Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Computer
online Science 00 (2019) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132

The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019

The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019
Analysis of User Resistance Towards Adopting E-Learning
Analysis of User Resistance Towards Adopting E-Learning
Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh*, Amna Shifia Nisafani, Regina Mia Saraswati, Anisah
Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh*, AmnaHerdiyanti
Shifia Nisafani, Regina Mia Saraswati, Anisah
Herdiyanti
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya,
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Information and60111, Indonesia Technology, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya,
Communication
60111, Indonesia

Abstract
Abstract
SHARE ITS - Sharable and Reusable e-learning of ITS, has been implemented by Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS)
SHARE
since 2006.ITSThe
- Sharable
web-based andLearning
Reusable e-learning of
Management ITS, has been
System been utilized
implemented by Institut
by lectures Teknologi
to manage blendedSepuluh Nopember
learning-based (ITS)
courses.
since 2006.
Although The web-based
previous researchesLearning Management
have discussed System has
the readiness been utilized
assessment fromby lectures
student to manage and
perspectives, blended learning-based
technology adoptioncourses.
factors
Although
to improveprevious researches
continuous have discussed
use of SHARE thesmall
ITS, only readiness assessment
number of coursesfromarestudent perspectives,
active among hundred andcourses
technology adoption
registered factors
in SHARE
to improve
ITS, based on continuous use provided
the statistics of SHARE byITS,
ITS only small Director
Academic number of in courses
2017. The arelack
active among hundred
of participation fromcourses registered
lecturers to deliverin SHARE
blended
ITS, based on the
learning-based statistics
courses, andprovided by ITS
the absence of Academic
policy andDirector in 2017.
resources The lack
to support the of participationisfrom
participation, seen lecturers to deliver
as the main driversblended
of the
learning-based courses, and
lagging implementation the absence
of SHARE ITS. of policy
In the lightand
of resources to support
understanding the participation,
these issues, is seenatas
the study aimed the mainthe
analyzing drivers
factorsof that
the
lagging
influenceimplementation of SHARE
the users’ resistance towardITS. In theITS
SHARE light of understanding
implementation. The these issues,ofthe
perspective study aimed
lecturers at analyzing
was taken the factorsbased
into consideration that
influence the users’
on a conceptual resistance
model toward
developed bySHARE ITSThe
Lin et al. implementation. The perspective
model introduced of lecturers
resistance factors, was taken
including into consideration
perceived based
threat, perceived
on a conceptual
usefulness, model
perceived developed
inequity, and by Lin et intention.
behavior al. The model introduced
The study showedresistance factors,
that perceived including
threat factor perceived
contributesthreat,
to the perceived
low level
usefulness, perceived
of user intention inequity,
toward SHARE and ITS.
behavior
The intention.
perceivedThe study showed
inequity that influenced
factor also perceived threat factor contributes
the perceived to thedue
threat factor lowtolevel
the
of user intention
inequalities impacttoward
towardSHARE
SHAREITS. ITS The perceived
adoption. inequity
Therefore, bothfactor
factorsalso
may influenced the perceived
have an impact toward threat factor due
the continuous to the
usage of
inequalities
SHARE ITS.impact toward SHARE ITS adoption. Therefore, both factors may have an impact toward the continuous usage of
SHARE ITS.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019
This The
is an Authors.
open accessPublished by Elsevier
article under B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open
Peer-review access article under CC BY-NC-ND licenseThe
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee ofofThe
under responsibility of the scientific committee Fifth
Fifth Information
Information Systems
Systems International
International Conference
Conference 2019
2019.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019
Keywords: E-learning; SHARE ITS; adoption; user resistance; perceived threat; perceived inequity; perceived usefulness; behavior intention
Keywords: E-learning; SHARE ITS; adoption; user resistance; perceived threat; perceived inequity; perceived usefulness; behavior intention

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-81-135-229-19.

* E-mail feby@is.its.ac.id
address:author.
Corresponding Tel.: +62-81-135-229-19.
E-mail address: feby@is.its.ac.id
1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509 access
© 2019 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
This under
is an open responsibility
access of the scientific
article under CC BY-NC-NDcommittee of The
license Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019

1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019.
10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.107
124 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132
2 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Distance learning as a form of education can be implemented using various communication media and an adequate
learning technology. Distance learning is supported by education facilities and services that guarantee the quality of
its graduates in accordance to National Standards for Higher Education [1]. In it is also explained distance learning in
Indonesia is permitted using information and communication technology, written in the Law No. 20 of 2003 on the
National Education System article 31 and the Ministry of Education Decree No. 107/U/2001 about Distance Learning
Universities [2]. Because it’s considered to ease the lecturers and students in the teaching and learning process, many
universities in Indonesia are starting to implement e-learning as an education media. And ITS, although has
implemented an e-learning referred to as SHARE-ITS since 2006, but until now, only 12 out of 27 departments in ITS
that has its courses registered in SHARE-ITS [3].
Considering all the benefits obtained from SHARE ITS, the utilization of SHARE ITS is still judged not optimal
because of the only few users it has. According to the Head of Sub Academic Directorate ITS – Development of
Learning Section, there are hundreds of courses from all kinds of departments on ITS registered in SHARE ITS. But
only a small number of them that are actively utilizing SHARE ITS. Its usage is only coming from the lecturers from
certain departments, especially departments that have background in information technology (IT). It is the opposite of
what the ITS Academic Directorate hoped, that SHARE ITS will be used equally in all departments, to support a
borderless learning process of the future.
Facts show that from the 970 lecturers in ITS, only 219 of them are registered as a user of SHARE ITS, meaning
that there is only 23% of the lecturer are actively utilizing SHARE ITS. Even though one of the indicators in evaluating
the academic performance of internal ITS is the amount courses which are online [4].
This research aims to give recommendations based on the factors influencing the intent of the lecturers on their
inactivity in using SHARE ITS in order to improve its utilization well enough. Through user resistance factor analysis
can be devised a strategy to maximize the utilization of SHARE ITS.
The relationship to previous researches is focused on discovering what factors influence the interest or intent of
lecturers in using SHARE ITS. According to [5], the research discovered the factors influencing the intent of lecturers
to activate SHARE ITS based on the perspective of the lecturers not yet using SHARE ITS.
Due to the existing condition of the lecturer's feeling and mindset in ITS that e-learning would not be able to replace
the conventional learning process in a class [4]. Resistance in using the system affects the intention to use. This study
aims to apply the measurement of user intention based on the level of user resistance to use e-learning. In spite of
using e-learning is a “basic trust” in the digital era, the learning process must keep focusing on the sufficient interaction
to meet the learning quality. For that, this research used the existing model [6] to measure the lecturer’s intention in
the learning process by at first finding out the reasons why the lecturers resist to use e-learning [7]. Whereas this paper
[6] observe the hospital as a target for the research, the conditions underlying the behavioral intention has a correlation
with the resistance to use a system are the same as the resistance conditions in ITS in terms of e-learning usage [4].
The result of this research was the factors that are significant and positively influence behavioral intention to use or
the intent of users to use SHARE ITS are attitude towards use and facilitating condition. Attitude toward use is
influenced positively and significantly by perceived ease of use. On the other hand, research [8] discuss on how to
generate factors that influence lecturer’s intention to continuously use SHARE ITS and the recommendation to
improve those factors. And according to research, lecturer’s satisfaction factor and usefulness perception toward
SHARE ITS significantly and positively influence the continuous intent of use [9]. There are number of factors used
in this research model, such as: perceived threat, perceived usefulness, perceived inequity, and behavior intention [10]
to find out the level of resistance [6] by the lecturers towards using SHARE ITS.

