AMOR

Article Details

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2026): August

Determinants of Technology Acceptance of the Pamong Desa LMS Among Village Officials in West Bandung Regency

https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v8.n1.p53-71.2026

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the factors influencing the technology acceptance of the Learning Management System (LMS) Pamong Desa among village officials in West Bandung Regency using the General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) framework.

Methodology: This study employed a quantitative approach with 245 village officials with prior experience using the LMS Pamong Desa. Data were collected through questionnaires and analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS), incorporating variables such as experience, subjective norms, enjoyment, computer anxiety, and self-efficacy.

Results: The results show that Enjoyment significantly affected perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, whereas self-efficacy influenced perceived ease of use. Perceived ease of use affects perceived usefulness and intention to use, and perceived usefulness also influences the intention to use. Experience, subjective norms, and computer anxiety were not significant.

Conclusions: Intrinsic and cognitive factors are more influential than external and social factors in determining technology acceptance.

Limitations: This study was limited to a single regional context and cross-sectional data.

Contributions: This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that the explanatory power of the GETAMEL model is context-dependent rather than universal, particularly in decentralized public sector settings. It highlights that intrinsic and cognitive factors outweigh social influences in shaping technology acceptance, offering new insights into e-learning adoption in local governance environments.

Keywords

E-Learning GETAMEL LMS Pamong Desa SEM-PLS Technology Acceptance Village Governance

How to Cite

Fajar, M. N., & Fathurahman, H. (2026). Determinants of Technology Acceptance of the Pamong Desa LMS Among Village Officials in West Bandung Regency. Annals of Management and Organization Research, 8(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v8.n1.p53-71.2026

