Integrating cultural dimensions into a cognitive affective model for LMS user satisfaction in Indonesia’s higher education institution

Authors

  • Melati Salma Department of Industrial Engineering, Institut Teknologi Kalimantan, Balikpapan 76127, Indonesia; Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
  • Ari Widyanti Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Hudzaly Hatala Department of Industrial Engineering, Institut Teknologi Kalimantan, Balikpapan 76127, Indonesia
  • Eka Pratiwi Briant Pakiding Department of Industrial Engineering, Institut Teknologi Kalimantan, Balikpapan 76127, Indonesia
  • Ilham Darmawan Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani, Bandung 40285, Indonesia
  • Laila Nafisah Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31315/opsi.v19i1.16832

Keywords:

Cognitive-affective , Cultural dimensions, Indonesian higher education, Learning management system , PLS-SEM

Abstract

This study investigates how cultural dimensions are integrated into a cognitive-affective model to explain user satisfaction with Learning Management System (LMS) interfaces in Indonesian higher education. Using PLS-SEM with data from 348 university students across Indonesia, the study examined the effects of cognitive factors, affective factors, and cultural dimensions on satisfaction. The results show that Classical Aesthetic significantly influences Efficiency (β = 0.755, t = 29.767, p < 0.05), Expressive Aesthetic (β = 0.752, t = 32.485, p < 0.05), and Satisfaction (β = 0.185, t = 2.559, p = 0.011). Efficiency positively affects Effectiveness (β = 0.744, t = 25.889, p < 0.05) and Satisfaction (β = 0.298, t = 4.667, p < 0.05), while Effectiveness also contributes to Satisfaction (β = 0.273, t = 4.684, p < 0.05). Expressive Aesthetic strongly predicts Playfulness (β = 0.804, t = 37.624, p < 0.05), but Playfulness does not meaningfully affect Satisfaction (β = 0.066, t = 1.364, p = 0.172). Power Distance has a significant positive effect on Satisfaction (β = 0.183, t = 3.306, p = 0.001), whereas Collectivism shows no substantial influence (β = –0.068, t = 1.694, p = 0.09). Overall, the findings suggest that LMS interfaces in Indonesia should prioritize efficient navigation, structured aesthetics, and clear hierarchical organization aligned with high power distance culture, providing practical insights for culturally responsive LMS design.

References

[1] M. A. Camilleri & A. C. Camilleri, “The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1311–1333, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y.

[2] M. M. Navarro, Y. T. Prasetyo, M. N. Young, R. Nadlifatin, & A. A. Redi, “The Perceived Satisfaction in Utilizing Learning Management System among Engineering Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Integrating Task Technology Fit and Extended Technology Acceptance Model,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 19. p. 10669, 2021. doi: 10.3390/su131910669.

[3] N. Cavus, Y. B. Mohammed, & M. N. Yakubu, “Determinants of Learning Management Systems during COVID-19 Pandemic for Sustainable Education,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 9. p. 5189, 2021. doi: 10.3390/su13095189.

[4] W. Wagiran, S. Suharjana, M. Nurtanto, & F. Mutohhari, “Determining the e-learning readiness of higher education students: A study during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 10, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11160.

[5] N. Hanoum & H. Silvana, “Instructional Needs Analysis and Cultural Values in Online Learning,” Int. J. Educ., vol. 12, pp. 9–15, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.17509/ije.v12i1.17776.

[6] A. Wibowo et al., “A comprehensive usability study of 3D printing slicer software: Integrating SUS, USE questionnaire, and key UX dimensions,” OPSI, vol. 18, pp. 321–336, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.31315/opsi.v18i2.15537.

[7] H. Aldabbas, A. M. Elamin, A. Z. E. Ahmed, & L. Gernal, “Assessing Learning Management System success in the UAE universities: how quality measures linked to students’ academic performance,” Front. Educ., vol. Volume 10-2025, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1554641.

[8] R. Al-Maroof et al., “The Effectiveness of Online Platforms after the Pandemic: Will Face-to-Face Classes Affect Students’ Perception of Their Behavioural Intention (BIU) to Use Online Platforms?,” Informatics, vol. 8, p. 83, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.3390/informatics8040083.

[9] T. Lavie & N. Tractinsky, “Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 269–298, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002.

[10] W. Gao, J. Jiang, & Y. Tang, “The effect of blended learning platform and engagement on students’ satisfaction: the case from the tourism management teaching,” J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ., vol. 27, p. 100272, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100272.

[11] S. Balkaya & U. Akkucuk, “Adoption and Use of Learning Management Systems in Education: The Role of Playfulness and Self-Management,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 3. p. 1127, 2021. doi: 10.3390/su13031127.

[12] M. Salma & A. Widyanti, “Cognitive-Affective Model of Perceived User Satisfaction (CAMPUS) on the Design of E-Learning Interface: A Literature Review,” in Proceedings of the 6th Asia Pacific Conference on Manufacturing Systems and 4th International Manufacturing Engineering Conference, Springer Nature Singapore, Sep. 2023, pp. 549–558. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-1245-2_51.

[13] C. K. Coursaris & W. van Osch, “A Cognitive-Affective Model of Perceived User Satisfaction (CAMPUS): The complementary effects and interdependence of usability and aesthetics in IS design,” Inf. Manag., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 252–264, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.10.003.

[14] H. Nordin, D. Singh, Z. Mansor, & E. Yadegaridehkordi, “Impact of Power Distance Cultural Dimension in E-Learning Interface Design Among Malaysian Generation Z Students,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, p. 1, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3183117.

[15] G. Hofstede & M. Minkov, “Value Survey Module,” Tech. Rep, no. May, pp. 1–17, 2013.

[16] J. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. Danks, & S. Ray, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A workbook. Springer US, 2021.

[17] J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, & M. Sarstedt, Review of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook, vol. 30, no. 1. New York: Springer, 2021. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2022.2108813.

[18] B. Bervell & I. N. Umar, “Blended learning or face-to-face? Does Tutor anxiety prevent the adoption of Learning Management Systems for distance education in Ghana?,” Open Learn. J. Open, Distance e-Learning, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 159–177, May 2020, doi: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1548964.

[19] A. Bossman & S. Agyei, “Technology and Instructor Dimensions, e-Learning Satisfaction, and Academic Performance of Distance Students in Ghana,” Heliyon, vol. 8, p. e09200, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09200.

[20] C. Grothaus & O. Zawacki-Richter, “Collaborative Online Learning in the Cultural Context of South East Asia: A Systematic Review,” Hacettepe Univ. J. Educ., pp. 1–20, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2020062020.

[21] J. Usman, Z. Zainuddin, T. Zulfikar, D. Lugendo, & Y. Yusuf, “When online learning and cultural values intersect: Indonesian EFL students’ voices,” Issues Educ. Res., vol. 32, p. 2022, Oct. 2022.

[22] P. Ifinedo, J. Pyke, & A. Anwar, “Business undergraduates’ perceived use outcomes of Moodle in a blended learning environment: The roles of usability factors and external support,” Telemat. Informatics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 93–102, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.001.

[23] A. Tarhini, K. Hone, X. Liu, & T. Tarhini, “Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: a structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 306–328, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635.

[24] M. Aparicio, F. Bação, & T. Oliveira, “Cultural impacts on e-learning systems’ success,” Internet High. Educ., vol. 31, pp. 58–70, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.003.

[25] D. Pal & S. Patra, “University Students’ Perception of Video-Based Learning in Times of COVID-19: A TAM/TTF Perspective,” Int. J. Human–Computer Interact., vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 903–921, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2020.1848164.

[26] A. Widyanti & J. Park, “e-Learning readiness and perceived learning workload among students in an Indonesian university Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Indonesia,” Knowl. Manag. E -Learning, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 18–29, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/article/view/431

Downloads

Published

2026-07-30

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 1 (2026): OPSI - June 2026

Section

Article

License

Authors who publish articles in this journal agree to the following conditions:

  1. Copyright remains with the author and gives the Opsi journal the right as a priority to publish its articles with Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Which allows articles to be shared with acknowledgement of the author of the article and this journal as the place of publication.
  2. Authors can distribute their articles on a non-exclusive basis (e.g. in university repositories or books) with notification or acknowledgement of publication in Opsi journals.
  3. Authors are allowed to post their work online (e.g. on a personal website or in a university repository) before and after the submission process (see The Effect of Open Access)
 

Lisensi Creative Commons

This work is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Most read articles by the same author(s)