Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

^ĐŝĞŶĐĞŝƌĞĐƚ
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Procedia Computer
Computer Science
Science 00
00 (2023)
(2023) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509

Seventh
Seventh Information
Information Systems
Systems International
International Conference
Conference (ISICO
(ISICO 2023)
2023)

Student’s Perception of Technology-Rich Classrooms Usage to

Support Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge Delivery in Higher
Education Computer Science Course
Admaja
Admaja Dwi
Dwi Herlambang*,
Herlambang*, Aditya
Aditya Rachmadi
Rachmadi
Information
Information Technology
Technology Education,
Education, Universitas
Universitas Brawijaya,
Brawijaya, Malang,
Malang, 65145,
65145, Indonesia
Indonesia

Abstract
Abstract

This
This study
study aims
aims to
to reveal
reveal whether
whether there
there isis aa difference
difference inin the
the acceptance
acceptance rate
rate of
of the
the Technology-Rich
Technology-Rich Classroom
Classroom (TRC)
(TRC) utilization
utilization
between
between teaching
teaching procedural
procedural knowledge
knowledge and and teaching
teaching conceptual
conceptual knowledge
knowledge in in computer
computer science
science based
based on
on student
student perceptions.
perceptions.
The
The research
research occurs
occurs atat the
the Computer
Computer Science
Science Faculty,
Faculty, Universitas
Universitas Brawijaya,
Brawijaya, Indonesia.
Indonesia. The
The research
research design
design used
used was
was survey
survey
research.
research. The population of respondents amounted to 1273 students, and respondents were selected using random sampling
The population of respondents amounted to 1273 students, and respondents were selected using random sampling
techniques.
techniques.The Thenumber
numberof ofdata
datasamples
samplesanalyzed
analyzedamounted
amountedto to513
513data.
data.Data
Datawere
werecollected
collectedusing
usingtwo
twoquestionnaires:
questionnaires:aa conceptual
conceptual
learning
learning experience
experience questionnaire
questionnaire and and aa procedural
procedural learning
learning experience
experience questionnaire.
questionnaire. Each
Each questionnaire
questionnaire contains
contains 2727 items.
items. Data
Data
were
were analyzed
analyzed using
using Descriptive
Descriptive Statistics
Statistics andand Dependent
Dependent T-Tests.
T-Tests. The
The conceptual
conceptual learning
learning experience
experience group
group score
score (M=85.90;
(M=85.90;
SD=2.42) was
SD=2.42) was higher
higher than
than the
the procedural
procedural learning
learning experience
experience group
group score
score (M=71.45; SD=4.53). Dependent
(M=71.45; SD=4.53). Dependent t-test
t-test analysis
analysis onon the
the
conceptual
conceptual andand procedural
procedural group
group scores
scores yielded
yielded t(512)=64.32, p<0.01, and
t(512)=64.32, p<0.01, and Cohen’s d=3.98. The
Cohen’s d=3.98. The conceptual
conceptual learning
learning experience
experience
group
group score
score significantly
significantly differs
differs from
from the
the procedural
procedural learning
learning experience
experience group
group score,
score, where
where the
the effect
effect size
size score
score isis 3.98,
3.98, and
and the
the
p-value isis smaller
p-value smaller than
than 0.05
0.05 (α).
(α).
©
© 2023 TheThe Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier B.V.B.V.
© 2023
2023
This is anThe
Authors.
Authors.
open access Published
by
by ELSEVIER
article under ELSEVIER
the B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
CC BY-NC-ND
This
This is
is an
an open
open access
access article
article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND license
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Seventh Information Systems International Conference
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the Seventh
Seventh Information
Information Systems
Systems International
International Conference.
Conference.
Keywords: Computer
Keywords: Computer Science;
Science; Conceptual
Conceptual Knowledge;
Knowledge; Higher
Higher Education;
Education; Procedural
Procedural Knowledge;
Knowledge; Technology-rich
Technology-rich Classroom
Classroom

1.
1. Intoduction
Intoduction

Information
Information technology
technology has
has changed
changed how
how aa learning
learning system
system can
can mediate
mediate interactions
interactions between
between teachers,
teachers, students,
students,

** Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author. Tel.:
Tel.: +62
+62 8564
8564 7104
7104 169
169
E-mail address: herlambang@ub.ac.id
E-mail address: herlambang@ub.ac.id

1877-0509
1877-0509 © © 2023
2023 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published byby ELSEVIER
ELSEVIER B.V.
B.V.
This
This isis an
an open
open access
access article
article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND license
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the Seventh
Seventh Information
Information Systems
Systems International
International Conference.
Conference.

