 1.000 .000 .000

RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .065 .062 .068 .000

Independence model .250 .248 .253 .000

476

Lampiran D

Keputusan Pengujian Kesan Mediator

Kaedah bootstrapping

Standardized Direct Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

UE TEF SI FC BI EE PE UB
FC .037 .318 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
BI .395 .453 .196 -.162 .000 .000 .000 .000
EE .998 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
PE .895 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
UB .010 .609 .022 .146 .076 .000 .000 .000

Standardized Indirect Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

UE TEF SI FC BI EE PE UB

FC .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

BI -.006 -.051 -.077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

EE .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

PE .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

UB .035 .077 .078 -.012 .000 .000 .000 .000

Standardized Direct Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)

UE TEF SI FC BI EE PE UB
FC .587 .001 .001 ... ... ... ... ...
BI .001 .001 .001 .002 ... ... ... ...
EE .001 ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
PE .002 ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
UB .790 .002 .691 .009 .149 ... ... ...

Standardized Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance (BC) (Group number 1 - Default model)

UE TEF SI FC BI EE PE UB
FC ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
BI .544 .001 .002 ... ... ... ... ...
EE ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
PE ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
UB .116 .006 .006 .108 ... ... ... ...

477

Kaedah (Estimating MyIndirectEffects A X B)

Keadaan Kemudahan merupakan pengantara hubungan antara Jangkaan Penggunaan
dan Niat Tingkah Laku

User-defined estimands: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Parameter Estimate Lower Upper P

AxB -.005 -.031 .014 .543

478

Keadaan Kemudahan merupakan pengantara hubungan antara Efikasi Guru dan Niat
Tingkah Laku

User-defined estimands: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Parameter Estimate Lower Upper P

AxB -.043 -.079 -.018 .001

479
Lampiran E

Keputusan Pengujian Kesan Moderator

Pemboleh ubah - Jantina

Hubungan Jangkaan Penggunaan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.496
Unconstrained 192 3415.084 1368 .000 2.497

Structural weights 191 3418.927 1369 .000 20.870

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30930.066 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 3.843 .050 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Pengaruh sosial dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3415.084 1368 .000 2.496

Structural weights 191 3416.057 1369 .000 2.495

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30930.066 1482 .000 20.870

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .973 .324 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.496
Unconstrained 192 3415.084 1368 .000 2.495

Structural weights 191 3415.726 1369 .000 20.870

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30930.066 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .642 .423 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Tingkah Laku Penggunaan
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3415.084 1368 .000 2.496

Structural weights 191 3416.847 1369 .000 2.496

480

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30930.066 1482 .000 20.870

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 1.763 .184 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Efikasi guru dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3415.084 1368 .000 2.496

Structural weights 191 3429.100 1369 .000 2.505

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30930.066 1482 .000 20.870

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2
Structural weights 1 14.016 .000
.000 .000 .000 .000

Pemboleh ubah - Pengalaman

Hubungan Jangkaan Penggunaan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.465
Unconstrained 192 3372.156 1368 .000 2.463

Structural weights 191 3372.235 1369 .000 20.840

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30885.518 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .079 .779 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Pengaruh sosial dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3372.156 1368 .000 2.465

Structural weights 191 3373.414 1369 .000 2.464

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30885.518 1482 .000 20.840

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 1.258 .262 .000 .000 .000 .000

481

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.465
Unconstrained 192 3372.156 1368 .000 2.464

Structural weights 191 3373.851 1369 .000 20.840

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30885.518 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 1.695 .193 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Tingkah Laku Penggunaan
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3372.156 1368 .000 2.465

Structural weights 191 3378.734 1369 .000 2.468

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30885.518 1482 .000 20.840

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 6.578 .010 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Efikasi guru dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3372.156 1368 .000 2.465

Structural weights 191 3372.355 1369 .000 2.463

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30885.518 1482 .000 20.840

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .199 .655 .000 .000 .000 .000

Pemboleh ubah - Beban Tugas

Hubungan Jangkaan Penggunaan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.414
Unconstrained 192 3302.396 1368 .000 2.421

Structural weights 191 3314.354 1369 .000 20.789

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30809.067 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons

482

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2
Structural weights 1 11.958 .001
.000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Pengaruh sosial dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3302.396 1368 .000 2.414

Structural weights 191 3303.088 1369 .000 2.413

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30809.067 1482 .000 20.789

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .692 .406 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.414
Unconstrained 192 3302.396 1368 .000 2.413

Structural weights 191 3303.017 1369 .000 20.789

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30809.067 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .620 .431 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Tingkah Laku Penggunaan
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3302.396 1368 .000 2.414

Structural weights 191 3303.960 1369 .000 2.413

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30809.067 1482 .000 20.789

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 1.563 .211 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Efikasi guru dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3302.396 1368 .000 2.414

Structural weights 191 3308.219 1369 .000 2.417

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30809.067 1482 .000 20.789

483

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 5.823 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000

Pemboleh ubah - Lokasi sekolah

Hubungan Jangkaan Penggunaan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.486
Unconstrained 192 3401.171 1368 .000 2.484

Structural weights 191 3401.262 1369 .000 20.663

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30623.006 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons

Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .091 .763 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Pengaruh sosial dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3401.171 1368 .000 2.486

Structural weights 191 3401.264 1369 .000 2.484

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30623.006 1482 .000 20.663

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .093 .761 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
2.486
Unconstrained 192 3401.171 1368 .000 2.485

Structural weights 191 3401.422 1369 .000 20.663

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30623.006 1482 .000

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .251 .616 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Keadaan kemudahan dan Tingkah Laku Penggunaan
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3401.171 1368 .000 2.486

484

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Structural weights 191 3409.784 1369 .000 2.491

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30623.006 1482 .000 20.663

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 8.613 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000

Hubungan Efikasi guru dan Niat Tingkah Laku
Model Fit - CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Unconstrained 192 3401.171 1368 .000 2.486

Structural weights 191 3401.853 1369 .000 2.485

Saturated model 1560 .000 0

Independence model 78 30623.006 1482 .000 20.663

Nested Model Comparisons
Assuming model Unconstrained to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI IFI RFI TLI
Delta-1 Delta-2 rho-1 rho2

Structural weights 1 .682 .409 .000 .000 .000 .000

RMSEA RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
.065 .062 .067 .000
Model .231 .229 .233 .000
Default model
Independence model

485

Maklumat Penulis dan Penerbitan yang berkaitan dengan Tesis

Maklumat Penulis

Nama : MOHD AZLI BIN YEOP

Phone (Mobile) : 019-5436317

E-mail : [email protected] /

[email protected].

Penerbitan Berkaitan Penyelidikan

Mohd Azli, Y., Wong, K. T., Noraini, M. N., & Mahizer, H. (2017). The construct of factors acceptance
and use of blended learning for teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 14(9), 3–13. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_17/Sep17.pdf
(Jurnal Berindeks Excellence in Research for Australia - ERA)

Mohd Azli, Y., Wong, K. T., Noraini, M. N., & Mahizer, H. (2016). Pembelajaran Teradun: Satu
pengenalan. Dalam Trend dan Isu: Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran (hal. 1–16). Tanjong Malim:
Penerbit FPPM, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Mohd Azli, Y., Wong, K., & Goh, P. S. C. (2016). Blended learning: Pedagogy, learning styles, and
assessment activities in the classroom. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences,
3(11), 36–39. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2016.11.007 (Jurnal Berindeks Thomson
Reuters)

Mohd Azli, Y., Wong, K. T., & Noraini, M. N. (2016a). Blended learning in selected journals: A content
analysis using the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 13(10), 47–58.
http://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_16/Oct16.pdf#page=52 (Jurnal Berindeks Excellence in Research for
Australia - ERA)

Mohd Azli, Y., Wong, K. T., & Noraini, M. N. (2016b). Pembelajaran teradun: Satu tinjauan literatur
terhadap faktor- faktor penerimaan guru melalui model-model penerimaan. Journal of Research,
Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 6(1), 67–85.
http://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/article/2016AR001111 (Jurnal Berindeks Taylor & Francis LibSite)

Mahizer, H., & Mohd Azli, Y. (2016). Frog VLE (persekitaran pembelajaran maya) dalam pengajaran
dan pembelajaran : Penerimaan dan kaedah pelaksanaannya. Journal of Research, Policy &
Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 6(2), 67–77.
http://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/article/2016AR001298 (Jurnal Berindeks Taylor & Francis LibSite)

Noraini, M. N., Wong, K., Mohd Azli, Y., & Norazilawati, A. (2016). Blended learning: Its
implementation and promote continuing e-learning environment among student-teachers.
International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(11), 12–15.
http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2016.11.003 (Jurnal Berindeks Thomson Reuters)

Wong, K. T., Mohd Sahandri Gani, H., Goh, P. S. C., & Mohd Azli, Y. (2016). Blended e-learning
acceptance as smart pedagogical tools: An initial study in Malaysia. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 15(4), 25–31. http://tojet.net/articles/v15i4/1543.pdf (Jurnal Berindeks
SCOPUS)

Pembentangan Kertas Kerja

Mohd Azli Yeop, Kung-Teck Wong, Pauline Swee Choo Goh: Pembelajaran Teradun: Pedagogi, gaya
pembelajaran, aktiviti dan penilaian di bilik darjah. The 1st International Teacher Education
Conference on Teaching Practice 2016 (ITECTP 2016); 10/2016.

486