2. Literature review

According to Horton in his book E-Learning Tools and Technologies [11]: E-Learning is the various utilization and
the use of internet and web technology to create a learning experience. E-Learning can be stated as an innovative
approach to a good, user-centered and interactive medium of communication, and as a convenient study environment
to be used by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Three learning theory [12] that needs to be considered in developing the
material for E-learning are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. The following is the explanation of the three
 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132 125
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 3

learning theories applied in implementing E-learning:

 Behaviorism: a teaching concept about fact (what)

 Cognitivism: a teaching concept about process and principle (how)
 Constructivism: a teaching concept about high reasoning (why)

SHARE ITS, abbreviated from ‘SHAREable and Reusable e-learning of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember’ is
one form of learning media in ITS [13]. SHARE ITS was one of the inherent IT grant programs in 2006. This ‘SHARE
ITS’ media is in the form of a website accessible through internet connection: http://share.its.ac.id/.
Some of the learning needs are provided by SHARE ITS through a number of features, such as [8]: Making
announcements and news; Search feature; File-sharing; Giving and collecting assignments; Grouping of practitioner;
Making pre-test and post-test; Making a grade report; Guidebook for department admin, lecturers, and technician;
Q&A revolving SHARE ITS; Language selection; and Practice demo, etc.
This research used an existing model [6] and Structural Equation Model (SEM) to build and test statistics model in
the form of cause-and-effect [14]. The goal in using SEM is to test and process data. In the other hand PLS is a
multivariate statistics technique used to test research models. PLS is used to test structural model of which the indicator
can be either reflective or formative [15]. SEM using PLS only allows the relationship model between recursive
variables (unidirectional). And this SEM-PLS is in accordance with this research model.
The research model focuses on 4 (four) variables that refer to behavior intention in using a product or service (See
Fig. 1). This research will explore the reaction towards the usage of SHARE ITS. The research model [6] focuses to
examine the relationship between perceived threat, perceived inequity, perceived usefulness, and behavior intention
to use SHARE ITS.

Fig. 1. Research model.

Table 1 lists the research hypotheses based on the research model used to analyze the factors influencing
lecturers’ resistance in using SHARE ITS:

Table 1. Research hypotheses.

Hypotheses Explanation
H1 Lecturers’ perceived usefulness of SHARE ITS adoption is positively related to their usage intention to adopt the SHARE
ITS.
H2 Lecturers’ perceived threat from SHARE ITS adoption is negatively related to their perceived usefulness of the SHARE
ITS adoption
H3 Lecturers’ perceived threat from the SHARE ITS adoption is negatively related to their usage intention

H4 Lecturers’ perceived inequity from SHARE ITS adoption is positively related to their perceived threat of the SHARE ITS
adoption
H5 Lecturers’ perceived inequity from SHARE ITS adoption is negatively related to their perceived usefulness of the
SHARE ITS adoption
126 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132
4 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

3. Methodology

This section explains the research methodology to accomplish the research objectives containing a systematic step
to obtain the research outcome. Fig. 2 shows the steps in the research methodology.

Start

Deciding the
Determining the Structuring the
research conceptual
population and questionnaires and
model and
sample testing
hypotheses

No

Distributing the
Descriptive and Reliable and
questionnaires and Yes
inferential analysis valid?
data validity testing

Developing the
Hypotheses result Finish
reccomendations

Fig. 2. Research methodology.

This research uses the Structural Equation Model (SEM) based on the answers of respondents which are the
lecturers that utilizes SHARE ITS, numbering in 219 lecturers. Then, a calculation is done to determine research
sample by using Slovin’s formula. Slovin’s formula is used to determine the minimum sample size (n) if the population
size (N) is known on α significance level. The following is the Slovin’s formula [16] as depicted in Eq. 1.

