The Influence of Leadership, Conscientiousness, Vision, and Openness on

the Performance of a Lecturer via Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge as Intervening Variable using Structural Equation Model

Sariyati, Sundari, Tety Elida, Budi Hermana

Universitas Gunadarma

Jalan Margonda Raya 100, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

tety@staff.gunadarma.ac.id, bhermana@staff.gunadarma.ac.id

Keywords: SOR model, Technological pedagogical, Conscientiousness, Openness

Abstract: The performance of lecturers in Indonesia is impacted upon by internal factors, such as individual factors of

lecturers, e.g. personality, and external factors including support from universities. This study employs an

SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) a model which acts as a link for stimulus factors that will impact

thelecturers’ behaviours which in turn affect their performance. The behaviours of lecturers are focused on

the application of pedagogy and technology in the discharge of their duties. Stimulus factors utilize four

variables, namely college vision and leadership as external factors, conscientiousness and openness as

internal factors. The variables of technological-pedagogy become mediator variables or organisms while

performance is a response factor which is divided into three latent variables, namely education, research,

and the performance of community service. This study employs questionnaire which has 8 variables that are

measured by Likert scale and analysed using Structural Equation Model. The respondents were 101

lecturers from 5 private universities outside Java who took part in the PTS coaching program paid for by the

Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education. The result of SEM testing indicates that the most

significant stimulus factor for pedagogical-technological mastery is openness with a path coefficient

value of 0.50.

1 INTRODUCTION

The role played by lecturers in universities is very

significant because they are the major actors in the

process of knowledge transformation to their

students. Their performance is a major determinant

of the quality of university education programs

(Anra and Yamin, 2017). According to the Law of

the Republic of Indonesia Number 14 of 2005,

lecturers are professional educators and scientists

whose main tasks are to transform, develop, and

disseminate science, technology and art via

education, research and community service. With

reference to 2017 statistics on higher education

issued by the Ministry of Research, Technology and

Higher Education, the number of lecturers in

Indonesia was 247269 with 173662 of them teaching

in Private Universities and 73606 of them teaching

in State Universities. The number of lecturers varies

in accordance with the level of education and

functional position. Indonesia is still faced with the

problems relating to the performance of lecturers

(Sukirno, 2017).

The performance of lecturers is also impacted

upon by institutional factor. Augustus, et al. (2005)

reported that leadership is a very vital success factor

to sustain quality improvement and performance in

university. Also, leadership is intimately related to

the vision of the university which incorporates two

of the 11 critical factors involved in the

implementation of total quality management in

universities (Asif et al, 2013).

With reference to the European Commission

(2014), leadership and strategic vision are required

to better engage staff to exploit the potential of

different new models of teaching and learning.

Integrating new technology as well as pedagogy

requires being placed at the center of institutional

teaching and learning strategies and have to be an

integral part of daily activities in universities.

Livingston et al. (2017) stated that a major factor in

Sariyati, ., Sundari, ., Elida, T. and Hermana, B.

The Inﬂuence of Leadership, Conscientiousness, Vision, and Openness on the Performance of a Lecturer Via Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as Intervening Variable using

Structural Equation.

DOI: 10.5220/0008896700180024

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2018), pages 18-24

ISBN: 978-989-758-439-8

pedagogy is developing different approaches which

can work in different local and national contexts.

The technological development and innovation

in education, particularly the application of

information and communication technology, needs

to be looked forward to by lecturers to ensure that

they are used in the learning process. This

information age is a period of knowledge which

provides a number of strong and incomparable

potentials for discovery, communication,

information exchange, and exploration which is

capable of strengthening both processes of teaching

and learning (Husain and Safdar, 2008). Research

regarding the use of innovative information and

communication technologies for academic purposes

is also advancing rapidly (Glowatz and O'Brien,

2017). Different frameworks or models on the

application of technology by lecturers are broadly

studied, including the Technological Pedagogical

and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. In the

words of Koehler and Mishra (2009), the model is

an understanding which arises from the interaction

among content, pedagogy, as well as technological

knowledge.

