Bridging Conducting Pedagogy and Digital Technology: Teachers’ Perceptions and Adoption Intentions toward a Webcam-Based Hand-Tracking Trainer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i3.22368Keywords:
Conducting, Hand-Tracking, Real-Time Feedback, Technology Acceptance, Teacher Professional DevelopmentAbstract
This study aims to analyze teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness, ease of use, perceived learning, and adoption potential of the CONDUCT HandTrack Conducting Trainer a web application combining webcam hand-tracking, two-dimensional visualization, and real-time gesture scoring (perfect/good/miss) using the Technology Acceptance Model as an analytic lens. A descriptive quantitative approach complemented by qualitative data (embedded mixed-methods design) was applied to 21 teachers from teacher working groups (MGMP) in Subang Regency via a 56-item questionnaire (Likert 1–5). Descriptive analysis, Cronbach’s alpha reliability testing, Pearson correlation analysis, and thematic analysis showed perceived learning highest (mean 4.35; 96.2% agreement), followed by adoption potential (4.34) and training quality (4.22), while usability (ease of use) was lowest yet positive (3.83; α=0.83). Pearson correlations among constructs were strong (r=0.71–0.84; p<0.01), supporting the ease → usefulness → intention path indicatively at pilot scale. Application and training ratings were 4.76 and 4.48; all participants intended to pursue further training. The dominant barrier hand-detection accuracy explains the lower ease-of-use score, yet high perceived usefulness sustains adoption intention, a pattern consistent with utility-driven adoption. Theoretically, the study extends TAM and real-time-feedback evidence to in-service teachers on an embodied skill; practically, it guides the development of music-pedagogy technology toward tracking reliability, staged practice modes, and stakeholder-specific support.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Asbari, M., Purwanto, A., Wijayanti, L., Hyun, C. C., Kusumaningsih, S. W., & Bernarto, I. (2020). Pengaruh hard skills, soft skills dan mediasi budaya sekolah terhadap kapabilitas inovasi guru di Jawa Barat. Jurnal Kependidikan, 6(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v6i1.2320
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Fahn, C.-S., Lee, S.-E., & Wu, M.-L. (2019). Real-time musical conducting gesture recognition based on a dynamic time warping classifier using a single-depth camera. Applied Sciences, 9(3), 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9030528
Feng, Y. (2023). Design and research of music teaching system based on virtual reality system in the context of education informatization. PLOS ONE, 18(10), e0285331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285331
Fitriyani, Y., Fauzi, I., & Sari, M. (2020). Motivasi belajar mahasiswa pada pembelajaran daring selama pandemik Covid-19. Jurnal Kependidikan, 6(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v6i2.2654
Granić, A. (2022). Educational technology adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9725–9744.
Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
He, S., & Ren, Y. (2025). Exploring pre-service music teachers’ acceptance of generative artificial intelligence: A PLS-SEM-ANN approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1571279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1571279
He, X., & Wei, L. (2025). Real-time feedback enhances motor learning and motivation in youth team sports through augmented reality tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1661936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661936
Kelly, S. N. (1999). Using conducting gestures to teach music concepts: A review of research. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 18(1), 5–10.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.
Kristayulita, Hardiani, N., & Astuti, A. M. (2026). A comparative study of students’ attitudes toward mathematics in Southeast Asia: Evidence from Indonesia and Thailand. Jurnal Kependidikan, 12(2), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i2.2023 3
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.
Li, P. (2026). Music education with GenAI: Exploring the mediating roles of enjoyment between smart service interactional experience and behavioural intention. European Journal of Education, 61(1), e70423. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70423
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Nijs, L., & Leman, M. (2014). Interactive technologies in the instrumental music classroom: A longitudinal study with the Music Paint Machine. Computers & Education, 73, 40–59.
Rahmaningtyas, W., & Widiatami, A. K. (2026). Unpacking the link between work-integrated learning and graduate work readiness: The mediating role of student commitment. Jurnal Kependidikan, 12(2), 489–500.
https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i2.13022
Ramadhani S, R., Karwati, U., & Latifah, D. (2026). Vocal learning revolution: Student preferences in the digital platform era. Jurnal Kependidikan, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i2.20546
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
Sugiyono. (2022). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Suryani, A., Susetyo, B., Tarsidi, I., Uyun, H. Q., & Elsabagh, M. (2026). Fragmented AI adoption in Indonesian special education: An adaptive multi-layer iterative model for differentiated instruction in intellectual disability contexts. Jurnal Kependidikan, 12(2), 538–548. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i2.20277
Sutrisno, Ausat, A. M. A., Syamsuri, Pramono, S. A., Azzaakiyyah, H. K., & Shafiq, M. A. (2026). Entrepreneurship education and perceived economic opportunities as determinants of students’ entrepreneurial decisions: The mediating role of risk-taking behavior. Jurnal Kependidikan, 12(2), 501–512.
https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i2.20617
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440.
Umamah, N., Zulfikar, F., Hilmiah, A. S., Hartono, F. P., & Shodiq, P. B. A. (2025). Development of digital teaching materials based on differentiated learning assisted by artificial intelligence to improve students’ historical literacy. Jurnal Kependidikan, 11(3), 1043–1057. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v11i3.16735
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44(1), 75–84.
Xu, M. (2026). Selecting AI-enabled music learning technologies in higher education using AHP and TOPSIS. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43769-1
Zhang, X. (2025). What drives technology adoption in music education? A UTAUT2-based qualitative study of music teachers in Fujian, China. International Journal of Music Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614251393862
Zhang, X., King, A., & Prior, H. (2025). Attitudes before actions: How music teachers’ technological acceptance and competence shape technological behaviour in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1222.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities tacitly or explicitly of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JK agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
-
Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
