Virtual Physical Education: Google Meet as an alternative platform for learning skill-based concepts

Keywords: acceptance, e-learning, google meet, physical education, skill-based concepts, technology acceptance model, videoconferencing platform

Abstract

Background and Study Aim. Google Meet has been the most highly sought videoconferencing platform utilized by various educational institutions worldwide to facilitate synchronous classes. The said videoconferencing platform is highly efficient based on previously published scholarly works. To further assess these claims in the current study’s situation, this paper is designed to explore the factors linked with students’ acceptance and observation of Google Meet as an alternative educational platform to learn concepts in various Physical Education courses which are skill-based by adopting the Technology Acceptance Model. Material and Methods. The selected respondents were composed of 2nd-4th year undergraduate students taking Bachelor of Physical Education at City College of Angeles, located in the City of Angeles, Philippines. The respondents for the study were identified by using the purposive sampling technique. From the 467 entire populaces, 250 students answered the online survey, and all responses were accepted after data cleaning. The Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling or PLS-SEM through SmartPLS4 was used to explore the factors affecting students’ acceptance of Google Classroom as an alternative platform to learning skill-based concepts in various Physical Education courses. Additionally, outer loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE) were scrutinized and the Fornell-Larcker criterion, cross-loadings, and HTMT were assessed to establish convergent and discriminant validity. Also, a full collinearity assessment on the outer model was performed to determine if the model is free from Common Method Bias. Meanwhile, PLS Predict was utilized to determine the model’s predicting validity and power. Lastly, the structural model was evaluated through path coefficients and the coefficient of determination (R2). Results. After obtaining data from the samples (N=250) of Bachelor of Physical Education students (Female= 42.0% and Male= 58.0%), the results displayed that: perceived ease of use is positively and significantly associated with and triggers perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are significantly linked with and leverages students’ behavioral intention to use; and, behavioral intention to use is positively interrelated with and affects the actual use of the videoconferencing platform. Conclusions. The findings of this study would be used by the Physical Education Department and the college administration to examining further if the said videoconferencing platform may continuously be used in all skill-based courses in PE since the current setting of the investigation is still in a full-online learning modality. Proposals concerning the students, teachers, and future research directions are also presented.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

| Abstract views: 101 | PDF Downloads: 60 |

Author Biography

Joseph Lobo, City College of Angeles
jtldlobo@gmail.com; Physical Education Department, City College of Angeles; Angeles City, Philippines.

References

1. Lobo J. A sudden shift: Students’ perception of distance and online education in physical education amidst COVID-19 Pandemic. Edu Sport Indones J Phys Educ. 2022;3(3):200–16.
https://doi.org/10.25299/es:ijope.2022.vol3(3).9276

2. Salta K, Paschalidou K, Tsetseri M, Koulougliotis D. Shift From a Traditional to a Distance Learning Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sci Educ. 2022;31(1):93–122.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00234-x

3. Pokhrel S, Chhetri R. A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. High Educ Futur. 2021;8(1):133–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

4. Almahasees Z, Mohsen K, Amin MO. Faculty’s and Students’ Perceptions of Online Learning During COVID-19. Front Educ. 2021;6(May):1–10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.638470

5. Shaharanee INM, Jamil JM, Rodzi SSM. The application of Google Classroom as a tool for teaching and learning. J Telecommun Electron Comput Eng. 2016;8(10):5– 8.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960909

6. Graham MJ, Borgen J. Google Classroom. In: Google Tools Meets Middle School. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320: Corwin; 2018. P. 23– 36.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506360188.n3

7. Al-Maroof RS, Alshurideh MT, Salloum SA, AlHamad AQM, Gaber T. Acceptance of Google Meet during the Spread of Coronavirus by Arab University Students. Informatics. 2021;8(2):24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020024

8. Aswir, Hadi MS, Dewi FR. Google meet application as an online learning media for descriptive text material. J Stud Guru dan Pembelajaran. 2021;4(1):189–94.
https://doi.org/10.30605/jsgp.4.1.2021.533

9. Abdul Rahman MS, Jalil MJ, Abdul Ghani MT. Teaching and Learning Calculus through Google Meet Platform During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Implementation and Evaluation. Int J Acad Res Progress Educ Dev. 2021;10(2):548–55.
https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i2/10138

10. Septantiningtyas N, Juhji J, Sutarman A, Rahman A, Sa’adah N, Nawisa. Implementation of Google Meet Application in the Learning of Basic Science in the Covid-19 Pandemic Period of Student Learning Interests. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1779(1):012068.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1779/1/012068

11. Nehe BM. Students’ Perception on Google Meet Video Conferencing Platform During English Speaking Class in Pandemic Era. J English Educ. 2021;10(1):93–104.

12. Hastomo T, Zulianti H. EFL Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Google Meet in Online Learning During the Time of Coronavirus: A Literature Review. SELTICS. 2021;4(2):102–9.
https://doi.org/10.46918/seltics.v4i2.916

13. Hutajulu M. The Effectiveness Of Using Google Meet In Online Learning To Improve Mathematical Communication Skills. J Innov Math Learn. 2022;5(1):53–61.

14. Aiman M, Halim A, Pinang CP, Bakar RA, Pinang CP. Study on Acceptance of Google Meet as a Learning Platform among Students in Higher Education Preliminary. Int J Pract Teach Learn. 2022;2(1):1–5.

15. Alvi I. College students’ reception of social networking tools for learning in India: an extended UTAUT model. Smart Learn Environ. 2021;8(1):19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00164-9

16. Brandford Bervell B, Kumar JA, Arkorful V, Agyapong EM, Osman S. Remodelling the role of facilitating conditions for Google Classroom acceptance: A revision of UTAUT2. Australas J Educ Technol. 2021;38(1):115–35.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7178

17. Tolba EG, Youssef NH. High school science teachers’ acceptance of using distance education in the light of UTAUT. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2022;18(9):em2152.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12365

18. Suwarno S. Application of the UTAUT Model for Acceptance Analysis of COBIT Implementation in E-Learning Management with Microsoft Teams on Distance Learning in Batam City. Khazanah Inform J Ilmu Komput dan Inform. 2022;8(1):25–33.
https://doi.org/10.23917/khif.v8i1.15311

19. Souheyla B. Google Meet during COVID 19 Pandemic: When Teachers Raise the Challenge. Arab World English J. 2022;(2):169–82.
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid2.11

20. Nasution AR, Nandiyanto ABD. Utilization of the Google Meet and Quiziz Applications in the Assistance and Strengthening Process of Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Indones J Educ Res Technol. 2021;1(1):31–4.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijert.v1i1.33367

21. Setyawan A, Aznam N, Paidi P, Citrawati T, Kusdianto K. Effects of the Google Meet Assisted Method of Learning on Building Student Knowledge and Learning Outcomes. Univers J Educ Res. 2020;8(9):3924–36.
http://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080917

22. Ashraf M, Ashraf S, Ahmed S, Ullah A. Challenges of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic encountered by students in Pakistan. J Pedagog Sociol Psychol. 2021;3(1):36–44.
https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021167264

23. Clarin AS, Baluyos EL. Challenges Encountered in the Implementation of Online Distance Learning. EduLine J Educ Learn Innov. 2022;2(1):33–46.
https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.eduline591

24. Jeong HC, So WY. Difficulties of Online Physical Education Classes in Middle and High School and an Efficient Operation Plan to Address Them. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7279.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197279

25. Chan WK, Leung KI, Hoc C, Wuc W, Lam KY, Wong NL, et al. Effectiveness of online teaching in physical education during covid-19 school closures: A survey study of frontline physical education teachers in Hong Kong. J Phys Educ Sport. 2021;21(4):1622–8.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2021.04205

26. Briones SKF, Dagamac RJR, David JD, Landerio CAB. Factors Affecting the Students’ Scholastic Performance: A Survey Study. Indones J Educ Res Technol. 2021;1(3):87–94.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijert.v2i2.41394

27. Varea V, González-Calvo G, García-Monge A. Exploring the changes of physical education in the age of Covid-19. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2022;27(1):32–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1861233

28. Diciano J, Mateo W, Junior RJ, Versoza JI, Tindowen DJ. Students’ experiences in learning physical education in an online environment. Edu Sport Indones J Phys Educ. 2021;2(3):140–54.
https://doi.org/10.25299/es:ijope.2021.vol2(3).7792

29. Moustakas L, Robrade D. The Challenges and Realities of E-Learning during COVID-19: The Case of University Sport and Physical Education. Challenges. 2022;13(1):9.
https://10.3390/challe13010009

30. Tegero MC. Challenges Encountered by Physical Education Teachers in Online Teaching in Times of COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Res Publ. 2021;91(1):1–5.
https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1009111220212595

31. Idris F, Zulkipli IN, Abdul-Mumin KH, Ahmad SR, Mitha S, Rahman HA, et al. Academic experiences, physical and mental health impact of COVID-19 pandemic on students and lecturers in health care education. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):542.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02968-2

32. Webster CA, D’Agostino E, Urtel M, McMullen J, Culp B, Egan Loiacono CA, et al. Physical Education in the COVID Era: Considerations for Online Program Delivery Using the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program Framework. J Teach Phys Educ. 2021;40(2):327–36.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0182

33. D’Agostino EM, Urtel M, Webster CA, McMullen J, Culp B. Virtual Physical Education During COVID-19: Exploring Future Directions for Equitable Online Learning Tools. Front Sport Act Living. 2021;3(August):1–6.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.716566

34. Taherdoost H. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 2018;22:960–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137

35. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q Manag Inf Syst. 1989;13(3):319–39.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

36. Charness N, Boot WR. Technology, Gaming, and Social Networking. Handb Psychol Aging Eighth Ed. 2016;389–407.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-411469-2.00020-0

37. Al-Bashayreh M, Almajali D, Altamimi A, Masa’deh R, Al-Okaily M. An Empirical Investigation of Reasons Influencing Student Acceptance and Rejection of Mobile Learning Apps Usage. Sustainability. 2022;14(7):4325.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074325

38. Tahar A, Riyadh HA, Sofyani H, Purnomo WE. Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Security and Intention to Use E-Filing: The Role of Technology Readiness. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020;7(9):537–47.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.537

39. Castiblanco Jimenez IA, Cepeda García LC, Violante MG, Marcolin F, Vezzetti E. Commonly Used External TAM Variables in e-Learning, Agriculture and Virtual Reality Applications. Futur Internet. 2020;13(1):7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13010007

40. Zhou L, Xue S, Li R. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore Students’ Intention to Use an Online Education Platform at a University in China. SAGE Open. 2022;12(1):1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221085259

41. Peng MYP, Yan X. Exploring the Influence of Determinants on Behavior Intention to Use of Multiple Media Kiosks Through Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022;13: 852394.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.852394

42. Portz JD, Bayliss EA, Bull S, Boxer RS, Bekelman DB, Gleason K, et al. Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore User Experience, Intent to Use, and Use Behavior of a Patient Portal Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Descriptive Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(4):e11604.
https://doi.org/10.2196/11604

43. He Y, Chen Q, Kitkuakul S. Regulatory focus and technology acceptance: Perceived ease of use and usefulness as efficacy. Wright LT, editor. Cogent Bus Manag. 2018;5(1):1459006.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1459006

44. Fauzi A, Wandira R, Sepri D, Hafid A. Exploring Students’ Acceptance of Google Classroom during the Covid-19 Pandemic by Using the Technology Acceptance Model in West Sumatera Universities. Electron J e-Learning. 2021;19(4):pp233-240.
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.4.2348

45. Laurencia K, Sudarto S. Intention to Use Microsoft Teams in the Online Learning System for Students of Universitas Tarumanagara During the COVID-19 Pandemic. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021). 2021. P. 748–54.
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.118

46. Mahamud S, Fam SF, Saleh H, Kamarudin MF, Wahjono SI. Predicting Google Classroom Acceptance and Use in STEM Education: Extended UTAUT2 Approach. In: 2021 2nd SEA-STEM International Conference (SEA-STEM). IEEE; 2021. P. 155–9.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SEA-STEM53614.2021.9668096

47. Rodriguito A, Lacap JPG, Dizon AGP, Carlos CJC. Perceived Academic Service Quality and Behavioral Intentions: The Intervening Roles of Brand Image and Performance. J Appl Struct Equ Model. 2022;6(2):1–22.
https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.6(2)01

48. Lobo J, Dimalanta G, Bautista C, Buan E, De Dios D Al. TikTok Consumption and Level of Class Engagement of Performing Arts Students in the New Normal: Destructive or Beneficial? Am J Educ Technol. 2022;1(1):1–9.
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v1i1.305

49. Ji R, Yue X, Zheng X. Using PLS-SEM to Examine the Structure of First-year University Students’ Mathematics-related Beliefs. High Educ Stud. 2021;11(4):7.
https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v11n4p7

50. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Danks NP, Ray S. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

51. Kock N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM. Int J e-Collaboration. 2015;11(4):1–10.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

52. Shmueli G, Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Cheah JH, Ting H, Vaithilingam S, et al. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur J Mark. 2019;53(11):2322–47.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189

53. Manfrin A, Apampa B, Parthasarathy P. A conceptual model for students’ satisfaction with team-based learning using partial least squares structural equation modelling in a faculty of life sciences, in the United Kingdom. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:36.
https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.36

54. Benitez J, Henseler J, Castillo A, Schuberth F. How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Inf Manag. 2020;57(2):103168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003

55. dos Santos PM, Cirillo MÂ. Construction of the average variance extracted index for construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Commun Stat - Simul Comput. 2021;1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2021.1888122

56. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115–35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

57. Fauzi MA. Partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in knowledge management studies: Knowledge sharing in virtual communities. Knowl Manag E-Learning An Int J. 2022;14(1):103–24.
https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2022.14.007

58. Streukens S, Leroi-Werelds S. Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. Eur Manag J. 2016;34(6):618–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.003

59. Purwanto E, Tannady H. The Factors Affecting Intention to Use Google Meet Amid Online Meeting Platforms Competition in Indonesia. Technol Reports Kansai Univ. 2020;62(06):2829–38.

60. Rio-Chillcce A Del, Jara-Monge L, Andrade-Arenas L. Analysis of the Use of Videoconferencing in the Learning Process During the Pandemic at a University in Lima. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl. 2021;12(5):870–8.
https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.01205102

61. Mokhtar R, Abu Karim MH. Exploring Students Behaviour in using Google Classroom during COVID-19 Pandemic: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Int J Mod Educ. 2021;3(8):182–95.
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJMOE.380015

62. Alotumi M. Factors influencing graduate students’ behavioral intention to use Google Classroom: Case study-mixed methods research. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;27(7):10035–63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11051-2

63. Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2016;17(5):328–76.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
Published
2022-11-25
How to Cite
1.
Lobo J. Virtual Physical Education: Google Meet as an alternative platform for learning skill-based concepts. Physical Education of Students. 2022;26(6):296-07. https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2022.0604
Section
Articles