�
𝑛𝑛 = (1)
���� �
Nomenclature
n = 219 / (1 + 219 (0,1)²)
= 219/ (1 + 219 (0.01)) n = Number of samples
= 219 / (1 + 2.19) N = Total population
= 219 / 3.19 = 68.65204 = 70 (round off) e = Error tolerance level

Accordingly, the calculations are continued by using SPSS to do descriptive statistics. Descriptive Statistics is a
statistics method used to analyze data by describing the collected data without making conclusions that apply
generally. And also performed is the inferential statistics calculation using SmartPLS until the result of hypotheses
testing is obtained.
 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132 127
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 5

4. Result and discussion

In this stage, after distributing the questionnaires, analysis and discussion are performed. After the survey, the first
things that need to be done are reliability and validity tests.
Reliability test is a test to measure the consistency level of results by repeatedly measuring certain characteristics
[17] as seen in Eq. 2.

� ∑ ���
𝑟𝑟 = �(���)� ∗ �1 − � (2)
���

Description:
r = Cronbach’s alpha value
k = Number of questions/statements
𝜎𝜎 = Variance
b = Index of question/statement
t = Total/entirety
If the obtained value of r ≥ 0.6 then can be said that reliability level is high.

Validity test is a test to measure the reliability and validity level of the measuring instrument (questionnaires). A
valid instrument shows that the measurement used to obtain the data is also valid or can be used to measure what
should be measured [15]. Eq. 3 shows the formula to perform validity test:

�(∑ ��)�(∑ �)(∑ �)

𝑟𝑟 = (3)
�[� ∑ � � �(∑ �)� ]�� ∑ � � �(∑ �)� �

Description:
r = Correlation coefficient
∑X = Item scores
∑Y = Total item scores
n = Number of respondents

If the obtained the value of r < 0.3 then can be said that the validity level is high.
Table 2 shows the questionnaire test result obtained using SPSS.

Table 2. Questionnaire testing result using SPSS.

Variables Items Reliable (≥ 0.6) Valid (≥ 0.279)

PT1 0.59
PT2 0.652
Perceived Threat (PT) 0.72
PT3 0.86
PT4 0.87
PIE1 0.874
Perceived Inequity (PIE) PIE2 0.671 0.749
PIE3 0.731
PU1 0.856
Perceived Usefulness (PU) 0.856
PU2 0.825
128 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132
6 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

Variables Items Reliable (≥ 0.6) Valid (≥ 0.279)

PU3 0.835
PU4 0.879
Behaviour Intention (PI) BI1 0.865
BI2 0.616 0.802
BI3 0.617

Then moved to the Descriptive Analysis to determine the distribution of respondents' answers in answering
questionnaire statements. The variables in this research were assessed by considering the average of the highest answer
values against the lowest answer value and the interval class used. Followings are the result of respondents’ answers
of each variable processed using SPSS based on these criteria:

��� ������� ��������� ������ �����

𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 =
�������� �����
(4)

As this research used likert scale: 1 to 5, so the interval is:

5−1
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = = 0,8
5

Based on the results of the above calculations, Table 3 shows the average intervals on each scale that will be used
to measure the distribution of answers from respondents.

Table 3. The research interval.

Average Interval Measurement

1,00 ≤ x ≤ 1,80 Strongly Disagree

1,80 ≤ x ≤ 2,60 Disagree

2,60 ≤ x ≤ 3,40 Neutral

3,40 ≤ x ≤ 4,20 Agree

4,20 ≤ x ≤ 5,00 Strongly Agree

Table 4 presents the result of the distribution result for each variable based on the result for each indicator.

Table 4. The distribution of mean for each variable.

Distribution
Indicators Mean Average Result
1 2 3 4 5
Variable: Perceived Threat
PT1 42 27 1 0 0 1.414826
PT2 41 29 0 0 0 1.414286 1.885714 Disagree
PT3 19 23 5 23 0 2.457143
PT4 24 24 2 20 0 2.257143
 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132 129
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Distribution
Indicators Mean Average Result
1 2 3 4 5
Variable: Perceived Inequity
PIE1 30 32 6 2 0 1.714286
PIE2 11 43 11 5 0 2.142857 1.833333 Disagree
PIE3 34 30 4 1 1 1.642857
Variable: Perceived Usefulness
PU1 0 0 0 21 49 4.7
PU2 0 2 1 26 41 4.514286 4.521429 Strongly
Agree
PU3 0 0 2 35 33 4.442857
PU4 0 0 1 38 31 4.428571
Variable: Behaviour Intention
BI1 0 1 7 49 13 4.057143
BI2 3 5 14 39 9 3.657143 3.97619 Agree
BI3 0 0 5 45 20 4.214286

Continuing to inferential analysis using SmartPLS [18], the testing processes of which includes: Reliability
Validity; Convergent Validity; Discriminant Validity; Composite Reliability; Inner Model; Hypotheses Testing; and
Goodness of Fit.
Based on the reliability testing indicates that the result of reliability test performed on every research variable has
a value above 0.6. It can be inferred that all variables are reliable.
Next is to measure the validity for each indicator. In the measurement, the result of validity test performed that
each question items have values bigger than r-table. It can be inferred that all variables are valid.
Further is to measure the convergent validity test. If the convergent validity values are more than 0.5, it can be
inferred that all items are valid. And the convergent validity testing result shows that the Loading Factor for the
relationship to each variable is bigger than 0.5 (See Table 5).

 Convergent validity in the behavior intention variable is good. The reason is: 3 statement items have a loading
factor value above 0.5. So, it can be inferred that all statement items are significant.
 Convergent validity in the perceived inequity variable is good. The reason is: 3 statement items have a loading
factor value above 0.5. So, it can be inferred that all statement items are significant.
 Convergent validity in the perceived threat variable is good. The reason is: 4 statement items have a loading
factor value above 0.5. So, it can be inferred that all statement items are significant.
 Convergent validity in the perceived usefulness variable is good. The reason is: 4 statement items have a
loading factor value above 0.5. So, it can be inferred that all statement items are significant.

Table 5. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) testing result.

Variables Result

BI PIE PT PU Each variable reaches the AVE value ≥0,50, meaning:

AVE = 0.603 AVE = 0.585 AVE = 0.577 AVE = 0.724 the research variables has good ability in representing
original data scores

The next step is to measure the Discriminant validity. Discriminant Validity is a cross loading factor value used to
find out if the constructs have adequate discriminants by comparing if loading values to the intended construct is
bigger than the loading values of other constructs (See Table 6).
130 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132
8 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 6. Discriminant validity testing result.

Variables BI PIE PT PU Result

BI 0.777 Good
PIE -0.099 0.765 Good
PT -0.161 0365 0.760 Good
PU 0.571 -0.276 -0.299 0.851 Good

After having the discriminant validity, next is to measure the Composite Reliability. The composite reliability test
for each variable will be good/reliable if all variables have composite reliability values above 0.7, and Cronbach’s
Alpha values above 0.6.
Furthermore, the measurement is the inner model. The inner model will indicate whether each relationship between
each variable will be positive/negative and have a significant value. The relationship will be positive and having
significant if the value is bigger than 1.66691 (See Table 7).

Table 7. Inner model result.

The Relationship of the Variables Parameter Coefficient T-Table T-Statistical

PIE → PT 0.365 1.66691 3.220
PIE → PU -0.193 1.66691 1.125
PT → BI 0.010 1.66691 0.086
PT → PU -0.229 1.66691 1.621
PU → BI 0.574 1.66691 6.249

There are two relationship that has a positive parameter coefficient value and a positive and significant relationship
between its independent and dependent variable. So, it relates to the hypotheses testing result. That’s why, there are
only 2 (two) hypotheses are accepted in this research (See Fig. 3), namely: Perceived Usefulness to Behaviour
Intention (H1) and Perceived Inequity to Perceived Threat (H4).

Fig. 3. Hypotheses result

Based on the Inner Model Testing, here is the overall result for each hypothesis:
 Hypothesis 1: Perceived Usefulness positively influence and significant towards Behavior Intention
In the inner model table can be seen the value of loading factor from perceived usefulness and behavior
intention coefficients is 0.574, which is positive. The t-statistic value in this relationship is 6.249. Both of these
values show that perceived usefulness variable influences and is significant towards behavior intention
variable. It can be said that Hypothesis 1 is accepted.
 Hypothesis 2: Perceived Threat positively influence and significant towards Perceived Usefulness
 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132 131
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 9

In the inner model table can be seen the value of loading factor from perceived threat and perceived usefulness
coefficients is -0.229, which is negative. The t-statistic value in this relationship is 1.621. Both of these values
show that perceived threat variable does not influence and is not significant towards perceived usefulness
variable. It can be said that Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
 Hypothesis 3: Perceived Threat positively influence and significant towards Behaviour Intention
In the inner model table can be seen the value of loading factor from perceived threat and behaviour intention
coefficients is 0.010, which is positive. The t-statistic value in this relationship is 0.086. Both values show that
perceived threat variable does not influence and is not significant towards behaviour intention variable. It can be
said that Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
 Hypothesis 4: Perceived Inequity positively influence and significant towards Perceived Threat
In the inner model table can be seen the value of loading factor from perceived inequity and perceived threat
coefficients is 0.365, which is positive. The t-statistic value in this relationship is 1.621. Both of these values
show that perceived threat variable does not influence and is not significant towards perceived usefulness
variable. It can be said that Hypothesis 1 is accepted.
 Hypothesis 5: Perceived Inequity positively influence and significant towards Perceived Usefulness
In the inner model table can be seen the value of loading factor from perceived inequity and perceived usefulness
coefficients is 0.193, which is positive. The t-statistic value in this relationship is 1.125. Both of these values
show that perceived inequity variable does not influence and is not significant towards perceived usefulness
variable. It can be said that Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Other than examining the value of T-statistic, this evaluation is also performed by examining R2 values. The value
of R2 is used in finding out the ability to explain each behaviour intention, perceived threat, perceived usefulness
variable. If the value of R2 is close to 1, then it can be interpreted that the independent variable is greatly supporting
towards dependent variable. Table 8 shows the result of RSquare (R2) using SmartPLS.

Table 8. R-Square (R2) result.

R square of Latent Variable

Variable R-Square

BI 0.306

PT 0.120

PU 0.095

The following are the analysis on each variable, based on the table above:
 Behaviour intention variable has R2 value of 0.306. Showing that behaviour intention variable can be explained
by perceived threat and perceived usefulness variable as much as 30.6%
 Perceived threat variable has R2 value of 0.120. Showing that perceived threat variable can be explained by
perceived inequity, behaviour intention, and perceived usefulness variable as much as 12%
 Perceived usefulness variable has R2 value of 0.095. Showing that perceived usefulness variable can be
explained by perceived inequity, perceived threat, and behaviour intention variable as much as 9.5%
And lastly to evaluate the research model, the goodness of fit (GFI) value is calculated. GFI is an index that
illustrate the suitability level of the model in its entirety. The range of GFI values are from 0 to 1. A GFI value is
acceptable if its above 0.90 or 90% as a measure of good fit. This research is resulting the GFI value about 0.129
(only 12.9% fitness). It means that the model in its entirety is not so suitable. Its value is very low because the
original model is adopted for healthcare technology, on the other hand this research is adopting the use of e-learning.
Few factors might be unsupportive for this research from the result of processing the data that has a connection with
the questionnaires’ statements and result of validation. The refusal of system adoption can’t only be viewed from,
the lecturers’ perspective but also from the perspectives of the students.
132 Feby Artwodini Muqtadiroh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 123–132
10 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