1877-0509 © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Seventh Information Systems International Conference
10.1016/j.procs.2024.03.151
 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509 1501
2 Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000

and learning resources [1]. The diversity of information technology types today has resulted in many strategies related
to how students can feel the learning experience and how educational institutions can provide a learning environment
that is as inexpensive as possible but still positively impacts student learning outcomes [2], [3]. One of the impacts of
utilizing information technology in a system produces a new terminology, namely Technology-Rich Environment
(TRE), and particular terminology in learning systems is Technology-Rich Classroom (TRC), Technology-Rich
Learning Environment (TRLE), or Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) [1], [4]–[6]. The utilization
of TRC greatly aids classroom management where the interaction between teachers, students, and learning resources
is assisted by various technologies such as simulations, intelligent tutoring systems, virtual reality (VR), and games,
which involve the use of new technologies and new media to integrate various information sources and tools [7]–[12].
The variety of information technology integration strategies in the learning system shows that information technology
is an inseparable part of today’s learning environment and experience, even though there are no standard standards
related to what kind of information technology must be in the TRC [4], [13]–[15].
Some of the advantages that can be obtained in the application of TRC when compared to classes without
information technology include increased student involvement in learning, ease of collaborating with large numbers
of students, and ease of managing student learning outcome data [16]–[20]. Students become more interested in the
learning process because many multimedia elements and physical means can be used to interact. TRC also allows the
teaching process without being limited by the number of students, where TRC can distribute and share information in
parallel without being limited by physical space. TRC also allows automatic data collection where all student activities
can be recorded through smart cameras so teachers can detect and analyze student behavior during the learning process.
Currently, much research has been conducted to examine how the implementation of TRC impacts the learning
experience experienced by students [4], [13]–[15], [19], [21], [22]. These studies generally have the same results,
namely that TRC can provide a good learning experience for students and can improve the efficiency of classroom
management by educational institutions. However, these studies have not highlighted what kind of knowledge suits
to be taught through TRC. The use of information technology needs to be adjusted to the form of knowledge that will
be conveyed in the learning system because the more diverse the forms of knowledge, the more variety of information
technology used will also be varied. The main results of this research are expected to contribute to computer science
education in university where lecturers need to pay attention to what type of knowledge they want to convey to students
through TRC adoption.
The form of knowledge consists of several types, namely factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge [23]. Several other groupings exist, such as procedures, principles, processes, concepts, and facts [24].
These forms of knowledge require different delivery strategies, so the strategy for utilizing information technology is
also different [25]. An example is a form of procedural knowledge that includes knowledge of how to do something
(skill, algorithm, technique, or method), specifically to do something regularly (routine practice), or choose a way to
solve a new problem that applies explicitly in a particular field of science [23]. Procedural knowledge is a step-by-
step activity that a person needs to perform similarly over time [24]. The best way to teach procedural knowledge is
to provide a high-level overview, demonstrate or model the stages taught, and allow students to try or practice directly
reinforced with feedback from the teacher [26]. Conceptual knowledge is the knowledge that contains theories, models,
or structures (schemes) that represent human knowledge about how information elements are arranged or structured,
interrelated (systematic), and function together (intact), which can later be used to find new aspects [23]. The best
way to teach procedural knowledge is to use illustrations/visualizations that illustrate the characteristics of a class
group or cluster of objects, reinforce definitions that contain key attributes, multiply examples, and ask students to
identify a particular case in which group to belong to [24]. Computer science contains theoretical, practical knowledge
[27], [28], where practical knowledge is identical to procedural knowledge [29]. Thus, the use of TRC for courses in
the field of computer science also needs to pay attention to the form of knowledge, primarily conceptual and procedural
knowledge.
1502 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509
Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000 3

