e-Learning-Based Education Resilience in Indonesia

Yusriadi, Yusriadi; Makkulawu Panyiwi Kessi, Andi; Awaluddin, M.; Sarabani, Leeda

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7774702

Education Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Literature Review Results and Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 7774702 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7774702

e-Learning-Based Education Resilience in Indonesia

Yusriadi Yusriadi,¹Andi Makkulawu Panyiwi Kessi,²M. Awaluddin,¹and Leeda Sarabani³

Academic Editor: Ehsan Rezvani

Received09 May 2022

Accepted05 Sept 2022

Published20 Sept 2022

Abstract

During the COVID-19 period, the e-learning system saw increased usage and study; existing dimensions related to technologies and learners are not adequately explored while discussing e-learning adoption. As a technology, adopting e-learning for education in Indonesia confronts numerous resilience problems due to its benefits. This article analyzed the resilience paradoxes, namely, transformation, sociocultural, modernization, integrity, and ethics, to raise awareness and elicit the essential responses to enhance e-learning adoption and utilization. The approach used in this study is qualitative and phenomenological. 25 people were interviewed for this research; participants include teachers and students. The analysis step is easier to understand and is explicitly designed to analyze and conceptualize qualitative data using the most recent QSR qualitative research software. The study examined the divergent and contradictory perspectives of technology supporters and technology doubters on e-learning in Indonesian education; this gives a valid starting point for a critical and in-depth debate about e-learning; it is not simple to reconcile this dilemma. However, this study works to be knowledgeable of paradoxes and be prepared to resolve the issue and get the intended results.

1. Introduction

Learning and technology are the two significant components of e-learning. As with any other instrument in educational practice, technology facilitates the learning process by making it easier for students to learn. e-learning systems include writing technology, communication technology, visualization, and storage. Because of this, scientists and researchers have worked to make e-learning systems more visible from a technological perspective. The literature on e-learning is broad and growing steadily [1]. According to an investigation of their acceptance and usage, e-learning systems are becoming more popular throughout the globe [2].

e-learning is a new way to expand global learning with the most up-to-date technology. Innovative online tools and the most up-to-date technology make it easier for experts to make sure that the education they make is good [3]. In the meantime, new technology is taking e-learning systems to a new level [4]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, e-learning creates a series of virtual learning environments. It also makes it easier for people to learn online through mobile technology and artificial intelligence. In this way, the development of information and communication technology (ICT) and the Internet make it easier for people to learn online.

It has been postulated that resilience concerns have a significant role in technological adoption [5]. These characteristics are especially pronounced when many users must utilize the technology successfully. The primary objective of e-learning is to enhance students’ learning abilities, problem-solving abilities, and collaborative nature [6–8]. Electronic technology to support learning during the COVID-19 era is one of the technologies promoted in Indonesia to shift away from teacher-centred education toward student-centred education.

The capacity of a group or community to withstand external pressures and disturbances due to social, political, and environmental changes is referred to as resilience [9]. This study had nothing to do with resilience from a security point of view. In this study, resilience refers to how people attached to community groups and communities develop appropriate adaptation mechanisms in response to various changes and upheavals, social, economic, political, and environmental [10].

Resilience and the new effect e-learning brings are both influenced by the use of e-learning. This generation has emotional ramifications for social activities carried out via e-learning. e-learning is used in an adaptive framework in which individuals interact in one form or another while modifying their social habits [11]. When changes, such as e-learning, are implemented, the problem of resilience emerges. Resilience barriers are connected to elements that impact individual assumptions, perceptions, thoughts, and sentiments of learning from a sense of belonging to a social group [11].

2. Literature Review

Significant studies have been carried out to discuss the issues in e-learning procedures, techniques, and methodologies globally; however, in Indonesia, there is still a need for work on this crucial topic. Using typical and traditional learning models and tools that are less interesting and precise can lead to monotonous, boring, and poor understanding of the classroom instruction. According to Gull et al. [12], the learning models significantly raise students’ interests and motivation. Besides, they believe that learning models refer to the approaches used to attain classroom management, strategies in active learning, learning activities, learning objectives, and finally learning environment. Nowadays, methods and approaches to impart knowledge are changing, especially after the outbreak of COVID-19. With the rapid progress and growth in the use of information and technology, particularly networking technologies, widespread learning tools, and approaches, multimedia systems and internet-based learning all empower the virtual learning environment globally [13].

Therefore, e-learning has proved to be a very useful tool for learning under any circumstances. According to Mehrpouyan and Razavi [14], e-learning can be defined as one of the best techniques to improve the education process because it can be seen as a strong system built upon management, technology, and organization. This system provides the students with the necessary abilities to acquire knowledge online through distance learning and gets the advantage of a smooth schedule of free learning. Aparicio et al. [15] define e-learning as a theory-based framework connecting instructional technology, methodologies, and pedagogical models or structures. Three components compose the theory of e-learning. Aparicio et al.’s [15] approach encompasses numerous elements, including the way individuals learn (adaptive), the learning technique used (collaboration, exploration, and problem-solving), and technology. These characteristics include extending offerings beyond social boundaries, increased speed of interaction, processes across global borders, the interconnectedness of local events, and adaptability in terms of both substance and learning period [16–18].

e-learning is primarily used in distance education and corporate training [19]. Still, it is also defined as an educational process that utilizes information and communication technology to create movement, distribute learning content, and facilitate communication between students and teachers, as well as for management [20]. e-learning is synonymous with technology-enhanced learning (TEL), computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-based training (CBT), computer-assisted instruction (CAI), Internet-based training (IBT), web-based training (WBT), online education, virtual education, virtual learning environment (VLE), m-learning, and collaborative digital education [21]. For this analysis, it is assumed that e-learning is associated with technology, enabling an efficient and effective method of achieving educational results that may result in societal changes and transformations.

Technoskeptics and technopositivists may be found on a spectrum of e-learning. Technopositivists believe that technology is the solution to all of society’s illnesses. Many problems, such as time, space, and distance, may be solved with e-learning. e-learning is considered as a solution to many of these issues. If there are recognized and documented cases, the technosceptics contend that technology must exist to address them. Technoskeptics argue that the focus should not be on the technology itself but on how it can help solve an issue it is now unable to solve. Positivity and skepticism are challenging to reconcile. Positivists and skeptics sometimes disagree about the role of technology due to paradoxes, inconsistencies, and resilience issues. To do this, we must better grasp how technological progress affects society and the environment and how these tensions and contradictions come into the equation.

Presently, no study has been conducted on the resilience of education regarding e-learning services. This study investigates e-learning services in Indonesia, with the primary objectives including explaining the paradoxes of e-learning in the Indonesian National Education System and showing the condition of e-learning.

2.1. Method

The approach used in this study is qualitative and phenomenological. Individual semistructured interviews were done to identify and understand the elements affecting e-learning as a process of resilience that influences learning in a virtual environment. This technique allows for a more thorough examination of the phenomena. This instrument is used because it enables discourse and content analysis to eliminate erroneous interpretations and ensures a high level of validity [22].

2.2. Informant

25 people were interviewed for this research. Participants include teachers and students; to protect the anonymity of teacher and student information, each participant is assigned a number between 1 and 25 to enable their responses to be cited throughout the report.

2.3. Design: Qualitative Data Collection

The interview is a type that enables a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. This research tool was created with the evaluated literature in mind. This tool was selected because it provides rapid answers to research questions, difficulties, and goals. As a result, semistructured interviews with 25 participants were undertaken to collect data and answer study questions [23].

The interviews were divided into two sections: the first was used to collect sociodemographic data, and the second was used to answer research questions; this latter section focused on eliciting information about personal and contextual factors associated with e-learning resilience and characterization of learning environments [24], as well as awareness of learning strategies [25].

2.4. Interview Procedure

WhatsApp was used to send a mass message to instructors and students, inviting them to participate in an interview. Participants in the study got detailed information about the study’s aims and methods of data collecting. A random sample of 25 people was chosen and they were asked to submit an informed consent form to ensure and safeguard their privacy. From 23 April to 23 July 2021, 25 interviews were held in Indonesian: seven conducted online and the other 18 conducted face-to-face. Researchers interviewed tutors and e-learning students to avoid framing bias in their responses to tutor-related questions.

2.5. Data Analysis

The phenomenology approach was selected since it is relevant to the study topic and phases of the scientific process. Data analysis starts right after the first interview and continues throughout the data gathering process, enabling emerging hypotheses to drive the study [26]. The study’s characteristics and dimensions were categorized, named, and recognized using interview transcripts, memorandums, field notes, and e-learning papers. The analysis step is easier to understand using the most recent QSR qualitative research software, explicitly designed to analyze and conceptualize qualitative data. For phenomenology, Suter [27] proposed four steps of data analysis: zoning, textual description, structural description, and description of the meaning of occurrences.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. e-Learning in Indonesia

Despite several obstacles, Indonesian institutions are increasingly turning to online education. Schools in Indonesia are experimenting with various forms of online learning to reap some advantages. The most challenging issue is gaining access in any of its conditions. ICT access must be minimized in Indonesia to overcome current impediments to efficiently employing ICTs [28]. There have been notable advancements during the COVID-19 phase in addressing the digital access gap, yet many parts of Indonesia still lack connectivity [28].

According to the informant, “apart from hurdles to access technology, there are access restrictions may also be attributed to potential users’ ability, skill, and enthusiasm.” These access hurdles are increased in e-learning in addition to the human qualities necessary to fulfil e-learning’s stated requirements for new educational paradigms. The new e-learning paradigm is believed to be unneeded in terms of expanding academics’ accountabilities [29, 30].

