Virtual museums: a tool for studying traditional Indonesian musical instruments

Introduction. Immersive virtual reality has the potential to expand access to traditional musical instruments for a broader audience, including individuals who cannot directly master these instruments. Aim. The present paper aims to investigate teachers’ perceptions of the pedagogical affordances of the EduLaras Virtual Museum, a virtual museum of West Javanese musical instruments. Methodology and research methods. Thirty-two arts and culture teachers, selected through purposive sampling, completed a 37-item questionnaire based on the UTAUT and TPACK frameworks, as well as the standard System Usability Scale (SUS). They also responded to five open-ended questions following a trial session at the museum. Perceptions of the museum were assessed using three UTAUT constructs: performance expectancy (the belief that the museum would enhance work effectiveness), effort expectancy (the ease of learning and using the system), and social influence (perceived support from colleagues, management, and educational norms). The analysis included descriptive statistics of the ratings, evaluation of the SUS with internal consistency assessed as a pilot indicator, and qualitative content analysis of the open-ended responses. Results. All three UTAUT constructs – performance expectancy (M = 3.94, SD = 0.60), effort expectancy (M = 3.78, SD = 0.68), and social influence (M = 3.82, SD = 0.65) – exceeded the facilitating conditions for adopting the proposed technology. This suggests a strong perception of the museum’s usefulness and ease of use, as well as perceived support from significant others, whereas the organisational and technical infrastructure received lower ratings. The SUS score was high (M = 90.23, SD = 9.49; median = 92.50; range = 62.50–100; α = 0.938), with 21 participants scoring at least 90 and six achieving a perfect score of 100. This distribution indicates a pronounced ceiling effect. Qualitative analysis revealed that the most frequently cited benefits were instructional support (18/32) and engagement (15/32), while anticipated barriers included resources, access, and cost (23/32), as well as training and adaptation (13/32). Scientific novelty. A gap was identified between ease of use and readiness for adoption. Although the museum appeared easy to use during the introductory session, this did not necessarily indicate readiness to integrate it into the teaching process. Such readiness depended on organisational resources, pedagogical integration, and management support. Practical significance. The practical significance lies in the shared use of virtual reality equipment, the provision of short-term training and support when challenges arise, and the iterative testing of acoustic, rhythmic, and simulation activities.

1. Ling S.I. Music technology in the 21st century of global music education: opportunities and challenges. In: 14th Asia-Pacific Symposium for Music Education Research (APSMER 2023). 2023:242–251.

2. Asad M.M., Naz A., Churi P., Tahanzadeh M.M. Virtual reality as pedagogical tool to enhance experiential learning: a systematic literature review. Education Research International. 2021;2021:7061623 doi:10.1155/2021/7061623

3. Hu-Au E., Lee J.J. Virtual reality in education: a tool for learning in the experience age. International Journal of Innovation in Education. 2017;4(4):215–226. doi:10.1504/IJIIE.2017.091481

4. Makransky G., Andreasen N.K., Baceviciute S., Mayer R.E. Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a science simulation and generative learning strategies promote learn-ing in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021;113(4):719. doi:10.1037/edu0000473

5. Miharja D. Perilaku keberagamaan masyarakat Sunda Jawa Barat. Jurnal Perspektif. 2022;6(1):74–88. (In Indonesian) doi:10.15575/jp.v6i1.169

6. Hronček P., Gregorová B., Tometzová D., Molokáč M., Hvizdák L. Modeling of vanished historic mining landscape features as a part of digital cultural heritage and possibilities of its use in mining tourism (case study: Gelnica town, Slovakia). Resources. 2020;9(4):43. doi:10.3390/resources9040043

7. Skublewska-Paszkowska M., Milosz M., Powroznik P., Lukasik E. 3D technologies for intangible cultural heritage preservation – literature review for selected databases. Heritage Science. 2022;10(1). doi:10.1186/s40494-021-00633-x

8. Poux F., Valembois Q., Mattes C., Kobbelt L., Billen R. Initial user-centered design of a virtual reality heritage system: applications for digital tourism. Remote Sensing. 2020;12(16):2583. doi:10.3390/rs12162583

9. Zhang C., Duan L., Hu B., Xue Y., Cheng Y., Wang Y. Design and realization of the digital protection platform of traditional intangible cultural heritage based on virtual reality technology. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences. 2024;9(1):1–16. doi:10.2478/amns-2024-1225

10. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540

11. Moughal W., Nordin S. M., Salleh R., Abbasi H.A. Social networking sites for success: a UTAUT-based investigation into university employee performance enhancement. Business Management and Strategy. 2023;14(2):144–163. doi:10.5296/bms.v14i2.21369

12. Khechine H., Raymond B., Augier M. The adoption of a social learning system: intrinsic value in the UTAUT model. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2020;51(6):2306–2325. doi:10.1111/bjet.12905

13. Zhou L.L., Owusu-Marfo J., Asante Antwi H., Antwi M.O., Kachie A.D.T., Ampon-Wireko S. Assessment of the social influence and facilitating conditions that support nurses’ adoption of hospital electronic information management systems (HEIMS) in Ghana using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2019;19(230):1–9. doi:10.1186/s12911-019-0956-z.

14. Tong Z. An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for assessing student’s attitudes towards vocal music instruction. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. 2024. doi:10.1007/s40815-024-01807-y

15. Mishra P., Koehler M.J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006;108(6):1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

16. Cipta F., Sukmayadi Y., Milyartini R., Hardini T.I. Optimizing AI-powered music creation social media to amplify learning content. Jurnal Kependidikan: Jurnal Hasil Penelitian dan Kajian Kepustakaan di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran. 2024;10(3):881–892. doi:10.33394/jk.v10i3.12332

17. Stoilescu D. A critical examination of the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework: secondary school mathematics teachers integrating technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2015;52(4):514–547. doi:10.1177/0735633115572285

18. Latif M.M.A., Alhamad M.M. Emergency remote teaching of foreign languages at Saudi universities: teachers’ reported challenges, coping strategies and training needs. Education and Information Technologies. 2023;28(7):8919–8944. doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11512-8

19. Galla C.K. Digital realities of Indigenous language revitalization: a look at Hawaiian language technology in the modern world. Language and Literacy. 2018;20(3):100–120. doi:10.20360/langandlit29412

20. Petersen G.B., Petkakis G., Makransky G. A study of how immersion and interactivity drive VR learning. Computers & Education. 2022;179:104429. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104429

21. Lui M., McEwen R., Mullally M. Immersive virtual reality for supporting complex scientific knowledge: augmenting our understanding with physiological monitoring. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2020;51(6):2181–2199. doi:10.1111/bjet.13022

22. Kolb D.A., Boyatzis R.E., Mainemelis C. Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. In: Sternberg R.J., Zhang L.-F., eds. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. Routledge; 2014:227–247. doi:10.4324/9781410605986

23. Febriyani F., Sukmayadi Y. Pembelajaran seni musik sebelum, semasa, sesudah pandemi COVID-19 di SMP. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan. 2023;5(2):1440–1453. (In Indonesian) doi:10.31004/edukatif.v5i2.5246

24. Firmansyah M.B., Suchaina M.P. Model Pembelajaran Multimodal Bermuatan Ekonomi Kreatif: Panduan Praktis Pembelajaran Multimodal di Perguruan Tinggi. (In Indonesian) Pasuruan: Aqilian Publika; 2023. 158 p.

25. Lampropoulos G., Keramopoulos E., Diamantaras K., Evangelidis G. Augmented reality and virtual reality in education: public perspectives, sentiments, attitudes, and discourses. Education Sciences. 2022;12(11):798. doi:10.3390/educsci12110798

26. Nurjatisari T., Sukmayadi Y., Nugraheni T. Penguatan Profil Pelajar Pancasila melalui Kemasan Pertunjukan Seni pada Kurikulum Merdeka di Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini. 2023;7(4):4013–4024. (In Indonesian) doi:10.31004/obsesi.v7i4.4836

27. Ahmed M., Ragab H., Shaker S. Musical instruments as a source of inspiration in the design of the printed hanging of the school music room. Journal of Design Sciences and Applied Arts. 2021;2(2):204–210. doi:10.21608/jdsaa.2021.29831.1047

28. Li G., Lin S., Tian Y. Immersive museums in the digital age: Exploring the impact of virtual reality on visitor satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2024:1–34. doi:10.1007/s13132-024-01782-7

29. Pickard Z.F. Representing Difficult Histories in the Museum: Virtual and Augmented Reality as Tools for Communicating Difficult and Dissonant Histories. PhD Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh; 2022. 225 p.

30. Egea-Vivancos A., Arias-Ferrer L. Principles for the design of a history and heritage game based on the evaluation of immersive virtual reality video games. E-learning and Digital Media. 2021;18(4):383–402. doi:10.1177/2042753020980103

31. SullyCole A. Mandé Instruments at the Met Analyzing Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Context of an African Musical Instrument Collection in the Museum. PhD Dissertation. Columbia University; 2022. 396 p.

32. UNESCO, Indonesian Angklung. UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. UNESCO. Accessed October 02, 2025. https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/indonesian-angklung-00393

33. Hammady R. Virtual Guidance Using Mixed Reality in Historical Places and Museums. PhD Dissertation. Staffordshire University; 2019. 250 p.

34. Hutson J. Digital cultural heritage preservation. In: Art and Culture in the Multiverse of Metaverses: Immersion, Presence, and Interactivity in the Digital Age. Cham: Springer; 2024:99–141. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66320-8_4

35. Bollati I., Spanevello M. Museum, human archive, and technologies: digital serving oral culture. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum. 2022;15(2):97. doi:10.18848/1835-2014/CGP/v15i02/97-107

36. Bystrom K.E., Barfield W., Hendrix C. A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. 1999;8(2):241–244. doi:10.1162/105474699566107

37. Rafique H., Almagrabi A.O., Shamim A., Anwar F., Bashir A.K. Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education. 2020;145:103732. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732

38. Dwivedi Y.K., Rana N.P., Jeyaraj A., Clement M., Williams M.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers. 2019;21:719–734. doi:10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y

39. Cipta F., Sukmayadi Y., Milyartini R., Kholid D.M., Gunara S. Technological Pedagogical and Con-tent Knowledge (TPACK) integration in teaching music: a perception of high school music teacher. Jurnal Paedagogy. 2024;11(2):252–264. doi:10.33394/jp.v11i2.9624

40. Koehler M., Mishra P. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 2009;9(1):60–70.

41. Habibah A., Pujiarti D.A., Widyanti A., Soetisna H.R. The potential and challenges of virtual reality in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the Second Asia Pacific International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. 2021:2811–2819.

42. Jong M.S.Y., Tsai C.C., Xie H., Wong F.K.-K. Integrating interactive learner-immersed video-based virtual reality into learning and teaching of physical geography. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2020;51(6):2064–2079. doi:10.1111/bjet.12947

43. Reynolds W.M., Park S. Examining the relationship between the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment and preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2021;58(5):721–748. doi:10.1002/tea.21676

44. Chai C.S., Koh J.H.L., Tsai C.C. A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2013;16(2):31–51.

45. Lachner A., Backfisch I., Stürmer K. A test-based approach of modelling and measuring tech-nological pedagogical knowledge. Computers & Education. 2019;142:103645. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103645

46. Hamilton D., McKechnie J., Edgerton E., Wilson C. Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: a systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education. 2021;8:1–32. doi:10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2

47. Fransson G., Holmberg J., Westelius C. The challenges of using head mounted virtual reality in K–12 schools from a teacher perspective. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;25:3383–3404. doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10119-1

48. Bhagat K.K., Wang T., Jha N.K., Lampropoulos G. 360 VR (virtual reality) Educator: transforming teachers into interactive content creators. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2025;41(3):62–83. doi:10.14742/ajet.10145

49. Privitera A.G., Fontana F., Geronazzo M. The role of audio in immersive storytelling: a systematic review in cultural heritage. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2025;84:16105–16143. doi:10.1007/s11042-024-19288-4

50. Degli Innocenti E., Geronazzo M., Vescovi D., Nordahl R., Serafin S., Ludovico L.A., Avanzini F. Mobile virtual reality for musical genre learning in primary education. Computers & Education. 2019;139:102–117. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.010

51. Yu S., Liu Q., Johnson-Glenberg M.C., Han M., Ma J., Ba S., Wu L. Promoting musical instrument learning in virtual reality environment: effects of embodiment and visual cues. Computers & Education. 2023;198:104764. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104764

52. Bangor A., Kortum P.T., Miller J.T. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies. 2009;4(3):114–123.

53. Lewis J.R., Sauro J. The factor structure of the System Usability Scale. In: Kurosu M., ed. Human Centered Design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5619. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009:94–103. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12