The performance of the lecturer is also impacted

upon by personality factors. These factors are

predictors which play a vital role for lecturers

(Hakim and Fernandes, 2017). This study analyzes

the effect of institutional factors and individual

factors on the performance of teaching, research, and

community service through TPACK using structural

equation models. Particularly, the respondents who

come from universities that are included in the 3T

area are one of the urgencies of this research so that

the challenges or problems faced by lecturers in the

region can be identified through them. Through the

mastery of technology, pedagogy, and content from

their disciplines, lecturers can improve the

performance of Tri Dharma University.



2 METHOD

Research respondents were 101 lecturers who

worked in 5 private universities outside Java, which

are two academies in the province of West

Kalimantan and three universities in the province of

North Maluku. The university is an institution which

is included in the coaching program paid for by the

Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher

Education in 2018. The questionnaire measures 8

variables which comprise four predictor variables,

one mediator variable, and three endogenous

variables. The theoretical model which influences

the relationship of the research variable is the S-O-R

(Stimulus-Organism-Response) model. Individual

and institutional factors are stimulus, TPACK is an

organism, and the performance of lecturers is a

response. The reliability and validity of quizzers

were tested using Cronbach Alpha and Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin. The hypothesis of the research was

tested by Structural Equation Model, including

determining the direct and indirect impacts of four

exogenous variables on the performance of lecturers

through TPACK variables.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Reliability and Validity

The aim of the first stage of this research is to

develop the instruments of research and test models

on university lecturers outside Java, particularly

those in the 3T region or clusters 3 or 4 based on the

rank of universities made available by the Ministry

of Research, Technology and Higher Education in

2018. Testing of reliability and validity was

undertaken before the distribution of questionnaire

to lecturers from five universities. The results of

complete reliability and validity testing are shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: Reliability and Validity.

o. Variable Ite

Alpha KMO Keteran

1. Leadership 13 0.920 0.902 Three invalid items (L8, L9 and L11)

2. Vision 6 0.905 0.825 An unreliable item (V6)

3. Conscientiousness 6 0.822 0.814 An unreliable item (C6)

4. Openness 6 0.800 0.720 All items are valid and reliable

5. TPACK 5 0.790 0.657 One invalid and unreliable item (T5)

6. Teachin

Performance 7 0.911 0.885 One invalid and unreliable item (TP3)

7. Research Performance 9 0.855 0.784 An invalid item (RP5)

The Performance of Pu

lic Services

6 0.904 0.867 An unreliable item (PP1)

The Inﬂuence of Leadership, Conscientiousness, Vision, and Openness on the Performance of a Lecturer Via Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge as Intervening Variable using Structural Equation

3.2 Variable Description

Some of the descriptions of research variables are

closely related to the demographics of respondents

which are presented in Figure 1.



a. Performance and certification b. Personality, TPACK, and academic

position



c.Personality, TPACK, and Gender d.Performance and academic

position

Figure 1: Research Variables and Demographics of the Respondent.

Female lecturers have a tendency to show higher

conscientiousness but lower openness than male

lecturers. Comparison of the performance of

lecturer reveals that certified lecturer manifest

higher research performance than those who have

not been certified. It has not been established

whether lecturers from the field of engineering

have higher TCAPK than lecturers from the social

and humanities fields.

3.3 Structural Model

The testing of research hypothesis is done using

structural equation model analysis and the

estimation results for the standardized model are

presented in Figure 2.

ICTL 2018 - The 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning



Figure 2: Standardized Model.

The empirical model of this study has a goodness

of fit which is not good if the parameters CMIN,

RMSEA, CFI, and FMIN are used and is quite

good if the parameters AIC and ECVI are used.

The outcomes of the measurement of the full

goodness of fit parameter are shown in Table2

below.



Table 2: Model fit of TQM.

No. Statistics Independence Model Default Model Saturated Model

1. CMIN 4667.820 2241.402 0

2. CFI 0 0.674 1.000

3. FMIN 46.678 22.414 0

4. RMSEA 0.168 0.100 -

5. AIC 4765.820 2549.402 2548.000

6. ECVI 47.658 25.494 25.480

The Inﬂuence of Leadership, Conscientiousness, Vision, and Openness on the Performance of a Lecturer Via Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge as Intervening Variable using Structural Equation

Institutional factor which has a very significant

influence on TPACK is vision. The aforementioned

results are in line with the research of Asif et al

(2013) which stated that institutional vision is

among the critical factors needed for the

implementation of total quality management in

universities. Five universities have made vision

statements in the strategic plan document, even

though the level of socialization or internalization

varies. Development of facilities for ICT-based

learning models has also become a strategic program

of each university, but resource constraints are a cog

in the wheel of the operational level. Mission and

vision, are then translated into programs and

aligning between individual goals and institutional

goals. This is the essence of the significant

relationship between TPACK and vision which

further affects the performance of individuals whose

aggregates become institutional performance.

The influence of significant openness on TPACK

is positive, which implies that the open attitude of

the lecturer to the new experience will raise

TPACK. This experience in the context of research

with the TPACK framework is the use of learning

innovations or technology which can promote the

success of the learning process. This influence backs

up the research of Pouratashi and Zamani (2017)

who tested two psychological characteristics,

namely agreeableness and conscientiousness while

the third has a significant influence on the direction

of a positive relationship to the performance of

lecturer research. The difference with this research is

that the conscientiousness variable does not directly

influence the performance of the research, but

indirectly through TPACK.

The influences of insignificant leadership vary

from those of Suryaman (2018) which stated that

leadership, together with job satisfaction,

motivation, and organizational commitment, has a

significant influence on the performance of a

lecturer.. The difference is likely to be due to the

relatively poor institutional performance manifested

by most of its study programs accredited C,

including clusters 3 and 4 based on the ranking of

ministries, and in the 3T region. The condition of the

five universities informed the government's decision

that those universities should engage in a coaching

program which it financed.

TPACK has a very significant influence on

lecturers’ performance, including the performance in

the field of research, teaching, and community

service. The structural model is presented in table 3.

The effect of TPACK on the performance in

teaching is relatively greater than the effect of

TPACK on the performance in research and

community service. This difference was due to the

fact that the TPACK framework was focused

initially on the training process or education. Also,

this research does not specifically and clearly

mention the type of technology used in supporting

research, teaching, as well as community service.

Table 3: Hypothesis test.

No. Relation Estimate S.E. C.R. P information

1. Vision to TPACK 0.314 0.120 2.617 0.009 Effect

2. Leadership to TPACK 0.095 0.083 1.148 0.251 No effect

3. Openness to TPACK 0.636 0.180 3.534 0.000 Effect

4. Conscientiousness to TPACK -0.088 0.122 -0.721 0.471 No effect

TPACK to Teaching

Performance

0.845 0.126 6.722 0.000 Effect

TPACK to Research

Performance

0.470 0.177 2.658 0.008 Effect

TPACK to Service

Performance

0.542 0.172 3.144 0.002 Effect

ICTL 2018 - The 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning

Institutional factors which have not influenced

TPACK require an in-depth study of other factors.

However, from the results of field observations

during the coaching program and the dissemination

of research quizener, technology facilities and ICT,

it was not sufficient enough to create a conducive

academic atmosphere. It is surprising to note that

three of the five colleges have no official website.

Although there are two other universities which

already have adequate ICT facilities and e-learning

facilities, the use of them by lecturers has not been

massively and systematically done. As stated by

Dysart and Weckerle (2015), when technology

support to lecturers is undertaken centrally, it is not

followed by simultaneous professional development

from the other two sides, pedagogy and content

knowledge. Whereas, the TPACK framework is an

integration of the three domains: technology,

pedagogy, and content knowledge. Technology

facilities will not be effective in supporting the role

of lecturers in the implementation of Tridharma in

higher education if there is availability of modern

technology facilities without considering

pedagogical aspects and mastery of content and

discipline of knowledge from lecturers.

A significant implication of this research is the

significant role of the lecturer in integrating the use

of technology which supports their duties in

universities by considering the pedagogical aspects

and the knowledge in accordance with scientific

fields. This integration facilitates the achievement of

individual performance, which is ultimately the

achievement of college performance. The success of

achieving institutional and individual goals requires

a vision and strengthening of leadership at the

university level, and supported by the individual

characteristics of the lecturer such as the nature of

openness to new experiences in learning innovation.

The balance between individual performance

achievement and institutional performance is an

important role of lecturers, including proportionally

balancing the duties of the university's tridharma.