The geographic constraints persist for most of Indonesia, generating regional inequities and disproportionate imbalances [31]. For instance, the Internet network required to use ICT is costly yet not accessible in most of Indonesia’s rural regions [32]. Due to a lack of familiarity with the technology used in e-learning, it is difficult for instructors and students alike to take advantage of the e-learning [33].

3.2. Resilience and e-Learning

Resilience and the new effect e-learning brings are both influenced by the use of e-learning. This generation has emotional ramifications for social activities carried out via e-learning. e-learning is used in an adaptive framework in which individuals interact in one form or another while modifying their social habits [11]. In this study, resilience refers to how people attached to community groups and communities develop appropriate adaptation mechanisms in response to various changes and upheavals, social, economic, political, and environmental [34].

According to the findings of the informant interviews, “resilience constraints to e-learning adoption in Indonesia give ammo for doubters to buttress their opinions.” The core conflict originates from the perceived deterioration of Indonesian culture and the incompatibility of new forms of identity developed due to the perceived application of new technology and information at the cost of Indonesian face-to-face educational programs. Providing the discovered paradoxical problems connected to e-learning will assist learners in comprehending the complex resilience consequences of this innovation in Indonesia. It will influence future approaches to e-learning to improve Indonesian education. When changes, such as e-learning, are implemented, the problem of resilience emerges. Resilience barriers are connected to elements that impact individual assumptions, perceptions, thoughts, and sentiments of learning from a sense of belonging to a social group [11].

Studies on the influence of resilience on technology adoption at the macro level mainly comprise organizational and national-level resilience. School resilience is defined as the personal conduct of players in an organization that has “historically built underlying beliefs and assumptions” [34]. Organizational culture specifies the permissible acts inside the organization and the amount of socialization of individual members, which influences members’ activities [24]. At the school level, resilience is viewed as a collective characteristic that dictates the behavior, forms, and communication expected of individuals in organizations that stem from the organization of the ideas, values, and behaviors gained in the organization and from education values [35].

Strickland-Munro et al. [36] are mostly connected with national resilience, implying that resilience or community behavior is observable or feasible within territorial limits. According to this viewpoint, national resilience comprises power distance, individuality, and uncertainty avoidance, which are learnt in infancy and are hard to alter in an individual’s life [37]. Consequently, organizational resilience is impacted by its members’ national resilience. There have been criticisms and reactions to method and characterization [38] due to, among other things, regional and even ethnic differences and geographical differences. However, the effects of globalization have been proved to significantly impact the adoption of new technologies [39]. Despite studies in Indonesia, Indonesia is not assumed to be a homogenous entity. Although there are socioeconomic distinctions across locations, the concerns are universal, owing to the nature of their growth.

Individual attitudes that impact behavior toward the technology in issue have been the subject of microlevel research on technology adoption [40] by appraising the desirability of outcomes and the intensity of each salient assumption about the attribute at the same time and automatically. From the work of Berger [41], these individual attitudes are established individually and independently of a group or societal standards in order to maximize personal gains. Individuals with personal goal attainment, uniqueness, and individual control are central to technology adoption, whereas resilience is a component of individuals [42].

3.3. Dilemma

In organizational transformation, the power of dilemmas has been examined as opposing and reflexively imposing one another [43]. As in the case of organizational transformation, where conflicts make decision-making difficult, the inconsistencies outlined seem to contradict the core of the issue for readoption of learning in Indonesia. Today’s existence and changes resulting from technological progress, shifting cultural contexts, and conundrums abound due to the fluidity of social institutions [44]. The calls for change in response to these concerns constitute a clash between different approaches to accomplishing a task.

The topic of resilience in the information and communication technology age, such as in e-learning, cannot be examined independently of the question of globalization, owing to the convergence of its operational meaning and perceived effect. According to the informant, “economically, ICT usage is required for many individuals since inexpensive and conveniently available information and communication are necessary.” Globalization is inextricably linked to other issues, such as the identity of foreign resilience, an idea that creates a quandary about the employment of e-learning in Indonesian schools. These concerns are incompatible because they include mutually exclusive and synergistic dilemmas that, over time, seem unreasonable or ludicrous [45]. The discussion below indicates that the shared advantages of technological developments in e-learning provide a challenge.

3.4. The Dilemma of e-Learning in Schools in Indonesia

When it comes to promoting technology, technopositivists often fail to draw the dots between innovation adoption and the cultural basis of society in the process of technology [46]. As e-learning use in Indonesia has grown, this study addresses issues that arise from the concepts that have been the driving force in certain situations. Growth, adaptability, new culture, originality, and modern paradigms are the five challenges raised by these obstacles and resilience concerns, and they are examined in detail in the next section.

3.5. Transformation

Information and communication technologies have accelerated globalization, particularly in exchanging knowledge across several sources and locations [47]. Although it is still not well defined, defining change depicts the story of major influences on the world’s culture, politics, and society [48]. A transition has been identified in e-learning as technical determinism and sociocultural domination [49].

The critical contradiction here arises in inquiring whether there is a power preventing Indonesian knowledge from being displaced by the undesirable transformation relationship. A transformational relationship is needed because of the essence of modernity, not because it is considered detrimental to the Indonesian culture.

These paradigm-shifting concerns include e-learning to expand educational opportunities across national boundaries, improve student interaction and communication, and create a worldwide learning network [50]. They are going towards worldwide standardization in terms of transformation, definition, and presentation of social interactions. As such, e-learning is essential to all academic offerings, improving skills, and generating mechanisms that promote knowledge and creativity by leveraging ICTs to assist the education system more efficiently and effectively [51]. There are still unanswered questions concerning how e-learning may be used without hurting Indonesian culture.

3.6. Sociocultural

Technology both strengthens and diminishes sociocultural experiences [52]. e-learning increases ethnic Indonesians’ susceptibility at the price of its advantages; there is adherence to inflexible cultural norms by adapting to newer and perhaps more lucrative ethnicities. Cultural homogeneity has decreased due to enhanced change [51]. The definition of a new cultural identity that distorts existing identities is linked to the widening gap between regions in Indonesia where technology is considered a status symbol [53]. The new cultural potential is always seen as dangerous by modernization opponents, while proponents believe modernity is unavoidable [54]. ICTs like the Internet and the proliferation of new languages and cultures dissolve the boundaries between individuals [54].

Because of technological improvements, technoskeptics believe that new types of poverty and disadvantage will continue to emerge [55]. Consequently, individuals have fewer options, are constrained in their information habits, and do not have the resources necessary for self-empowerment under normal circumstances [55]. In this way, ICT-mediated cultural identity is perceived as ideological and controversial individually. As a result, the capitalist world sees “institutionalization and regulation” as an undesirable practice of production and consumption [56]. The authors of [56] describe an ever-shrinking global community that emphasizes sociocultural power as an example of this shrinking globe.

e-learning would be hampered if seen in this elitist and controversial light. An institution’s competitiveness may be defined by its ability to produce and consume information utilizing technology [57], enabling it to build a unique identity. On the other hand, e-learning or a single technology is insufficient to decide the competitiveness of higher education institutions [50].

In this environment, e-learning results in forming a new cultural schema via a public integrity procedure [58]. Several phases are recognized in this social process. The first is the urgent need for e-learning as a social innovation in valid social circumstances. All participants in a social setting must adopt this social innovation to be a part of it. Second, the social environment validates the reason and acceptability of e-learning. This implies that everyone must embrace e-learning. Third, once acknowledged as a “true social truth,” e-learning expands into new situations. Finally, there is a cultural agreement that enables the validation and dissemination of e-learning in various areas [59].

There are concerns that this might lead to social disintegration, exacerbate sociocultural inequality, distract from sociocultural imbalances, and create moral uncertainty among individuals. Constructive ideas, including status culture and traditional capital, encourage organizations to repeat inefficiencies and inequity [59].

The critical question is whether e-learning in Indonesia fosters a new cultural heritage that exacerbates regional divisions and perpetuates poverty. This contrasts with the perception of e-learning as a process of sociocultural innovation addressing valid challenges such as access to education in a social context.

3.7. Modernization

In Indonesia, modernization is seen as a sign of sociocultural advancement and prestige without resulting in tangible changes in people’s way of life. Modernization is a cultural transformation caused by “modern cultural interaction and rivalry” [50], which leads to ideological, technical, and economic domination. The complaint against modernization in Indonesia is that it adopts a “symbol of socio-cultural progress and status enhancement” for social success [60]. This critique implies that indigenous culture is being replaced by contemporary cultural norms and behaviours [61], which might be discouraging in Indonesia when it comes to embracing required technology [60]. Modernization is a minor factor, whereas liberalization is the primary cultural engine [50]. Modernization is seen as a shift that permits conformance to be scientific, technical, and functional criteria, while liberalization is associated with governmental and bureaucratic institutional measures to manage cultural plurality [50]. Furthermore, the idea of modernization, like culture, fluctuates and is never precisely delineated, becoming little more than a metaphor for the issues of abstract modernity [62]. According to this view, the conflict caused by affluence “without comprehending the consequences that institutions have on the social level” is the root of sociocultural progress and status-increasing criticism [50].

As a result, the institutionalization of e-learning is indeed a sociocultural context that does not result in immediate changes in lifestyle due to its introduction [63]. As a result, the issue of modernization in Indonesia might serve as a metaphor for the perseverance required to accept the slowly evolving modernity. That which is seen as a threat to modernization is a threat to technical advancement [64–66]. There is a conflict in this situation due to the issues modernity is facing and the resulting sociocultural changes in Indonesia, which desperately needs these advancements. For obvious reasons, problems are sometimes framed in terms of whether or to what degree they must embrace the ideals of modernity [50], with materialism being regarded as a virtue of modernization.

e-learning seems to undercut conventional educators’ dominance and influence by transforming educators into mediators of the learning and information acquisition processes. At the same time, this may be seen as a moot point and be so welcomed in a modern nation; yet, in Indonesia, where authority structures are revered, this approach may be counterproductive to fostering the essential discourse and interaction for learning and knowledge acquisition.

Regarding the e-learning application in Indonesia, the crucial issue raised here is if its institutional acceptability is motivated by a desire to promote administrative processes that have resulted in advancement at the expense of Indonesian culture.

3.8. Integrity

The integrity dilemma derives from the perception that indigenous knowledge and contexts are being displaced by foreign information and circumstances. Because most of the technology and data used in e-learning in Indonesia are unknown, it may be seen as spreading foreign concepts and information inconsistent with indigenous knowledge. While there is no agreement on integrity in teaching and learning, it has been viewed essentially as recreating or modelling the learning process in a natural setting [67].

Integrity learning is defined as learning that entails “real-world, complicated issues and their solutions employing multiple methodologies in a multidisciplinary setting” [68]. The approach examines different instructing and educating components [69]. It seeks to improve the dependability and uniqueness of the process of education [67] to develop meaningful linkages that enhance comprehension and experience; the teaching system should be as closely related to the learner’s prior knowledge and context as possible [70]. As a result, learners will have integrity in their learning depending on their context in a process that is more concerned with accepting identity than with integrity, with originality being discussed and reviewed [71]. Integrity is accomplished by the learner’s engagement and cooperation with experts and peers and self-reflection and coaching, much like in situational learning [50]. Students are willing to absorb new information provided it is delivered honestly and consistently following their cultural values without demeaning stereotypes.

As a result, the responsibility for developing an integrity learning strategy rests on the producers of learning experiences and material or technology. However, an integrity impression of the material and learning technique used in Indonesia contradicts the concept of integrity as a process. The quest for integrity results in establishing culturally neutral learning procedures, information, and technology, which must nevertheless be achieved since “communication is not entirely neutral or culture-neutral” [72]. Owing to the apparent domination of the technology and expertise necessary to establish a genuine e-learning approach, objections in Indonesia may arise due to insufficient localization. Even at the present rate of modernization, cultural neutrality remains a long way off. Consequently, hybridization training will be required to assist Indonesian technology, knowledge, and processes in becoming more adaptable. Perhaps hybridization will be employed to teach integrity in learning processes, tools, and material in Indonesia if the goal is to develop an integrity e-learning method.

The critical question is the consistency and correctness of cultural ideas in instances where society is considered a taught or approved way of life [73]. Originality, or the standard by which it is measured, is characterized as a social construct [74] created and shaped by social power differentials. Three separate but connected components of social organization have been hypothesized: “material circumstances, interests, and ideas” [74]. Culture is generated via exchanging ideas that determine the cultural identity and personal interests [67]. This model cannot describe an authentic learning environment because authenticity in education is a process, not a state. Thus, genuine learning is a process established by educators that, although impacted by current technology and material, must be dominated by the educator’s experience.

3.9. Ethics

Ethics, like other subjects in this study, is a challenging concept. Tamsah et al. [75] present a crucial, generally recognized definition as an intelligible and straightforward portrayal of a group of people’s set of ethos recognized as reality or truth which is accepting the usage of e-learning in policies and economic gains. Ethics has been criticized for being a “system of ideas” rather than accurately depicting reality [76]. As Zacharias et al. [77] argue, advanced countries may force their development ideas on developing countries due to power and economic imbalances. One of the most common complaints about the employment of technology in these situations is that it is used to gain control and financial benefit [78, 79].

Technological advancement and ethical issues have been explored extensively, particularly in the political literature. Carey’s [80] article examined the factors that influenced and legitimized the telegraph’s usage, which may be applied to modern technology and the spread of e-learning: (1) The telegraph is not only a technical advancement. However, it resulted in a total transformation of communication and perception; it demonstrates a concentrated attempt to regulate communication and builds and molds intellectual property patterns and frameworks. (2) Telegraph pictures depict religion and daily life. Today, the image argument may convey religion and the essence of existence in the Internet era. (3) Monopoly capitalism produces power imbalances and undermines the economic advantages of technology. (4) The “common sense” concept illustrates the connection between ideas and attitudes.

Proponents of e-learning are represented as competent elites concerned with “controlling the incentives” associated with its use, and they are rooted in certain social positions [81]. Consequently, Internet users reappropriate professional elites’ worldviews [81]. As previously said, competition is multifaceted, and the mere existence of e-learning does not guarantee the development of a new social status.

In Carey’s [80] famous picture, there is first the gaze and ordinary people’s ideas, which perceives the telegraph, as e-learning may seem to the typical person, as virtually entirely unknown and with compelling force. Second, the telegraph was seen as a forerunner, comparable to the Internet’s transformation of the globe into a “Global World.” A new dimension of human evolution or advancement is introduced with a mysterious and unstoppable force. The idea that human desires remain constant is incorrect, since there are many disparities in abilities and understanding of the network and its related tools.

Carey [80] makes a compelling argument for technological determinism by demonstrating how developments in communication technology have resulted in the evolution of ideas. Carey [80] gives a solid chance to link the concepts of control, financial gain, and Internet technology. From an Indonesian perspective, illustrating that modernization holds power, further information and digital innovation seem to be undermining nation sovereignty’s predominance [82]. In terms of content generation, the online world has a huge influence on shifting structural power relations [83, 84]. This suggests that the information utilized in e-learning in Indonesia may primarily be modernized.

Is e-learning in Indonesian education possible to depoliticize or stifle radical viewpoints and alternatives? This is an essential ethical question to ask. To answer this question, we must first determine if Indonesian educators are willing to make ideological compromises to serve the interests of current state substance and innovation in the diffusion of e-learning.

This study has implications in implementing the National Education System related to the resilience and e-learning for students, according to their respective modernization. First, education providers should comply with the regulations and ensure that all students receive appropriate e-learning knowledge. Second, every school must have and include e-learning subjects in their curriculum. Third, the government as the policyholder needs to evaluate every regulation and policy to ensure e-learning implementation and efficiency. Stakeholders need an understanding of e-learning held at the school level.

4. Conclusion

While this paper does not address all potential paradoxes or pertinent topics, it does give a useful starting point for a critical and in-depth debate about e-learning in Indonesia. It is not simple to reconcile this dilemma. However, be knowledgeable of paradoxes and be prepared to react to them to resolve the issue and get the intended results. Of course, this method is skewed toward the “dominant paradigm,” which presupposes that a particular culture adopts a specific system of thinking on a traditional basis at any given period [85]. In and of itself, e-learning in Indonesia is useful, and efforts should be taken to guarantee that pro-e-learning adoption reactions are fulfilled [86].

This study explains the social tensions and inconsistencies that emerge throughout the implementation of e-learning in Indonesia. What is attempted in presenting this study is a call to action that confronts and embraces “complexity and contradiction” [45] in challenging transformation conditions [87]. In the setting of the contradiction, understanding the paradox may make it simpler to generate activities that encourage possibilities and alternatives for the desired end. As a result, the paradox should serve as a call to action, resulting in the acceptance of e-learning and the modifications connected with its assimilation to the advantage of Indonesia. Indeed, decision-makers’ “articulated paradoxes may be leveraged to their potential to enlighten and even strengthen transformation efforts” [43] that may be necessary for the process.

Data Availability

The study data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

References

M. Aparicio, F. Bacao, and T. Oliveira, “MOOC’s business models: turning black swans into gray swans,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication, Lisboa, Portuga, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Y. Alqahtani and A. A. Rajkhan, “E-learning critical success factors during the covid-19 pandemic: a comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives,” Education Sciences, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 216, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Alfraih and F. S. Alanezi, “Accounting students’ perceptions of effective faculty attributes,” Journal of International Education in Business, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 123–142, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Islam and A. Grönlund, “An international literature review of 1: 1 computing in schools,” Journal of Educational Change, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 191–222, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hamidi and A. Chavoshi, “Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: a case study of students of the University of Technology,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1053–1070, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Frederickson, P. Reed, and V. Clifford, “Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: quantitative and qualitative perspectives,” Higher Education, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 645–664, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Macgregor and J. Turner, “revisiting e-learning effectiveness: proposing a conceptual model,” Interactive Technology and Smart Education, vol. 6, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Liu, B. Vadivel, F. Mazaheri, E. Rezvani, and E. Namaziandost, “Using games to promote EFL learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC): potential effects and teachers’ attitude in focus,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
W. N. Adger, “Social and ecological resilience: are they related?” Progress in Human Geography, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 347–364, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Davoudi and L. Porter, “Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note,” Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 299–333, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Sassen, “Towards a sociology of information technology,” Current Sociology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 365–388, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gull, S. L. Goldstein, and T. Rosengarten, “Seven loose parts myths busted: moving toward enhanced creativity,” Exchange, vol. 2, pp. 34–38, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Shokouhifar and N. Pilevari, “Combined adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and genetic algorithm for e-learning resilience assessment during COVID-19 pandemic,” Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 34, no. 10, Article ID e6791, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mehrpouyan and G. K. Razavi, “Legal issues of intellectual property rights and licensing for e-learning content in the United Kingdom,” E-Learning and Digital Media, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 272–277, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Aparicio, F. Bacao, and T. Oliveira, “An e-learning theoretical framework,” An E-Learning Theoretical Framework, vol. 1, pp. 292–307, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Donnelly and J. Benson, “Get the most from electronic learning,” Education for Primary Care, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 100–102, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Huysman and V. Wulf, “IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis,” Journal of Information Technology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 40–51, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Vadivel, E. Namaziandost, and A. Saeedian, “Progress in English language teaching through continuous professional development—teachers’ self-awareness, perception, and feedback,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 6, Article ID 757285, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. C. P. Rodriguez and A. Armellini, “Interaction and effectiveness of corporate e-learning programmes,” Human Resource Development International, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 480–489, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Livingstone, “Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education,” Oxford Review of Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 9–24, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Harandi, “Effects of e-learning on students’ motivation,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 181, pp. 423–430, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Grimmer and B. M. Stewart, “Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts,” Political Analysis, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 267–297, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kallio, A. M. Pietilä, M. Johnson, and M. Kangasniemi, “Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 2954–2965, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Contreras, J.-F. Cordeau, and G. Laporte, “Benders decomposition for large-scale uncapacitated hub location,” Operations Research, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1477–1490, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. McCabe, “Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates,” Memory & Cognition, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 462–476, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Wimpenny and J. Gass, “Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: is there a difference?” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1485–1492, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. N. Suter, “Qualitative data, analysis, and design,” Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach, vol. 2, pp. 342–386, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Pillay and M. S. Maharaj, “Social media and mobile communications adoption patterns of South African civil society organisations,” SA Journal of Information Management, vol. 16, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
J. T. Martins and M. B. Nunes, “Academics’e-learning adoption in higher education institutions: a matter of trust,” The Learning Organization, vol. 23, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Vadivel and P. V. Beena, “The impact of multimedia in English language classroom of undergraduate students in engineering colleges,” International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 194–197, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Kleine and T. Unwin, “Technological revolution, evolution and new dependencies: what’s new about ICT4D?” Third World Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1045–1067, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wolde-Rufael, “Electricity consumption and economic growth: a time series experience for 17 African countries,” Energy Policy, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1106–1114, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. H. Ali, “The power of social media in developing nations: new tools for closing the global digital divide and beyond,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 24, p. 185, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Davoudi, K. Shaw, L. J. Haider et al., “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? “Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note,” Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 299–333, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017.
J. K. Strickland-Munro, H. E. Allison, and S. A. Moore, “Using resilience concepts to investigate the impacts of protected area tourism on communities,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 499–519, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Á. Cabrera, E. F. Cabrera, and S. Barajas, “The key role of organizational culture in a multi-system view of technology-driven change,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 245–261, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Moore, G. Brown, H. Kobryn, and J. Strickland-Munro, “Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 197, pp. 706–718, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Singh, “Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers’ propensity to adopt innovations,” International Marketing Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 173–191, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ghazizadeh, J. D. Lee, and L. N. Boyle, “Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation,” Cognition, Technology & Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 39–49, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. E. Berger, “The influence of religion on philanthropy in Canada,” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 110–127, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Oyserman, H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier, “Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 3–72, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Stoltzfus, C. Stohl, and D. R. Seibold, “Managing organizational change: paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 349–367, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. Putnam, G. T. Fairhurst, and S. Banghart, “Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach,” The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 65–171, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. K. Smith, M. Gonin, and M. L. Besharov, “Managing social-business tensions: a review and research agenda for social enterprise,” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 407–442, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Postman, “Informing ourselves to death,” The Nature of Technology, Brill Sense, Paderborn, Germany, pp. 5–14, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Virkkala, “Innovation and networking in peripheral areas—a case study of emergence and change in rural manufacturing,” European Planning Studies, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 511–529, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Murray and J. Overton, Geographies of Globalization, Routledge, London, UK, 2014.
K. A. Remtulla, “Towards more socio-culturally sensitive research and study of workplace E-learning,” International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 27–45, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Njenga and L. C. H. Fourie, “The myths about e-learning in higher education,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 199–212, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. S. Medero and G. P. Albaladejo, “The use of a wiki to boost open and collaborative learning in a Spanish university,” Knowledge Management & E-Learning, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Doloreux, “What we should know about regional systems of innovation,” Technology in Society, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 243–263, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. B. Salazar, “The power of imagination in transnational mobilities,” Identities: Global Studies in Power and Culture, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 576–598, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Eriksen, “Nationalism and the internet,” Nations and Nationalism, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Yu, “How poor informationally are the information poor? Evidence from an empirical study of daily and regular information practices of individuals,” Journal of Documentation, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 906–933, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Jensen, J. J. Arnett, and J. McKenzie, “Globalization and cultural identity,” Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 285–301, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
W. L. Turner and A. C. Stylianou, “The IT advantage assessment model: applying an expanded value chain model to academia,” Computers & Education, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 249–272, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. C. Liu, Y.-A. Huang, and C. Lin, “Organizational factors’ effects on the success of e-learning systems and organizational benefits: an empirical study in Taiwan,” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 130–151, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aljaber, “E-learning policy in Saudi Arabia: challenges and successes,” Research in Comparative and International Education, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 176–194, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Barker, J. Lindquist, T. Boellstorff et al., “Figures of Indonesian modernity,” Indonesia, vol. 87, pp. 35–72, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Thong, ““To raise the savage to a higher level”: the westernization of nagas and their culture,” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 893–918, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Jung and K. Sinclair, “Multiple modernities, modern subjectivities and social order: unity and difference in the rise of Islamic modernities,” Thesis Eleven, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 22–42, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kalantzis and B. Cope, “The teacher as designer: pedagogy in the new media age,” E-Learning and Digital Media, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 200–222, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Achmat, M. Baharuddin, T. S. Anjanarko et al., “Analysis of service quality improvement with education and training and professionalism and teamwork as mediation variables,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Singapore, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Cahaya, Y. Yusriadi, and A. Gheisari, “Transformation of the education sector during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia,” Educational Research International, vol. 2022, Article ID 8561759, 8 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kasim, K. A. Nawas, S. Z. B. Tahir, Y. Yusriadi, and A. Gheisari, “Bugis and arabic morphology: a contrastive analysis,” Education Research International, vol. 2022, Article ID 9031458, 9 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Hung and D.-T. Victor-Chen, “Context–process authenticity in learning: implications for identity enculturation and boundary crossing,” Educational Technology Research & Development, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 147–167, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Lombardi and D. G. Oblinger, “Authentic learning for the 21st century: an overview,” Educause Learning Initiative, vol. 1, pp. 1–12, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
J. A. Banks, Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum, and Teaching, Routledge, London, UK, 2015.
D. Gašević, S. Dawson, and G. Siemens, “Let’s not forget: learning analytics are about learning,” TechTrends, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Amigud, J. Arnedo-Moreno, T. Daradoumis, and A.-E. Guerrero-Roldan, “A behavioral biometrics based and machine learning aided framework for academic integrity in e-assessment,” in Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference On Intelligent Networking And Collaborative Systems, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Habib, “An analysis of cultural load in English textbooks taught in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan,” NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 72, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Buckingham, Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
M. Korpela, “A postcolonial imagination? westerners searching for authenticity in India,” The New Expatriates, Routledge, London, UK, pp. 119–136, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Tamsah, J. B. Ilyas, and Y. Yusriadi, “Create teaching creativity through training management, effectiveness training, and teacher quality in the covid-19 pandemic,” Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 18–35, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Rahawarin, T. Zacharias, Y. Yusriadi, and M. Rianti, “Dimension of organizational citizenship behavior and its effect toward employees’ performance at capital investment and licensing service office South Buru District. Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews,” Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, vol. 8, no. 2, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Zacharias, M. A. Rahawarin, and Y. Yusriadi, “Cultural reconstruction and organization environment for employee performance,” Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 296–315, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gull, M. Imran, M. Yiunas, and M. Afzaal, “A descriptive study of challenges faced by English language teachers in integrating information and communication technology (ICT) tools at elementary level in Pakistan,” International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 290–305, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Neely, “Exploring the financial consequences of the servitization of manufacturing,” Operations Management Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103–118, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Carey, “Technology and ideology: the case of the telegraph,” Prospects, vol. 8, pp. 303–325, 1983.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Parkes, S. Stein, and C. Reading, “Student preparedness for university e-learning environments,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 25, pp. 1–10, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Soffer, “The internet and national solidarity: a theoretical analysis,” Communication Theory, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 48–66, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. A. H. Daha and M. Imran, “Teachers’ persona reflects in students’ personality: a case study of primary school level in the Sahiwal district, Pakistan,” Journal of Language and Cultural Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 64–94, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Graham, “Inequitable distributions in Internet geographies: the global south is gaining access, but lags in local content,” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, vol. 9, pp. 3–19, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. Fichman, “Real options and IT platform adoption: implications for theory and practice,” Information Systems Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 132–154, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. B. Triyono, “The Indicators of instructional design for e-learning in Indonesian vocational high schools,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 204, pp. 54–61, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Beech, H. Burns, L. de Caestecker, R. MacIntosh, and D. MacLean, “Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations,” Human Relations, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1313–1332, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Yusriadi Yusriadi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

801

Downloads

826

Citations