Implementation of Indonesia National Qualification Framework to Improve Higher Education Students: Technology Acceptance Model Approach

  • Dekeng Setyo BudiartoEmail author
  • Ratna Purnamasari
  • Yennisa
  • Surmayanti
  • Indrazno Siradjuddin
  • Arief Hermawan
  • Tutut Herawan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10961)


In order to face the global competition, graduates’ competence is nowadays problem faced by many higher learning institutions. This study is aimed to test students’ competence using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework. It tests the effect of perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) on behavior intention to use (BIU) and student’ competence. The data used is a primary data that was collected by distributing questionnaire to 128 students who use e-learning. The samples were selected using the convenience sampling method. The data obtained was evaluate both by reliability and validity tests, while the hypothesis was tested using multiple regression. The result shows that PU and PEU have significant effect on BIU, and furthermore BIU has significant effect on student’ competence (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor). It provides theoretical contribution that technology utilization can improve student’ competence.


Perceived usefulness Behavioral intention to use Cognitive Affective Psychomotor 


  1. 1.
    Rahyubi, H.: Teori-teori belajar dan aplikasi pembelajaran motorik; Deskripsi dan tinjauan kritis, Cetakan ke 2, Penerbit Nusa Media, Bandung (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budiarto, D.S.: Accounting information systems (AIS) alignment and non-financial performance in small firm. Int. J. Comput. Netw. 6(2), 15–25 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–339 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anormaliza, R., Sabate, F., Viejo, G.: Evaluating student acceptance level of e-learning system. In: Proceeding of ICERI 2015, Seville, Spain: pp. 2393–2399 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Constantiou, I.D., Mahnke, V.: Consumer behavior and mobile TV service: do men differ from women in their adoption intentions? J. Electr. Commer. Res. 11(2), 127–139 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Celik, H.E., Yilmaz, V.: Extending the technology acceptance model for adoption of e-shopping by consumer in turkey. J. Electr. Commer. Res. 12(2), 152–164 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Talukder, M., Quazi, A., Sathye, M.: Mobile phone banking usage behavior: an Australian perspective. Australas. Acc. Bus. Financ. J. 8(4), 83–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lane, M., Stagg, A.: University staff adoption of i pads: An empirical study using an extended Technology Acceptance Model. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 18(3), 53–73 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alharbi, S., Drew, S.: Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics behavioral intention to use learning management systems. Int. J. Adv. Comput Sci. Appl. 5(1), 143–155 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veloo, R., Masood, M.: Acceptance and intention to use the i-learn system in an automotive semiconductor company in the northern region of Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 116, 1378–1382 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucas Jr., Hendry, C., Spitler, V.K.: Technology use and performance: a field study of broker workstation. Decis. Sci. 30(2), 291–311 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buche, M.W., Davis, L.R., Vician, C.: Does technology acceptance affect e-learning in a non-technology intensive course. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 23(1), 42–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y., Hsu, C.N.: Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: supporting employee intentions to use e-learning systems. Educ. Technol. Soc. 14(4), 124–137 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peslak, A., Ceccucci, W., Bhatnagar, N.: Analysis of the variables that affect frequency of use and time spent on text messaging. Issues Inf. Syst. 13(1), 361–370 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Athanassiou, N., McNett, J.M., Harvey, C.: Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s Taxonomy as a learning tool. J. Manag. Educ. 27(5), 553–555 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, H., Chan, H., Gupta, S.: Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 43(1), 111–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore, T.: Toward an integrated model of it acceptance in healthcare. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 507–516 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Al-Adwan, Al-Adwan, A., Smedley, J.: Exploring students acceptance of e-learning using technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Inf. Commun. Technol. 9(2), 4–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rovai, A.P., Wighthing, M.J., Baker, J.D., Grooms, L.D.: Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education setting. Internet High. Educ. 12(1), 7–13 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bloom, B.S.: Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goalss. Longmans, Green, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adams, N.E.: Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 103(3), 151–153 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shepard, K.: Higher Education for Sustainability: Seeking affective learning outcomes. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9(1), 87–98 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, C.: Improving and enhancing performance in the affective domain of nursing students: insights from the literature for clinical educators. Contemp. Nurse 35(1), 2–17 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cazzell, M., Rodriguez, A.: Qualitative analysis of student beliefs and attitudes after an objective structured clinical evaluation: implications for affective domain learning in undergraduate nursing education. J. Nurs. Educ. 50(12), 711–714 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gunther, M., Alligood, M.R.: A discipline-specific determination of high quality nursing care. J. Adv. Nurs. 38(4), 353–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Merritt, R.D.: The psychomotor domain: Research Starter Education. Great Neck Publishing, NY (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    DeRouin, R.E., Fritzsche, B.A., Salas, E.: E-learning in organizations. J. Manag. 31(6), 920–940 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lau, S.H., Woods, P.: An investigation of user perception and attitudes toward learning object. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 39(4), 685–699 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Averdung, A., Wagenfuehrer, D.: Consumers acceptance, adoption and behavioral intention regarding environmentally sustainable innovations. E3 J. Bus. Manag. Econ. 2(3), 98–106 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ong, C.S., Lai, J.Y., Wang, Y.S.: Factors affecting engineers acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Inf. Manag. 14, 795–804 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goodhue, D., Thompson, R.L.: Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q. 19(2), 213–236 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu, T.K., Yu, T.Y.: Modeling the factors that affect individuals’ utilization of online learning systems: an empirical study combining the task technology fit model with the theory of planned behavior. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 41(6), 1003–1017 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zikmund, W.G.: Business research methods. The Dryden Press, Oak Brook (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research methods for business student, 5th edn. Person Education Limited, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis, L.R., Johnson, D.L., Vician, C.: Technology-mediated learning and prior academic performance. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2(4), 386–401 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Winkel, W.S.: Psikologi pengajaran, Edisi Lima belas, Penerbit Media Abadi, Yogyakarta (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee, E., Choi, Y.: A study of the antecedents and the consequences of social network service addition: a focus on organizational behaviors. Glob. Bus. Financ. Rev. 20(2), 83–93 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hair, J.R., William, C., Barry, J., Rolph, E.A.: Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Pearson (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: Assessing it usage: the role of prior experience. Manag. Inf. S. Q. 19(4), 561–570 (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Budiarto, D.S., Rahmawati, Prabowo, M.A.: Accounting information systems alignment and SMEs performance: A literature review. Int. J. Manag. Econ. Soc.Sci. 4(2), 58–70 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dekeng Setyo Budiarto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ratna Purnamasari
    • 1
  • Yennisa
    • 1
  • Surmayanti
    • 2
  • Indrazno Siradjuddin
    • 3
  • Arief Hermawan
    • 4
  • Tutut Herawan
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of AccountingUniversitas PGRI YogyakartaYogyakartaIndonesia
  2. 2.Universitas Putra Indonesia (YPTK)PadangIndonesia
  3. 3.State Polytechnic of MalangMalangIndonesia
  4. 4.Universitas Teknologi YogyakartaYogyakartaIndonesia
  5. 5.Universitas Negeri YogyakartaYogyakartaIndonesia
  6. 6.AMCS Research CenterYogyakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations