Analysis of Acceptance Factor in Education Technology Industry: Case Study of Aku Pintar

This research was motivated by the high number of wrong majors experienced by students in Indonesia. Along with the development of technology and because the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has

Penelitian ini di latarbelakangi oleh masih banyaknya salah jurusan yang dialami oleh mahasiswa di Indonesia.Seiring dengan perkembangan teknologi dan karena pandemi COVID-19 yang sedang berlangsung telah mempercepat "New Normal" di bidang pendidikan, kini Edtech telah sampai pada tahap membantu pelajar dalam memilih jurusan sesuai potensi dan minat bakatnya.Guna meningkatkan ketepatan dan kemudahan pelajar dalam mencari jurusan sesuai potensi dan minat bakatnya, maka akan dicari tahu faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penerimaan aplikasi EdTech dalam memilih jurusan dengan studi kasus aplikasi Aku Pintar.Namun terdapat berbagai faktor yang belum diketahui mengenai tingkat pencapaian dan penerimaan pengguna Tes Penjurusan pada aplikasi Aku Pintar.Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penelitian ini ingin mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor penerimaan tes penjurusan pada aplikasi Aku Pintar.Penelitian ini menggunakan model keberhasilan informasi yang telah dimodifikasi dengan menambahkan variabel dari rekomendasi penelitian sebelumnya.Pada penelitian ini menggunakan variabel sebagai berikut: kualitas informasi, kualitas sistem, kualitas layanan, kepuasan pengguna, niat menggunakan, dan manfaat bersih.Metode pengumpulan data menggunakan survei online melalui Google Form.Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis data dari smartPLS.Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi keberhasilan pelaksanaan tes penjurusan pada aplikasi Aku Pintar adalah kualitas informasi, kualitas layanan, niat menggunakan, kepuasan pengguna dan manfaat bersih.accelerated the "New Normal" in the field of education, it has now Edtech reached the stage of helping students in choosing a major according to their potential and talent interests.To improve the accuracy and ease of students finding majors according to their potential and talent interests, we would find out the factors that influence the acceptance of EdTech applications in selecting majors with a case study of the Aku Pintar application.However, there were various unknown factors regarding the level of achievement and acceptance of Majoring Test users in the Aku Pintar application.Based on this, this study wanted to identify the factors of acceptance of the major's selection test in the Aku Pintar application.This study used the information success model which had been modified by adding variables from previous research recommendations.The variables used are information quality, system quality, service quality, user satisfaction, intention to use, and net benefit.The data collection method used an online survey via Google Forms.This research used a data analysis method from smartPLS.The results of the analysis showed that the factors that influence the success of the implementation of the major selection test in the Aku Pintar application were information quality, service quality, intention to use, user satisfaction, and net benefits.

INTRODUCTION
This research was motivated by the high number of wrong majors experienced by students in Indonesia.Along with the development of technology and because the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the "New Normal" in the field of education, it has now Edtech reached the stage of helping students in choosing a major according to their potential and talent interests.To improve the accuracy and ease of students finding majors according to their potential and talent interests, we would find out the factors that influence the acceptance of EdTech applications in selecting majors with a case study of Aku Pintar, the most complete educational application in Indonesia that presents an educational ecosystem to help students from subject matter to solutions to determine their interests, talents, majors, and future careers.In a selection process, students experience confusion in determining the appropriate major.Not all students and students are satisfied with the choice of majors they take.According to Rahmawati (2017), choosing the wrong major could create academic stressors for students.This can trigger reactions to students' thoughts, body reactions, behaviors, and feelings (Rahmadani, 2014).The impact of the reactions that appear is the emergence of feelings of anxiety, depression, and despair.The choice of majors requires careful consideration for students because this is an important thing for college and school life, but in fact, there are still many students who have difficulty choosing the wrong major.This shows that students are not yet massive in utilizing the Edtech application in finding the right major.According to Guntur in Harahap (2014), it is stated that 87% of students in Indonesia have majors in higher education.Guntur from Integrity Development Flexibility (IDF) an Educational Psychologist added that the wrong choice of major in higher education can lead to unemployment, so students should carefully consider the majors to be chosen (Harahap, 2014).
To improve the accuracy and ease of students finding majors according to their potential and talent interests, we would find out what factors affect the acceptance of EdTech applications in selecting majors with a case study of the Aku Pintar application.However, there were various unknown factors regarding the level of achievement and acceptance of Majoring Test users in the Aku Pintar application.Therefore, in this study, an analysis will be carried out to find out what factors affect acceptance on the major's selection test in the Aku Pintar application.Through this study, it is expected to know the level of user acceptance of the Edtech programs in the Selection of Majors, as well as to estimate the level of utilization.According to DeLone & McLean (2003), if the level of user acceptance is high, it can be ascertained that the level of utilization of technology is also high and it can be said that the implementation of the Major Selection application is said to be successful.
Therefore, in this study, an analysis of user acceptance of the Edtech application in the Selection of Majors will be carried out.It is hoped that this research will get an overview of the success of the Department Selection feature based on the user's perspective in the Aku Pintar application.The hypothesis of what factors influence the acceptance level of the Majoring Test on the Edtech application with Aku Pintar case study, including the desired system quality that is according to user need, which is easy to use, and recommendations and analysis of the suitability of the majors, the primacy of the information service provided, the primacy of service which not disappointed or meets user expectations, how often they use, satisfaction in using the Majoring Test, as well as the benefits received by users.
The following is the initial hypothesis of the study: 1. H1: The initial hypothesis of intention to use is positively influenced by the quality of the information in the Aku Pintar major selection test.2. H2: The initial hypothesis of intention to use is positively influenced by service quality in the Aku Pintar major selection test.3. H3: The initial hypothesis of intention to use is positively influenced by system quality in the Aku Pintar major selection test.4. H4: The initial hypothesis is that user satisfaction is positively influenced by information quality in the Aku Pintar major selection test. 5. H5: The initial hypothesis of user satisfaction is positively influenced by the intention to use the Aku Pintar major selection test.6. H6: The initial hypothesis is that user satisfaction is positively influenced by service quality in the Aku Pintar major selection test.7. H7: The initial hypothesis is that user satisfaction is positively influenced by system quality in the Aku Pintar major selection test.8. H8: The initial hypothesis of net benefit is positively influenced by the intention to use the Aku Pintar major selection test.9. H9: The initial hypothesis of net benefit is positively influenced by user satisfaction in the Aku Pintar major selection test.

Literature Review
The model used in this study is the information system success model, which identifies what factors influence the success of receiving information.This model has been applied to several categories such as government, education, and business based on technology as the basis of its services.This Model is also the most frequently applied user acceptance study model to research the adoption of information technology.According to Chomchalao & Naenna (2013), this Model developed by DeLone & McLean (1992) "is a theoretical model used to explain the success of information systems based on 6 dimensions, namely: information quality, system quality, IS use, user satisfaction, individual impact and organizational impact which could be seen in Figure 1.2016) and Syamsuddin (2016).The Net Benefit (NB) variable was chosen in this study because according to DeLone & McLean (2003), this variable could describe the success of the information system, "that net benefits occur as a result of the use and satisfaction of information system users".This shows that following the author's goal of knowing the success in implementing the major selection test on the Aku Pintar application and the factors that influence it.This study also refers to the research of Stefanovic et al. (2016), using the point of view of the net benefits (NB) perceived by Aku Pintar application users as end users who have used major selection tests to help students find majors that match their potential and interests.Based on the research objectives and the selection of variables and relationships following previous research recommendations, the authors form a theoretical framework of research that can be seen in Figure 2 and the relationship between variables which will be explained.It could be seen that there are 2 types of variables by referring to the definition by Ghozali & Fuad (2014): a.The dependent factor, commonly called endogenous, is a type of factor that can be influenced by the presence of other variables in a model.In this study, the dependent/endogenous factors are user satisfaction, net benefit, and intention to use.b.The independent factor, commonly called exogenous, is a type of factor that is not influenced by the presence of other factors.In this study, the independent/exogenous factors are system quality, system quality variable, and service quality.
The stages of analysis and processing of PLS-SEM data in this study consisted of conceptualizing the model, making path diagrams, assessing the outer model, and assessing the model or commonly called the inner model.

Path Diagram Creation
At this stage, the conceptual model in the form of a theoretical framework is stated in the form of a diagram to model the relationship between variables and the indicators to be tested.There are 6 (six) latent variables and 25 indicator factors in this research, the latent factors consist of 3 (three) independent/exogenous latent factors namely SQ, IQ, and SV, and 3 (three) endogenous latent variables namely IU, US, and NB.The making of this research path diagram uses the help of the smart PLS version 3 application, but before making the path diagram, data processing is carried out first through Microsoft excel, the title of each question item is changed to an indicator code that has been determined according to the design in the research questionnaire described in Chapter 3, then the data is entered into smart PLS and the indicator display will appear, then the author draws the constructs and maps the indicators to each construct according to its place, and connects the variables according to the theoretical framework of the research as in Figure 3.

Convergent Validity Test
Ghozali & Latan (2012) asserts, "to measure convergent validity, you can use the loading factor (outer loading) parameter with a minimum score of 0.7 and the average variance extracted (AVE) parameter with a minimum value of 0.5".The outer loading value that is fulfilled indicates that the defined indicator can form a construct, if this value is not met, then deletion is carried out and the adjusted model is recalculated.The results of this outer loading can be seen in Table 1.
As can be seen in the table, it can be ascertained that from the respecification of stage one, all indicator variables have met the valid requirements, namely > 0.7, then after the loading factor or outer loading values of all indicator variables are declared valid, calculations are carried out to test the convergent validity of the latent variable, namely the score of AVE, the minimum AVE value limit for each latent variable is 0.5, while the results of the AVE value for the respecification model can be seen in Table 2. From Table 3 it can be seen that the ten latent variables of this study have an AVE score > 0.5, the latent variable that has the smallest AVE score is the IQ variable of 0.596, while the latent variable that has the largest AVE score is SQ of 0.752.

Discriminant Validity Test
According to Ghozali & Latan (2012), the discriminant validity test can be measured by comparing the AVE square root value for each factor or construct with the correlation score between constructs, the AVE square root value of a latent variable must be greater than the correlation value with the latent variable.The square root value of the AVE of each of these variables can be seen in the table and the score of the correlation or relationship between variables can be seen in Table 3.Meanwhile, the correlation Score between variables can be seen in Table 4.  .752 0.400 0.446 0.526 0.420 0.515 NB3 0.545 0.610 0.863 0.493 0.349 0.672 IQ2 0.766 0.473 0.488 0.478 0.268 0.596 SQ1 0.390 0.454 0.442 0.523 0.890 0.429 IQ3 0.808 0.447 0.543 0.580 0.426 0.574 SQ2 0.471 0.375 0.452 0.593 0.851 0.390 IQ4 0.792 0.489 0.550 0.632 0.418 0.564 SV1 0.595 0.498 0.528 0.792 0.517 0.591 IQ5 0.739 0.422 0.517 0.549 0.370 0.545 SV2 0.530 0.445 0.505 0.771 0.482 0.503 IU1 0.429 0.755 0.464 0.454 0.254 0.531 SV3 0.552 0.482 0.471 0.784 0.454 0.524 IU2 0.476 0.810 0.528 0.525 0.426 0.562 SV4 0.453 0.365 0.433 0.736 0.568 0.426 IU3 0.506 0.808 0.589 0.498 0.399 0.540 SV5 0.636 0.557 0.595 0.818 0.488 0.647 IU4 0.461 0.855 0.582 0.493 0.452 0.563 US1 0.616 0.567 0.600 0.575 0.409 0.876 NB1 0.581 0.534 0.860 0.535 0.444 0.692 US2 0.626 0.606 0.639 0.613 0.375 0.857 NB2 0.529 0.539 0.780 0.630 0.508 0.543 US3 0.619 0.569 0.720 0.604 0.424 0.834 Based on Table 5, it can be seen that the square root score of the AVE of each latent variable in this study is greater than the correlation score of the latent variable with other latent variables, for example, the squared score of IQ is 0.772 > from the correlation score of IQ with other latent variables (IU, NB, SQ, SV, US).In addition to the comparison of the square root score of AVE with the correlation of the latent variable to the latent variable, the discriminant validity of the study can be met or not by testing each indicator, this test is carried out on the cross-loading score generated by smartPLS with a description as in Table 6.According to Prasetyo (2017), "an indicator is considered valid if it has a loading factor score for the intended variable or constructs that is greater than the loading factor score for other constructs".This study has met the provisions of the discriminant validity test.

Reliability Test
According to Abdillah & Jogiyanto (2015), "the reliability test aims to test accuracy, consistency, and accuracy in making measurements".The reliability test was carried out by measuring the Cronbach's Alpha score and the Composite Reliability score, the Cronbach's Alpha score was used to measure the lower limit of the reliability score of a construct and the Composite Reliability score was used to measure the actual score of construct reliability (Chin, 1998).According to Ghozali & Latan (2012), Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability scores are above 0.7 but scores above 0.6 are still acceptable for exploratory research.The results of Cronbach's Alpha score and the Composite Reliability score of this research variable can be seen in Table 6.As can be seen in Table 6, it can be seen that all Cronbach's Alpha scores and the Composite Reliability scores of the ten variables still meet the conditions, namely > 0.7, only one variable, namely SQ on Cronbach's Alpha score, which has a score of 0.683, but the score is still acceptable so that the variables in this study can be declared reliable or reliable.

Coefficient of Determination
The coefficient of determination often denoted as R2 according to Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014) is a measure of the accuracy of a prediction model, the higher the size, the better the research prediction model, the value of the calculation of R2 for each endogenous latent variable in this study can be seen in Table 7.As can be seen in Table 7, it can be seen that the R2 score of the endogenous latent variables (IU, NB, and US) in this study consisted of moderate to good, indicated by a score in the range of 0.33 -0.67.The coefficient of determination also states that the variables SQ, IQ, and SV can explain the IU variable by 42.5%, while the rest is explained by other variables that are not used in this study, then SQ, IQ, SV and IU variables can explain the US variable as much as 65.2%, while the US and IU variables can explain the NB variable by 62.9%.

Coefficient Path
The path coefficient shows the relationship between latent variables, this relationship will be considered significant if the path coefficient score is more than 0.1 and the statistic score is more than 1.65, the path coefficient score of this study can be seen in Table 8.Based on Table 8, there is one path that has low significance, namely SQ->US.The path has a path coefficient score of less than 0.1 and a t-statistic score of less than 1.65.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Hypothesis testing is carried out after the structural evaluation testing phase, hypothesis testing is carried out to determine whether the hypothesis proposed in this research model is accepted or rejected.This research hypothesis is included in the one-tailed hypothesis, which has determined the direction of the significant effect (positive or negative).For the one-tailed hypothesis model, the hypothesis will be accepted if the value of the path coefficient is > 0.1, the t-statistic value is > 1.65 (Ghozali & Latan, 2012) and the p-value is < 0.005 (Syamsuddin, 2016).Based on the research hypotheses that have been presented, the following are the results of the research hypothesis testing which can be seen in Table 9.Based on Table 9, it can be seen that from the 9 (nine) hypotheses proposed in this study, there are 7 (seven) hypotheses that are declared accepted, while 2 (two) hypotheses are declared rejected, these three hypotheses are rejected because the path coefficient value <0.1 t value -statistics < 1.65 and p-value > 0.005.statement that the user satisfaction variable can be used to measure the success of the major's test system.A high t-statistic test and a moderately good determinant coefficient for this study also indicate that there is a close relationship with user satisfaction for using Aku Pintar, therefore a strategy is needed to increase user satisfaction which will influence achieving net benefits from the successful implementation of the major's test. in the Aku Pintar application that meets the expectations and development goals of both users and organizations.Through the results of data processing and the PLS-SEM analysis process that the author has done, using the smartPLS application, the research model can be seen in Figure 4.  Prasetyo (2017), "an indicator is considered valid if it has a loading factor score for the intended variable or constructs that is greater than the loading factor score for other constructs".Based on 6, This study has met the provisions of the discriminant validity test.For example, the Information Quality 1 (IQ1) indicator has a value of 0.752 against the intended construct Information Quality (IQ), that value is higher than the cross loading of other constructs such as Intention to Use (UI) 0.400, Net Benefit (NB) 0.446, Service Quality (SV) 0.526, System Quality (SQ) SQ 0.420, Use Satisfaction (US) 0.515 so that the Information Quality 1 (IQ1) indicator is valid.Likewise for other indicators such as Information Quality 2 (IQ2), Information Quality 3 (IQ3), etc.This research was conducted through Aku Pintar application users in Indonesia.

CONCLUSIONS
Of those nine hypotheses proposed, 7 hypotheses were declared as described above, so the variables that affect the successful implementation of the major's test system in the Aku Pintar application are intended to use, service quality, user satisfaction, and information quality.Service quality and information quality have a positive effect on the intention to use and user satisfaction, and intention to use and user satisfaction has a positive effect on net benefits.Meanwhile, 2 hypotheses were declared rejected, namely system quality does not positively influence intention to use, and system quality does not positively influence user satisfaction.Suggestions for further research to pay more attention to the representation of respondents to be more certain and balanced.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Information System Success ModelMETHODSystem Quality variable (SQ), Information Quality variable (IQ), and Service Quality variable (SQ) variables from the previous research pattern(DeLone & McLean, 2003) were chosen as the basic variables in the author's research because they directly affect the Intention to use (IU) variable inStefanovic et al. (2016), andMardiana, Tjakraatmadja, &Aprianingsih (2015).These three variables have also been shown to affect User Satisfaction (US) in the research ofStefanovic et al. (2016) andSyamsuddin (2016).The Net Benefit (NB) variable was chosen in this study because according toDeLone & McLean (2003), this variable could describe the success of the information system, "that net benefits occur as a result of the use and satisfaction of information system users".This shows that following the author's goal of knowing the success in implementing the major selection test on the Aku Pintar application and the factors that influence it.This study also refers to the research ofStefanovic et al. (2016), using the point of view of the net benefits (NB) perceived by Aku Pintar application users as end users who have used major selection tests to help students find majors that match their potential and interests.Based on the research objectives and the selection of variables and relationships following previous research recommendations, the authors form a theoretical framework of research that can be seen in Figure2and the relationship between variables which will be explained.It could be seen that there are 2 types of variables by referring to the definition byGhozali & Fuad (2014):a.The dependent factor, commonly called endogenous, is a type of factor that can be influenced by the presence of other variables in a model.In this study, the dependent/endogenous factors are user satisfaction, net benefit, and intention to use.b.The independent factor, commonly called exogenous, is a type of factor that is not influenced by the presence of other factors.In this study, the independent/exogenous factors are system quality, system quality variable, and service quality.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Research Results Model According toPrasetyo (2017), "an indicator is considered valid if it has a loading factor score for the intended variable or constructs that is greater than the loading factor score for other constructs".Based on 6, This study has met the provisions of the discriminant validity test.For example, the Information Quality 1 (IQ1) indicator has a value of 0.752 against the intended construct Information Quality (IQ), that value is higher than the cross loading of other constructs such as Intention to Use (UI) 0.400, Net Benefit (NB) 0.446, Service Quality (SV) 0.526, System Quality (SQ) SQ 0.420, Use Satisfaction (US) 0.515 so that the Information Quality 1 (IQ1) indicator is valid.Likewise for other indicators such as Information Quality 2 (IQ2), Information Quality 3 (IQ3), etc.This research was conducted through Aku Pintar application users in Indonesia.

Table 1 .
Result of Outer Loading Respecification

Table 2 .
AVE Score

Table 3 .
Square Root Score of AVE

Table 4 .
Correlation Score Between Latent Variables

Table 6 .
Cross Loading Score

Table 8 .
Coefficient Path Score

Table 9 .
Result of Hypothesis test Hypothesis