Computer Science Faculty is one of the faculties at Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia, which has had TRC facilities
since 2017. TRC at the Computer Science Faculty has been used for approximately five years and helped a lot in the
learning process during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2019. TRC facilities allow the learning process to
be followed by students in different places, and distance interactive learning can be done anywhere and anytime
without limited time. TRC facilities also have the ability to record ongoing learning activities so that they can be
automatically saved for relearning by students, have face and motion detection cameras, and students can access live
teaching in streaming. The existence of TRC facilities at the Computer Science Faculty can be used to research whether
TRC is more suitable for organizing learning related to procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge in computer
science. Thus, this study was conducted to answer the research question of whether there is a difference in the level of
acceptance of TRC utilization from student perception between conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge
learning experience in computer science.

2. Methods

The research approach used in this study is quantitative, and the research design used is a survey. Survey design
research aims to collect data on a phenomenon without any treatment deliberately raised by researchers both before
and after the phenomenon occurs. The phenomenon that is the object of this research is the use of TRC in organizing
conceptual and procedural knowledge learning in computer science. The research site was conducted at the Computer
Science Faculty, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia. This site is also a limitation of the survey scope in this study. The
Computer Science Faculty was chosen as a research site because it has had adequate TRC facilities since 2017. TRC
in the Faculty of Computer Science facilities includes projector screens, projectors, mics, speakers, interactive
cameras, camera sensors, air conditioners, soundproof classrooms, and computers that can record material taught in
class and can store recordings of material. TRC has a parallel class feature, namely the ability to connect many
classrooms into one control through the primary classrooms, and lecturers can teach many through the primary
classrooms. TRC is also equipped with an intelligent auto recording that allows teaching and learning activities to be
recorded with the proper focus and edited automatically so that the recording results can be directly accessed and
shared with students.

Perceived ease of Innovative-

Social support
use ness

Internet of
Performance Behaviour education things
Expectancy intention adoption

Facilitating Perceived
Effort expectancy
conditions usefulness

Fig. 1 Internet of Education Things Adoption

Data were collected using two questionnaires: a conceptual teaching questionnaire and a procedural teaching
questionnaire. The substance of both questionnaires is the same but differs in the context of the questions for
conceptual or procedural learning experiences. The questionnaire’s content adapted the main variables in the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The main reason why this research uses the “Internet of
education things adoption” type UTAUT model is that this type has been validated as a theory of technology adoption
in the educational context. This study adopts the UTAUT model questionnaire items so that they can be used to collect
conceptual and procedural learning experiences data sets through the use of TRC. Then the two data sets are tested to
prove whether they have differences so that they can produce practical implications for TRC adoption in computer
 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509 1503
4 Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000

science education. This study does not aim to reconstruct the existing model in the UTAUT model.
The UTAUT model used in this study is presented in Fig. 1 and called “Internet of education things adoption”.
The main variables used as a basis are Performance Expectancy (Cronbach’s Alpha (α)=0.806), Effort expectancy
(α=0.795), Facilitating conditions (α=0.808), Perceived usefulness (α=0.842), Perceived ease of use (α=0.842), Social
support (α=0.780), Innovativeness (α=0.856), and Behavior intention (α=0.760), and Internet of education things
adoption (α=0.823) [30]. The questionnaire contains 27 items, each using a scale of 1 to 7. The description of the
items for the questionnaire is presented in Table 1. Two linguists assist in the process of translating items from English
to Indonesian. Three information system experts help in checking the alignment of variables and items. Thus, the
quality of the substance of the questionnaire has been examined by five experts. The data from the questionnaire
quality check were analyzed using Aiken’s Validity Score (Aiken’s V) with a threshold of V= 0.80, the number of
experts was 5, and the scale of agreement between experts used was 1 to 5 [31]. That is, if an item has V ≥ 0.80, then
the substance of the item is appropriate and can be used in Indonesian.
The number of the student population that has the potential to become respondents is 1273 students. Respondent
criteria used in this research were students who had experience learning to use TRC at Computer Science Faculty,
Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia. The result of calculating the minimum sample size using the Slovin’s Formula with
a margin of error 0.05 is 305 students. However, respondents were appointed using random sampling techniques,
resulting in 513 students. Each student fills out two questionnaires: the conceptual learning experience questionnaire
and the procedural learning experience questionnaire. The conceptual learning experience questionnaire was used to
collect data on students’ experiences when using TRC in learning conceptual or theoretical-type lecture material. The
procedural learning experience questionnaire was used to collect data related to student experience when using TRC
in learning procedural or practicum-type lecture material.
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and dependent t-tests. Descriptive statistical analysis is done by
summing the scores for all items in each respondent. Then, the total score of each respondent is divided by the
maximum ideal score of each item, which is 7 x 27 = 189, and multiplied by 100%. Thus, the data sets for the
conceptual and procedural teaching groups each consisted of 513 data in percentage scores. The percentage score for
each respondent is then used as a raw score and then analyzed using a Paired/ Dependent T-Test. The Dependent T-
Test is used to determine whether there is a difference in scores between the conceptual learning experience group
data set and the procedural learning experience group data set. The difference is determined based on the p-value
score; if the p-value score is less than 0.05, then the two data sets have differences. The results of the dependent t-test
analysis are also equipped with an effect size (Cohen’s d) score so that it can be used to estimate the impact caused
by using TRC for procedural and conceptual knowledge learning experience.
1504 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509
Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000 5

Table 1. Questionnaire Items and Aiken’s V Score

Item Aiken’s
Variable Items
Number V Score
Performance expectancy 1 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools increase students’ opportunities to attain 0,950
things vital in the educational process.
2 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools are very useful in the educational process. 0,950
3 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools enable students to achieve things speedily in 0,950
the educational process.
Effort expectancy 4 Learning how to use Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools for education is easy for 0,900
students.
5 Interaction with Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools for education is 0,850
comprehensive and transparent.
6 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools for education are easy to use. 1,000
Facilitating conditions 7 The students have the resources required to use Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) 0,950
tools for education.
8 Students have enough knowledge to use Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools for 0,850
education.
9 Students feel comfortable using Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools for 0,950
education.
Perceived usefulness 10 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) help students achieve things speedily. 0,950
11 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools increase student productivity. 1,000
12 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools increase student opportunities of realizing 0,800
things that are vital to me.
Perceived ease of use 13 Learning to operate the Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools is easy. 0,850
14 Students find it easy to get the Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools. 0,800
15 Student interaction with the Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools is 0,900
comprehensive and transparent.
Social support 16 The student will ask their mates on forums and communities to help student with their 0,900
ideas and recommendations before student navigate Technology-Rich Classrooms
(TCR) tools.
17 The student will share their experience with their mates on forums and communities. 0,900
18 Students will recommend Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools worth adopting to 0,850
their mates at their university.
Innovativeness 19 Students seek out a lot of information about learning management system services 0,800
compared to their mates.
20 Students are typically the first to discover new technology among their mates, i.e. 5 G. 0,950
21 Students like experimentation with new technology, i.e., virtual labs. 0,800
Behavior intention 22 In the future, students intend to continue using Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) 1,000
tools to interact with the educational process.
23 In student daily life, students will continuously try to use Technology-Rich Classrooms 0,750
(TCR) tools to interact with the educational process.
24 Students plan to regularly use Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) tools to interact 0,950
with the educational process.
Internet of education 25 Students enjoy using Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR). 0,900
things adoption 26 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) motivates fits perfectly with students’ learning 0,800
styles.
27 Technology-Rich Classrooms (TCR) motivates students to make full use of activities in 0,750
their learning process.

3. Result

Table 2 shows demographic data from 513 respondents. Based on Table 2, respondents are dominated by female
students, students from informatics engineering study programs, and students with less than 3 hours of experience per
week. The mean age of respondents was 18.46 years, with the lowest age being 16 years and the highest age being
21 years.
6 Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000
Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509 1505

Table 2. Respondent Demographics

Demography Aspect Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 243 47.37
Female 270 52.63
Bachelor Program
Information Technology Education 90 5.71
Computer Engineering 98 12.44
Informatics Engineering 113 21.52
Information System 110 27.94
Information Technology 102 32.38
TRC Usage (hour/ week)
<3 175 34.11
3–5 170 33.14
>5 168 32.75
Age
Mean 18.46
Median 18.00
Mode 18.00
Range 5.00
Minimum 16.00
Maximum 21.00

The Mean score in Table 3 shows that the conceptual group score (M=85.90; SD=2.42; N=513) was more
significant than the procedural group score (M=71.45; SD=4.53; N=513). The standard deviation scores in each data
group also showed that the data in the conceptual teaching group were more homogeneous than the data in the
procedural group. The results of thein Dependent T-test in Table 4 showed scores of t(512)=64.32, p < 0.01, and
d=3.98. It means a significant difference exists between conceptual teaching and procedural teaching data group
scores. The conclusion based on the analysis results is that the score of the conceptual teaching group has a significant
difference from the score of the procedural teaching group. Thus, the conclusion can be given that the usefulness of
TRC can be felt more by students when used to teach conceptual knowledge than when used to teach procedural
knowledge. The large effect size category includes an effect size (Cohen’s d) score of 3.98. There is a significant
difference between the conceptual and procedural teaching groups’ data conditions.

Table 3. Results of Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Conceptual and Procedural Groups

Aspect Conceptual Procedural
Mean 85.90 71.45
Standard Error 0.11 0.20
Median 85.71 71.43
Mode 86.24 69.84
Standard Deviation 2.42 4.53
Sample Variance 5.84 20.55
Kurtosis -0.19 -0.24
Skewness -0.05 0.03
Range 13.23 26.46
Minimum 79.89 57.67
Maximum 93.12 84.13
Sum 44066.67 36651.85
Count 513 513
Confidence Level (95.00%) 0.21 0.39
1506 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509
Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000 7

Table 4. Dependent T-Test Results on Conceptual and Procedural Group Scores

Aspect Conceptual Procedural
Mean 85.90 71.45
Variance 5.84 20.55
Observations 513 513
Pearson Correlation 0.02
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 512
|t Stat| 64.32
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00
t Critical one-tail 1.65
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00
t Critical two-tail 1.96
Cohen’s d 3.98

4. Discussion

The study aims to prove whether there is a difference in the acceptance rate of TRC utilization from student
perceptions between procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge learning experience in computer science
course. The data analysis results showed a significant difference between the use of TRC for conceptual and procedural
learning experience. Respondents’ perceptions indicate that TRC facilities are more useful if they are used to learn
conceptual (non-practical or theoretical-type) knowledge. Nevertheless, the study still cannot uncover what causes
respondents’ perceptions to be more assertive in favor of TRC facilities being used to learn conceptual rather than
procedural knowledge.
Conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge are two things that cannot be separated in the learning
system; both are equally important [32]–[34]. It is impossible for learning to contain conceptual or procedural
knowledge only. Conceptual knowledge is focused on understanding the underlying principles and theories behind a
particular topic, whereas procedural knowledge involves practical skills and hands-on experience with tools and
techniques. Both types of knowledge are essential for learning the field of computer science. Examples of conceptual
knowledge in the computer science field are understanding the principles of algorithms and data structures;
recognizing computer architecture and operating systems; knowing programming paradigms and software
development methodologies; understanding the basics of computer networking and security; or understanding
database management systems and data modeling. Examples of procedural knowledge in the field of computer science,
namely writing and checking code in programming languages such as Java or Python; developing and testing software
applications using an integrated development environment (IDE); configuring and managing network devices such as
routers and switches; setting up and maintaining database systems; or conduct vulnerability assessments and
penetration testing to identify and address security weaknesses in software and systems. Thus, TRC facilities should
be utilized to accommodate both types of knowledge.
The use of TRC in lectures can provide students with a more engaging, interactive, and personal learning
experience so that understanding and mastery of the material in the course can be faster. Enhance learning experiences:
Technology can provide interactive and engaging learning experiences, improving student learning outcomes. For
example, computer science students can use software and educational tools to simulate programming environments
and experiment with coding, leading to a deeper understanding of programming concepts. TRC can give students
access to online courses, digital textbooks, and multimedia materials. Students can use these resources to learn more
effectively and independently. TRC can facilitate collaboration between students and lecturers to make the learning
environment more interactive and exciting. Collaboration tools such as video conferencing, messaging apps, and cloud
storage platforms allow students and faculty to share ideas and work together on projects in real time. When viewed
from the lecturer’s side, TRC will enable lecturers to give students real-time feedback about their work, leading to
faster and more accurate assessments. Feedback and evaluation can help students identify areas where they need to
 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509 1507
8 Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000

improve and adjust their approach [11], [16], [18], [35], [36].
The TRC facility at the Computer Science Faculty, Universitas Brawijaya, is adequate to be used as a tool
for presenting procedural knowledge. One of the recommendations to encourage the use of TRC for the delivery of
procedural knowledge is to strengthen the competence of lecturers to be more proficient in using TRC facilities [37]–
[39]. The implementation of procedural knowledge learning in traditional classrooms (classes without information
technology integration) may be something that lecturers are accustomed to. However, traditional classrooms have
management limitations, such as a limited number of students who can be accommodated. Thus, TRC facilities can
be used to solve the problem of many students being directly involved in one learning cycle. Providing training
activities for lecturers is expected to increase lecturer proficiency in utilizing the tools available in TRC to support the
learning strategies needed in the classroom. Training activities also need to be carried out for students to be more agile
in utilizing TRC and make their learning experience more personal. The provision of training activities to technology
users is in line with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, where the perceived ease of use aspect
demands that technology users be facilitated in using a particular technology, and one way is by conducting training
to users [30], [40].

5. Conclusion

The main finding of this study is that TRC is more beneficial when used to learn conceptual knowledge rather than
procedural knowledge in the technology acceptance context. The main results of this study contribute to the
information technology and the education field, where the use of information technology needs to take into account
what kind of information to be conveyed to users, in this case, students. The proper compatibility between the type of
information technology infrastructure in the TRC and the form of knowledge to be presented is the main trigger for
the transformation of information technology and education that is appropriate and effective. The implications of the
results of this study can encourage the computer science education system in universities to pay more attention to the
suitability of information technology forms and curricular content that will be presented through TRC. Information
technology experts and education curriculum experts need to work together to strengthen and transform the higher
education system so that learning services for students can increase and keep up with the times. The results of this
research are still very limited to the context of the experiences that students have experienced while using TRC at the
Computer Science Faculty, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia. Then, this research does not conduct curricular studies
to find out what portion of conceptual and procedural knowledge for each course that students have taken using TRC
in the past. Future research can be done to detail the impact of using TRC in terms of student satisfaction, lecturer
satisfaction, university management satisfaction, quality of the learning process, and quality of student learning
outcomes. This research still cannot reveal what causes the difference in using TRC for conceptual and procedural
teaching. Thus, future research designs should use experimental methods to prove what causes the difference between
conceptual and procedural teaching through controlled TRC facilities and whether the use of TRC can have a good
impact on the learning system in universities, especially in the computer science field.

References

[1] Z. Cai et al., “The effect of feedback on academic achievement in technology-rich learning environments (TREs): A meta-analytic
review,” Educ Res Rev, vol. 39, p. 100521, May 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100521.
[2] I. Omirzak, A. Alzhanov, O. Kartashova, and V. Ananishnev, “Integrating mobile technologies in a smart classroom to improve the
quality of the educational process: Synergy of technological and pedagogical tools,” World Journal on Educational Technology: Current
Issues, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 560–578, 2022, doi: 10.18844/wjet.v14i3.7194.
[3] A. D. Herlambang, Y. Tyroni Mursityo, M. C. Saputra, and L. Novianti, “Criteria-Based Evaluation of Academic Information System
Usage at Brawijaya University Based On Modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),” in 3rd International Conference on
Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology, SIET 2018 - Proceedings, 2018, pp. 272–277. doi: 10.1109/SIET.2018.8693159.
1508 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509
Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000 9

[4] R. Huang, Y. Hu, and J. Yang, “Improving learner experience in the technology rich classrooms,” Lecture Notes in Educational
Technology, no. 9783662446584, pp. 243–258, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44659-1_13.
[5] J. Yang, “A method for evaluating technology-rich classroom environment,” Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, no.
9783662441879, pp. 31–40, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44188-6_4.
[6] E. Elstad and K. A. Christophersen, “Perceptions of digital competency among student teachers: Contributing to the development of
student teachers’ instructional self-efficacy in technology-rich classrooms,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 7, no. 1, 2017, doi:
10.3390/educsci7010027.
[7] A. Kaur and M. Bhatia, “Smart Classroom: A Review and Research Agenda,” IEEE Trans Eng Manag, 2022, doi:
10.1109/TEM.2022.3176477.
[8] A. Kaur, M. Bhatia, and G. Stea, “A Survey of Smart Classroom Literature,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 12, no. 2, 2022, doi:
10.3390/educsci12020086.
[9] J. M. Recalde, R. Palau, N. L. Galés, and R. Gallon, “Developments for smart classrooms: School perspectives and needs,” International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 34–50, 2020, doi: 10.4018/IJMBL.2020100103.
[10] M. K. Saini and N. Goel, “How smart are smart classrooms? A review of smart classroom technologies,” ACM Comput Surv, vol. 52, no.
6, 2019, doi: 10.1145/3365757.
[11] X. C. Wang, S. C. Kong, and R. H. Huang, “Influence of digital equipment on interaction quality in technology-rich classroom,”
Proceedings - IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2016, pp. 455–459, 2016, doi:
10.1109/ICALT.2016.82.
[12] K. Z. Chen and Y. H. Lee, “One-person armies: the border-crossing Taiwanese native-language teachers in technology-rich classrooms,”
Interactive Learning Environments, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2144894.
[13] E. Elstad, “Digital expectations and experiences in education,” Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education, pp. 1–259, 2016, doi:
10.1007/978-94-6300-648-4.
[14] K. K. Bhagat and R. Huang, “Improving learners’ experiences through authentic learning in a technology-rich classroom,” Lecture Notes
in Educational Technology, no. 9789811059292, pp. 3–15, 2016, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5930-8_1.
[15] Y. Hu and R. Huang, “The research on the measurement of user experience in technology rich classroom,” Proceedings - IEEE 14th
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2014, pp. 780–781, 2014, doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2014.229.
[16] E. Gebre, A. Saroyan, and R. Bracewell, “Students’ engagement in technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors’
conceptions of effective teaching,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 83–96, 2014, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12001.
[17] P. Reimann et al., “Supporting teachers in capturing and analyzing learning data in the technology-rich classroom,” 10th International
Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Future of Learning, ICLS 2012 - Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 33–40, 2012, [Online]. Available:
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84878688785
[18] G. Chen, C. Gong, J. Yang, Y. Li, and R. Huang, “The comparison of paper textbook class and electronic textbook class in Technology
Rich Classroom,” Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2013, pp. 876–885, 2013,
[Online]. Available: https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84896458588
[19] J. Petchamé, I. Iriondo, E. Villegas, D. Riu, and D. Fonseca, “Comparing face-to-face, emergency remote teaching and smart classroom:
A qualitative exploratory research based on students’ experience during the covid-19 pandemic,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13,
no. 12, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13126625.
[20] X. Wang, M. Li, and C. Li, “Smart classroom: Optimize and innovative-based on compared with traditional classroom,” International
Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 741–745, 2019, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.10.1296.
[21] D. F. Shell, J. Husman, J. E. Turner, D. M. Cliffel, I. Math, and N. Sweany, “The impact of computer supported collaborative learning
communities on high school students’ knowledge building, strategic learning, and perceptions of the classroom,” Journal of Educational
Computing Research, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 327–349, 2005, doi: 10.2190/787L-BCBQ-20FN-FW6C.
[22] O. Noroozi, A. Weinberger, H. J. A. Biemans, M. Mulder, and M. Chizari, “Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research,” Educ Res Rev, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 79–106, 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006.
[23] L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, and B. S. Bloom, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy
of educational objectives, 2nd ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2001. [Online]. Available:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JPkXAQAAMAAJ&pgis=1
[24] R. C. Clark and A. Kwinn, The new virtual classroom: Evidence-based guidelines for synchronous e-learning. Canada: Pfeiffer, 2007.
[Online]. Available: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc5&NEWS=N&AN=2007-07797-000
[25] P. S. Lisenbee, J. Pilgrim, and S. Vasinda, Integrating Technology in Literacy Instruction. New York: Routledge, 2020. doi:
10.4324/9780429340154.
[26] R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer, e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia
Learning: Third Edition. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2012. doi: 10.1002/9781118255971.
[27] O. Hazzan and K. Mike, Guide to Teaching Data Science: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG,
2023.
[28] O. Hazzan, N. Ragonis, and T. Lapidot, Guide to Teaching Computer Science: An Activity-Based Approach, 3rd ed. Switzerland: Springer
Nature Switzerland AG, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1.
[29] A. D. Herlambang, B. Budiman, and W. S. Wardhono, “Interactive Procedural Knowledge Learning Resources Development in The
Context of Competency-Based Training Instructional Approach and Interactive Media Design Subjects for Information Technology
Vocational High School,” Elinvo (Electronics, Informatics, and Vocational Education); Vol 7, No 1 (2022): Mei 2022DO -
10.21831/elinvo.v7i1.48215 , Aug. 2022, [Online]. Available: https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/elinvo/article/view/48215
[30] A. Shaqrah and A. Almars, “Examining the internet of educational things adoption using an extended unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology,” Internet of Things (Netherlands), vol. 19. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2022.100558.
[31] L. R. Aiken, “Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings,” Educ Psychol Meas, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 131–142,
Mar. 1985, doi: 10.1177/0013164485451012.
 Admaja Dwi Herlambang et al. / Procedia Computer Science 234 (2024) 1500–1509 1509
10 Admaja Dwi Herlambang and Aditya Rachmadi / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2023) 000–000

[32] D. Hurrell, “Conceptual Knowledge OR Procedural Knowledge or Conceptual Knowledge AND Procedural Knowledge: Why the
Conjunction is Important to Teachers,” Australian Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 57–71, 2021, doi:
10.14221/ajte.2021v46n2.4.
[33] B. H. Majeed, “The relationship between conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge among students of the mathematics
department at the faculty of education for pure sciences/IBn Al-Haitham, university of Baghdad,” International Journal of Innovation,
Creativity and Change, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 333–346, 2020, [Online]. Available:
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85083586894
[34] D. W. Braithwaite and L. Sprague, “Conceptual Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, and Metacognition in Routine and Nonroutine
Problem Solving,” Cogn Sci, vol. 45, no. 10, 2021, doi: 10.1111/cogs.13048.
[35] K. K. Bhagat and J. M. Spector, “Authentic learning in a technology-rich classroom: Innovative education in the classroom,” ICCE 2017
- 25th International Conference on Computers in Education: Technology and Innovation: Computer-Based Educational Systems for the
21st Century, Extended Summary Proceedings, pp. 14–16, 2017, [Online]. Available:
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85054188336
[36] A. Badia, J. Meneses, and C. Sigalés, “Teachers’ perceptions of factors affecting the educational use of ICT in technology-rich
classrooms,” Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 787–808, 2013, doi: 10.14204/ejrep.31.13053.
[37] J. Wang, D. E. H. Tigelaar, J. Luo, and W. Admiraal, “Teacher beliefs, classroom process quality, and student engagement in the smart
classroom learning environment: A multilevel analysis,” Comput Educ, vol. 183, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104501.
[38] Z. Zhan, Q. Wu, Z. Lin, and J. Cai, “Smart classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioural
sequence analysis,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 123–136, 2021, doi: 10.14742/AJET.6523.
[39] Y. Li, H. H. Yang, and J. MacLeod, “Preferences toward the constructivist smart classroom learning environment: examining pre-service
teachers’ connectedness,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 349–362, 2019, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1474232.
[40] A. A. Shaqrah, “Explain the behavior intention to use e-learning technologies: A unified theory of acceptance and Use of technology
perspective,” International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, vol. 10, no. 4. pp. 19–32, 2015. doi:
10.4018/IJWLTT.2015100102.