Development and Acceptability of E-Module on Basic 3D Landscape Designing
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study developed and evaluated an e-module on Basic 3D Landscape Designing intended for Drafting Technology students. This study aimed to assess the acceptability of an e-module for teaching landscape design concepts using Google SketchUp. The research was guided by the ADDIE model, which includes Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was employed to evaluate students’ perceptions in terms of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Behavioral Intention, and User Willingness toward the module. A comparative research design was implemented involving 38 students divided into control and experimental groups. Findings revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the performance of the two groups, indicating instructional equivalence between the e-module and traditional instruction. Furthermore, results showed high acceptability under all TAM indicators. Overall, the developed e-module proved to be an effective and engaging digital learning resource that supports flexible, technology-driven instruction and promotes innovation in drafting education.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
References
Adil, J. G., & Napoles, M. (2023). Game-based education using Minecraft in developing student performance and interest in basic landscaping. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 5(6), 1–13. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/9454.pdf
American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of ethics. AERA Publications.
Alturkustani S, Durfee A, O'Leary OF, O'Mahony SM, O'Mahony C, Lone M, Factor A. (2025) Measuring students' perceptions of virtual reality for learning anatomy using the general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning. Anat Sci Educ. 18(6):579-595. doi: 10.1002/ase.70045.
Barz, N., Benick, M., Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., & Perels, F. (2024). The effect of digital game-based learning interventions on cognitive, metacognitive, and affective-motivational learning outcomes in school: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(2), 193–227. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231167795
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243– 1289.
Borlio, M. (2020). Designing e-learning modules for blended instruction: Frameworks and best practices. International Journal of Instructional Technology, 7(2), 55–68.
Briscoe, P., & Brown, T. (2019). Modular learning and lifelong education. Open Learning Review, 17(3), 203–217.
Clark, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Department of Education. (2021). Learning resources management and development system (LRMDS) evaluation manual. DepEd Publications.
Etikan, I. (2020). Comparison of convenience and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 9(1), 1–4.
Farooq, S. (2020). Urban green spaces and human well-being: A review of landscape functions. Environmental Design Journal, 6(1), 77–89.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fisk, P. (2017). Education 4.0: The future of learning for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Pearson Education.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2021). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Routledge.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Wadsworth.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-ana lyses related to achievement. London: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology Publications.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Sage publications.
Khadeghat, S. (2022). SketchUp in landscape visualization: Applications in 3D education. Landscape Journal, 41(2), 115–128.
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Liu, Y. (2022). Integrating digital technology in sustainable landscape design.Urban Ecology and Design Review, 9(3), 101–115.
Magno, C. (2022). Evaluating instructional quality of modular resources using LRMDS criteria. Philippine Journal of Educational Development, 19(2), 45–59.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The Technology Acceptance Model in educational contexts: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 13– 35.
Shen, L., Wang, C., & Zhou, H. (2024). Digital transformation in landscape architecture education: A review. Computers in Education Research, 5(2), 88–104.
Simonds, J. O., & Starke, B. W. (2016). Landscape architecture: A manual of environmental planning and design (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Sumaylo, G. V. C., & Napoles, M. A. R. (2023). E-module in real-time rendering and virtual reality: Impact to students’ cognitive and skill performance. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 5(6), 1–13. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/9553.pdf
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008) Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda onInterventions, Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
