Rahmat Yusny, Ghufran Ibnu Yasa


Recently there has been a great interest invested in maximizing higher education students’ knowledge retention as well as increasing students learning experience using web technologies. Many higher education institutions upgrade their learning facilities by integrating virtual learning system to their education provisions. Educational content management system is now a primary requirement in higher education provisions. However, as for the context of Indonesian higher education, upgrading the learning system may mean a total change of the way classes are delivered. Most of Indonesian higher education teachers are those with minimal exposure of virtual technological use in classrooms. Although these teachers are familiar with the common internet tools especially the electronic mail system and internet social media, they are not yet familiar with managing a content management system. Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) ar-Raniry is one of Perguruan Tinggi Keagamaan Islam Negeri (PTKIN) that share similar context. This study was conducted to explore UIN Ar-Raniry teachers’ readiness in delivering blended learning using Virtual Learning Environment. 124 teachers were participating in this research. The index of technological acceptance is relatively high (3.78). However, on the contrary digital technology use related to delivering lecture is relatively low. The use of e-mail and facebook is relatively popular among these teachers. The study found that teachers are interested in using more convenient digital tools in their classes if the university supports the trainings and assigns educational technology consultant to help them establish the virtual class and help with their technical troubles.


Blended learning; virtual learning environment; learning management system; technological acceptance; teacher readiness; web 2.0; higher education; PTKIN

Full Text:



Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Al-Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E. (2012). Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students' achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00490.x

Baker, J. W. (2000) The “Classroom Flip”: Using Web Course Management Tools to Become the Guide on the Side. In: the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning: Jacksonville, Florida.

Baziad, M. (2017, Jan 20, 2017). Indonesia’s ICT spending to hit US$29.5bil in 2020: IDC. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from

Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012) Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education.

Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C.R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning environments: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass/Pfeiffer. p. 5.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning: John Wiley & Sons.

Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. (2001) Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results. American Journal of Physics. 69, 970–7.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q., 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008

Fisher, D., & Frey, N (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Gutierrez, F. M. (2006) Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5, 313–337.

Heacademy. (2017, May 18). Flipped learning. Retrieved August 12, 2018, from

Kemenristekdikti. (2018), Siaran Pers No: 30/SP/HM/BKKP/III/2018

Mayadas, A. F. & Picciano, A. G. (2007) Blended learning and localness: The means and the end. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11, 3–7.

Panji, A. (2014, February 19). Hasil Survei Pemakaian Internet Remaja Indonesia. Retrieved August 13, 2017, from

Pinner, R. (2011), What is the difference between a VLE and an LMS? (CALL Review), IATEFL Learning Technologies Newsletter, Summer 2011, 1-8

Thorne, K. (2003) Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.

Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: US vs. China. Journal of global information technology management, 13(1), 5-27.

Vigentini, L. (2009). Using learning technology in university courses: do styles matter?. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3(1), 17-32.

Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE. Routledge.

Williams, J., & Fardon, M. (2005). On-demand internet-transmitted lecture recordings: attempting to enhance and support the lecture experience. Proceedings of Alt-C 2005, 153-161.

Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments : case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Yale University (2015). Fall 2015 Yale Canvas Pilot: Final Report of the Working Group. Yale Center for Teaching and Learning Canvas Pilot Report



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Welcome to Jurnal Ilmiah Islam Futura (JIIF) open journal system. Thank you very much for visiting. We are looking forward to getting your research articles


Jurnal Ilmiah Islam Futura

All works are licensed under CC-BY

©Published by Center for Research and Community Service (LP2M) in cooperation with the Postgraduate Program of UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh, Aceh, Indonesia.