According to Quiambao et al. (2016), lecturers play

a very vital role in improving and sustaining

academic excellence in higher educational

institutions because they are people who are

responsible for executing tasks which are directly

related to institutional objectives.

4 CONCLUSION

Institutional factors and individual factors jointly

serve as an incentive to raise technological

capability in supporting the role of lecturers, but the

level of integration among pedagogy, technology

and relative knowledge content still varies among

lecturers. This difference is as a result of the support

of individual factors and different institutional

factor, which are the components of the stimulus in

the SOR model. Institutional factor with significant

influence is vision, while the individual factor with

significant influence is Openness. Other individual

factors, such as conscientiousness, and institutional

factors of leadership, have no influence on TPACK.

The level of integration of the Pedagogic-

Technological-Content then influences the

performance of the Tridharma lecturer, including

research performance, teaching performance, and

community service performance.

The goodness of fit of the structural equation

model which is regarded as poor is thought to be

with relatively heterogeneous sample and the

number of respondents is relatively small. Future

research will expand the area covered by the

research via the inclusion of several universities on

the island of Java. The status of higher education

was expanded including lecturers from state

universities, in Java Island. Differences in the status

and size of universities will be examined for the

impact of the research variables by considering the

characteristics of the college as a moderator. Other

moderator variables which can be studied further as

moderators are the demographic characteristics of

the respondents.

REFERENCES

Anra, Y. and Yamin, M. (2017). Relationships between

Lecturer Performance, Organizational Culture,

Leadership, and Achievement Motivation. Foresight

and STI Governance, vol. 11, no 2, pp. 92–97.

Asif, M., M.U. Awan, M.K. Khan, and N. Ahmad. (2013).

A Model for Total Quality Management in Higher

Education. Quality&Quantity International Journal of

Methodology, 47: 1883-1904.

Augustus, E.O.A., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W.D.

(2005). Leadership Best Practises for Sustaining

Quality in UK Higher Education from The

Perspectives of The EFQM Excellence Model. Quality

Assurance in Education, vol.13, issue 2, pp.194-201.

Dysart, S., and Weckerle, C. (2015). Professional

Development in Higher Education: A model for

meaningfultechnology integration. Journal of

Information Technology Education: Innovations in

Practice, 14, 255-265

European Commission. (2014). Report to The European

Commission on New Modes of Learning and

The Inﬂuence of Leadership, Conscientiousness, Vision, and Openness on the Performance of a Lecturer Via Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge as Intervening Variable using Structural Equation

Teaching in Higher Education. High Level Group on

the Modernisation of Higher Education, May 2014.

Glowatz, M. and O’Brien, O. (2017). Academic

Engagement and Technology: Revisiting the

Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

Framework (TPACK) in Higher Education (HE): The

Academics’. IAFOR Journal of Education, Vol. 5

(Special Issue), pp. 133-159.

Hakim, W. And Fernandes, A. (2017). Moderation Effect

of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on The

Performance of Lecturers. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, Vol. 30 Issue: 7, pp.1136-1148.

Hussain, I. and Safdar, M. (2008). Role of Information

Technologies In Teaching Learning Process:

Perception of the Faculty. Turkish Online Journal of

Distance Education-TOJDE, Vol.9, No. 2, pp.46-56.

Koehler, M.J and Mishra, P. (2009). What is

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Livingston, K., Schweisfurth, M., Brace, G., and Nash, M.

(2017). Why Pedagogy Matters: The role of pedagogy

in Education 2030. UNESCO, A policy advice paper,

May 2017.

Pouratashi, M. and Zamani, A. (2017). How Faculty

Members’ Personality Traits Influence their Education

Research Performance. New Educational Review,

vol.50, no. 4, pp.70-82.

Quiambao, R.D., Pacho, E.M., and Alambra, R.V.E.

(2016). Faculty Performance Model Using Structural

Equation Modelling (SEM). International Journal of

Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 6,

pp. 624-631.

Sukirno. (2017). Modeling Academic Professional

Performance in Higher Education. International

Journal of Environmental & Science Education, vol.

12, no. 8, pp.1689-1708.

Suryaman. (2018). Indonesian Private University Lecturer

Performance Improvement Model to Improve a

Sutainable Organization Performance. International

Journal of Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp.59-68.

ICTL 2018 - The 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning