Study of the Mastery of Digital Self-Efficacy through the Learning Process among Students of Universities in the Livestock Sector

Ayu Intan Sari; Ida Nugroho Saputro; Sutrisno Hadi Purnomo; Endang Tri Rahayu; Shanti Emawati

doi:10.48161/qaj.v4n3a620

Authors

Ayu Intan Sari Department of Animal Science, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Central Java, 57126, Indonesia
Ida Nugroho Saputro Department of Building Engineering Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Central Java, 57126, Indonesia
Sutrisno Hadi Purnomo Department of Animal Science, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Central Java, 57126, Indonesia
Endang Tri Rahayu Department of Animal Science, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Central Java, 57126, Indonesia
Shanti Emawati Department of Animal Science, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Central Java, 57126, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n3a620

Keywords:

Digital skills, digital self-efficacy, digital literacy, lecturer support, friend support, campus support

Abstract

Mastery of digital skills is essential for animal husbandry students because digital technology has changed the way of work and innovation in the livestock industry. With digital skills, students can optimize livestock management, track livestock health and reproduction, and predict market developments more efficiently. Perceptions of self-efficacy regarding the ability to use digital technology will encourage increased digital skills for students. Many studies examine digital skills, but limited studies discuss how digital self-efficacy is formed by involving institutional support, instructor influence, peer influence, and digital literacy. Therefore, this study examines a structural model for forming digital self-efficacy involving institutional support, instructor influence, peer influence, and digital literacy. A total of 263 students were involved in filling out the research questionnaire. This study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis with SmartPLS software. The study results reveal that digital self-efficacy is directly influenced by peer influence and digital literacy. Meanwhile, institutional support and instructor influence do not directly affect digital self-efficacy. Another finding, digital literacy mediates the influence of institutional support, instructor influence, and peer influence on student digital self-efficacy. This study discusses in depth how to master digital self-efficacy through the learning process on campus and the implications of this study for universities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

OECD. (2016). Skills for a digital world.

Martínez-Climent, C., Rodríguez-García, M., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2019). Digital transformations and value creation in international markets. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(8), 1603–1604.

Trost, A. (2020). Human resources strategies: Balancing stability and agility in times of digitization.

Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171–1204.

Vrontis, D., Christofi, M., Pereira, V., Tarba, S., Makrides, A., & Trichina, E. (2022). Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced technologies, and human resource management: A systematic review. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(6), 1237–1266.

Larson, L., & DeChurch, L. A. (2020). Leading teams in the digital age: Four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams. Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101377.

Daum, T., Ravichandran, T., Kariuki, J., Chagunda, M., & Birner, R. (2022). Connected cows and cyber chickens? Stocktaking and case studies of digital livestock tools in Kenya and India. Agricultural Systems, 196, 103353.

Birner, R., Daum, T., & Pray, C. (2019). Farming 4.0: Harnessing opportunities and managing threats of digitalization in crop and livestock farming and in the agricultural input industries.

Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming, and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91, 100315.

Smith, M. J. (2020). Getting value from artificial intelligence in agriculture. Animal Production Science, 60(1), 46–54.

Maleko, D., Msalya, G., Mwilawa, A., Pasape, L., & Mtei, K. (2018). Smallholder dairy cattle feeding technologies and practices in Tanzania: Failures, successes, challenges, and prospects for sustainability. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(2), 201–213.

Paul, B. K., Groot, J. C. J., Maass, B. L., Notenbaert, A. M. O., Herrero, M., & Tittonell, P. A. (2020). Improved feeding and forages at a crossroads: Farming systems approaches for sustainable livestock development in East Africa. Outlook on Agriculture, 49(1), 13–20.

Owen, E., Smith, T., & Makkar, H. (2012). Successes and failures with animal nutrition practices and technologies in developing countries: A synthesis of an FAO e-conference. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 174(3), 211–226.

Liu, J., Chriki, S., Kombolo, M., Santinello, M., Pflanzer, S. B., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., & Hocquette, J.-F. (2023). Consumer perception of the challenges facing livestock production and meat consumption. Meat Science, 200, 109144.

Neethirajan, S., & Kemp, B. (2021). Digital livestock farming. Sensors and Bio-Sensing Research, 32, 100408.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Ravera, F. (2021). Spanish women pastoralists’ pathways into livestock management: Motivations, challenges, and learning. Journal of Rural Studies, 87, 1–11.

Makinde, A., Islam, M. M., Wood, K. M., Conlin, E., Williams, M., & Scott, S. D. (2022). Investigating perceptions, adoption, and use of digital technologies in the Canadian beef industry. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 198, 107095.

Gabriel, A., & Gandorfer, M. (2023). Adoption of digital technologies in agriculture—an inventory in a European small-scale farming region. Precision Agriculture, 24(1), 68–91.

Natalia, T. Á., & Stefan, B. (2023). Youth in livestock and the power of education: The case of ‘Heirs of Tradition’ from Colombia, 2012–2020. Journal of Rural Studies, 97, 405–415.

Tran, D. B., Tran, H. T. M., Pham, T. D. N., & Nguyen, T. T. (2023). Education and agricultural household income: Comparative evidence from Vietnam and Thailand. World Development Perspectives, 29, 100489.

Alene, A. D., & Manyong, V. M. (2007). The effects of education on agricultural productivity under traditional and improved technology in northern Nigeria: An endogenous switching regression analysis. Empirical Economics, 32(1), 141–159.

Peiffer, H., Schmidt, I., Ellwart, T., & Ulfert, A.-S. (2020). Digital competences in the workplace: Theory, terminology, and training.

Ulfert, A.-S., Antoni, C. H., & Ellwart, T. (2022). The role of agent autonomy in using decision support systems at work. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106987.

Hughes, A., Galbraith, D., & White, D. (2011). Perceived competence: A common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 278–289.

Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Yeung, A. S., & Craven, R. G. (2017). Competence self-perceptions. In Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 85–115). The Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.

Ulfert-Blank, A.-S., & Schmidt, I. (2022). Assessing digital self-efficacy: Review and scale development. Computers & Education, 191, 104626.

Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), 0.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences.

Akhter, S. (2014). Privacy concern and online transactions: The impact of internet self-efficacy and internet involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31, May.

Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106909.

Keating, C., Van Audenhove, L., & Craffert, L. (2022). Social support for digital inclusion of women in South African townships. Telematics and Informatics, 75, 101893.

Jeon, J., & Kim, S. (2022). The mediating effects of digital literacy and self-efficacy on the relationship between learning attitudes and eHealth literacy in nursing students: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Education Today, 113, 105378.

Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy, and self-efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91–97.

Grimes, C. A., Booth, A., Khokhar, D., West, M., Margerison, C., Campbell, K. J., & Nowson, C. A. (2018). Digital education to limit salt in the home (DELISH) program improves knowledge, self-efficacy, and behaviors among children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50(6), 547–554.

Huang, F., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2020). Chinese students’ intentions to use the Internet-based technology for learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 575–591.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Lai, C. (2015). Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 82, 74–83.

Hao, S., Dennen, V. P., & Mei, L. (2017). Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 101–123.

Imlawi, J., Gregg, D., & Karimi, J. (2015). Student engagement in course-based social networks: The impact of instructor credibility and use of communication. Computers & Education, 88, 84–96.

Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 7–26.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

Lawrence, K. (2021). The mediating role of social internet use on the correlation of parental efficacy, peer influence, and social functioning of adolescents in the current era. Current Research in Behavioral Science, 2, 100032.

Chu, R. J., & Chu, A. Z. (2010). Multi-level analysis of peer support, Internet self-efficacy, and e-learning outcomes: The contextual effects of collectivism and group potency. Computers & Education, 55(1), 145–154.

Martin, A. (2006). A European framework for digital literacy. Nordic Studies in Digital Literacy, 1, 151–161.

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.

Knutsson, O., Blåsjö, M., Hållsten, S., & Karlström, P. (2012). Identifying different registers of digital literacy in virtual learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 237–246.

Ting, Y.-L. (2015). Tapping into students’ digital literacy and designing negotiated learning to promote learner autonomy. Internet and Higher Education, 26, 25–32.

Tsai, H. S., Shillair, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2015). Social support and ‘playing around’: An examination of how older adults acquire digital literacy with tablet computers. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 36(1), 29–55.

Maureen, I. Y., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2020). Enhancing storytelling activities to support early (digital) literacy development in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(1), 55–76.

Maureen, I. Y., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2018). Supporting literacy and digital literacy development in early childhood education using storytelling activities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 50(3), 371–389.

Sujiarto, H., Solahudin, M., Mudrikah, A., Kosasih, U., & Trisnamansyah, S. (2022). The influence of social support, digital literacy ability, and self-efficacy on students’ academic resilience. Special Education, 1(43), 9351–9373.

Chiu, T. K. F., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Ismailov, M. (2022). Investigating the relationship of technology learning support to digital literacy from the perspective of self-determination theory. Educational Psychology, 42(10), 1263–1282.

Bekker, T., Bakker, S., Douma, I., van der Poel, J., & Scheltenaar, K. (2015). Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 29–38.

Steinkuehler, C., & King, E. (2009). Digital literacies for the disengaged: Creating after-school contexts to support boys’ game-based literacy skills. Horizons, 17(1), 47–59.

Lepore, S. J., Rincon, M. A., Buzaglo, J. S., Golant, M., Lieberman, M. A., Bauerle Bass, S., & Chambers, S. (2019). Digital literacy linked to engagement and psychological benefits among breast cancer survivors in Internet-based peer support groups. European Journal of Cancer Care, 28(4), e13134.

Russell, P., & Ryder, G. (2016). Peer support for the development of information and digital literacy skills at the Institute of Technology Tallaght. In Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC).

Pianfetti, E. S. (2001). Focus on research: Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through professional development. Language Arts, 78(3), 255–262.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. Edits Publisher.

Hwang, Y., & Kim, D. J. (2007). Customer self-service systems: The effects of perceived Web quality with service contents on enjoyment, anxiety, and e-trust. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 746–760.

Hair, J., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.

Gozali, I. (2014). Structural equation modeling, alternative method with partial least square (Structural Equation Modeling, Metode Alternatif dengan Partial Least Square) (Vol. 4).

Ghozali, I. (2014). Structural equation modeling metode alternatif dengan Partial Least Square. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Ghozali, I. (2017). Structural equation models: Concepts and applications with the AMOS 24 bayesian SEM update program (Indonesian version) (Edisi 7) (7th ed.). Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.