5. Conclusion

Based on the research performed, to find out the factors of low interest in the utilization of SHARE ITS, here are
some of the conclusion of this research:
 From the research performed, it has been discovered the factors that influence the low interest of lecturers in using
SHARE ITS continuously is Perceived threat. If there are threats within SHARE ITS, it will also affect the user
of SHARE ITS. Another is perceived usefulness. If lecturers can’t feel the benefits of using SHARE ITS, it will
also affect the continuous usage of SHARE ITS.
 Based on GFI Testing, the value of GFI is 0.129, which means the model entirely used in this research is not so
suitable for this kind of research that focus on analyzing the resistance factor of lecturers to use SHARE ITS.
 Recommendations that can be given are rewarding the lecturers that continuously utilize SHARE ITS and
optimizing the features of SHARE ITS.
 Based on the open questions as the expectation of the lecturers using SHARE ITS that it is needed for ITS to
generate the SOP concerning the service helpdesk on SHARE ITS.

Acknowledgements

This research is being conducted and was supported by funding from Research Center or Lembaga Penelitian dan
Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (LPPM - ITS) and Kementrian Riset,
Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi (or Ministry of Higher Education Indonesia) with the scheme of Local Research
for Policy Review in ITS, 2019.

References
[1] Ministry, H. E.. (2012) Law No 12 Of 2012: Higher Education, Indonesia. 25.
[2] Ministry, R. and H. E. (2001) Research and Higher Education Ministry, No. 107/U/2001, Distance Learning Universities.
[3] A. D. ITS. (2015) Online Course in ITS using SHARE-ITS, Surabaya.
[4] Muklason, A. (2015) SHARE ITS and Work Report of Academic Directorate of ITS, Surabaya.
[5] Nugraha, A. A., B. C. Hidayanto, and W. Anggraeni. (2016) Analysis of Factors Affecting Intention to Use SHARE ITS based on Lecturers
Perspective Who Are Not Active Using SHARE ITS, Surabaya.
[6] Lin, C., I. C. Lin, and J. Roan. (2012) “Barriers to Physicians’ Adoption of Healthcare Information Technology: An Empirical Study on
Multiple Hospitals.” J. Med. Syst. 36 (3): 1965–1977.
[7] Teng, J. T. C., I. Dissanayake, and R. Dantu. “A Theoretical Model for Assessing User Resistance Intention in IS Implementation.” University
of Texas at Arlington: 671615-1–12.
[8] Al-Samarraie, H., B. K. Teng, A. I. Alzahrani, and N. Alalwan. (2018) “E-learning Continuance Satisfaction in Higher Education: A Unified
Perspective from Instructors And Students.” Stud. High. Educ. 43 (11): 2003–2019.
[9] Muqtadiroh, F. A., A. Herdiyanti, and I. Wicaksono. (2018) “Analysis of Factors Affecting Continuance Intention of E-Learning Adoption
in Lecturers’ Perspectives”, in IMRCS.
[10] Jongpil Cheon, C., Sangno Lee, Steven M. Crooks, Jaeki Song. (2011) “An Investigation of Mobile Learning Readiness in Higher Education
Based.” c: 43–49.
[11] Horton, W., and K. Horton. E-learning Tools and Technologies.
[12] Creswell, J. W. (2012) “Grounded Theory Designs 13.” Planning, Conduct. Eval. Quant. Qual. Res.: 422–500.
[13] P. ITS. (2006) Guideline to Use Share ITS, Surabaya.
[14] Lancaster, T., and O. D. Duncan. (2006) “Introduction to Structural Equation Models.” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 139 (2): 276.
[15] Jonathan, S. (2014) “Introduction of PLS-SEM,” in INTRODUCTION OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM). 3–15.
[16] Malhotra, N. K., and D. F. Birks. (2007) Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 3rd ed, Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
[17] Sumertajaya, I. G. N. M. J. I. M. (2008) “Pemodelan Persamaan Structural yang Sering Disebut dengan PLS [Title in English: Modeling the
Structural Equation of PLS].” Semnas Mat. dan Pendidik. Mat. UNPAD: 118–132.
[18] Hussein, A. S. (2015) Business Research and Management using Partial Least Square (PLS) with smartPLS 3.0, Malang.