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036
  2. Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students' perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 75–90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014
  3. Adhiati, C. S., Palupiningtyas, D., & Samtono, S. (2025). Generation Z work-life preferences: Organizational, social, and arrangement effects. Annals of Human Resource Management Research, 5(3), 227–239. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/ahrmr.v5i3.3342
  4. Al-Shahrani, H. (2022). Investigating determinants of the acceptance of Zoom technology through the lens of GETAMEL. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 16(4), 308–319. doi:https://doi.org/10.53543/jeps.vol16iss4pp308-319
  5. Alturkustani, S., Durfee, A., O’Leary, O. F., O’Mahony, S. M., O’Mahony, C., Lone, M., & Factor, A. (2025). Measuring students' perceptions of virtual reality for learning anatomy using the general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning. Anatomical Sciences Education, 18, 579–595. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70045
  6. Aminah, S., & Sutanto, H. P. (2018). Analisis tingkat kapasitas aparatur pemerintah desa. Matra Pembaruan: Jurnal Inovasi Kebijakan, 2(3), 149–160. doi:https://doi.org/10.21787/mp.2.3.2018.149-160
  7. Antlöv, H., Wetterberg, A., & Dharmawan, L. (2016). Village governance, community life, and the 2014 village law in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 52(2), 161–183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2015.1129047
  8. Bui, T. Q., Nguyen, N. M., & Nguyen, P. M. (2024). Determinants of e-learning adoption: Evidence from the telecommunications industry in Vietnam. Foundations of Management, 16, 379–390. doi:https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2024-0023
  9. Chang, C.-T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C.-R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan: The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers & Education, 111, 128–143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010
  10. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning: John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  13. Dilham, A., Yulinda, Y., & Sembiring, B. K. F. (2020). Village office development model for e-government based village apparatus performance. International Journal of Management, 11(5), 358–365. doi:https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.11.5.2020.035
  14. Directorate General of Village Government Development, M. o. H. A. (2025). Belajar kapan saja dan di mana saja. Retrieved from https://pamongdesa.kemendagri.go.id/home
  15. Ginting, A. H., Widianingsih, I., Mulyawan, R., & Nurasa, H. (2024). Village fund program in Cibeureum and Sukapura village, Bandung Regency, Indonesia: Problems, risks, and solutions. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2303452
  16. Hair, J. F., Jr., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
  17. Han, F., & Guo, J. (2025). How does university students’ academic major (STEM vs. non-STEM) affect their acceptance of e-learning: a multi-group analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00543-z
  18. Humida, T., Al Mamun, M. H., & Keikhosrokiani, P. (2022). Predicting behavioral intention to use e-learning system: A case-study in Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, Bangladesh. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 2241–2265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10707-9
  19. İbili, E., Ölmez, M., Cihan, A., Bilal, F., İbili, A. B., Okumus, N., & Billinghurst, M. (2024). Investigation of learners’ behavioral intentions to use metaverse learning environment in higher education: a virtual computer laboratory. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 5893–5918. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2240860
  20. Jiang, M. Y., Jong, M. S., Lau, W. W., Meng, Y., Chai, C., & Chen, M. (2021). Validating the general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning: Evidence from an online English as a foreign language course amid COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671615
  21. Juniasri, A. T., Harsono, D. M., & Dwikardana, S. (2026). Determinants of employee organizational citizenship behavior in Indonesia: Evidence from a systematic literature review. Annals of Management and Organization Research, 7(3), 401–416. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v7i3.3760
  22. Kristiawan, N. B. (2021). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penerimaan mahasiswa terhadap e-learning Exelsa Moodle dengan menggunakan GETAMEL. Jurnal Kajian Teknologi Pendidikan, 6(2), 275–287. doi:https://doi.org/10.17977/um039v6i22021p275
  23. Langford, J., & Seaborne, K. (2003). To click or not to click: E-learning for the public sector. Canadian Public Administration, 46(1), 50–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2003.tb01579.x
  24. Liu, Y., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Chen, S.-K. (2023). Comparing technology acceptance of AR-based and 3D map-based mobile library applications: A multigroup SEM analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4156–4170. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1955271
  25. Mastour, H., Yousefi, R., & Niroumand, S. (2025). Exploring the acceptance of e-learning in health professions education in Iran based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Scientific Reports, 15(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90742-5
  26. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  27. Nofita, M., Handarkho, Y. D., & Mudjihartono, P. (2024). Student acceptance of LMS in Indonesian high schools: The SOR and extended GETAMEL frameworks. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 19. doi:https://doi.org/10.28945/5367
  28. Nograsek, J., & Vintar, M. (2011). Technology as the key driver of organizational transformation in the e-government period: Towards a new formal framework. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6866, 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22878-0_38
  29. Novitasari, I. G. A., & Widayani, N. L. U. M. (2025). UTAUT model: Intent to use Mangusada app with technophobia as moderator. Annals of Management and Organization Research, 7(2), 185–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v7i2.2660
  30. Okwudiri, N.-O., Oliseh, P. S., Anagwu, V. K., Nwanya, C. C., & Chukwu, C. (2025). Technology adoption and social media marketing performance of small and medium enterprises. Annals of Management and Organization Research, 7(1), 127–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v7i1.3369.
  31. Özdemir, A. M. (2025). Unveiling the factors influencing science teachers’ adoption of eye-tracking technology through the GETAMEL framework. Frontiers in Education, 10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1593146
  32. Putri, T. D. (2021). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Penerimaan Pengguna terhadap E-learning pada Proses Training Pekerja: Studi Kasus PT Pertamina (Persero) Tbk. (Master’s thesis), Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.
  33. Rachman, S., Saputra, J. A. B., Susanto, P. C., & Mustika, I. (2025). Determination of employee performance: Analysis of training, work motivation, transformational leadership and organizational culture. Annals of Human Resource Management Research, 5(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/ahrmr.v5i2.2998
  34. Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V., & Lopes, S. L. (2019). Tracking e-learning through published papers: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 136, 87–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.007
  35. Sasongko, A. T., Ekhsan, M., & Fatchan, M. (2025). Dataset on technology acceptance in e-learning: A PLS-SEM analysis using extended TAM among undergraduate students in Indonesia. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2025.100192
  36. Sprenger, D. A., & Schwaninger, A. (2023). Video demonstrations can predict the intention to use digital learning technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 857–877. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13298
  37. Strzelecki, A., Cicha, K., Rizun, M., & Rutecka, P. (2022). Using a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for e-Learning (GETAMEL): A Literature Review of Empirical Studies. Paper presented at the Information Systems Development: Artificial Intelligence for Information Systems Development and Operations (ISD2022 Proceedings), Cluj-Napoca.
  38. Tian, Y., & Wang, Y. (2024). Understanding instructors’ tablet adoption for note-taking in interpreting: Insights from the GETAMEL model. Frontiers in Education, 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1456770
  39. Umaroh, S., Musrini, M., & Maulana, F. A. (2024). Student’s acceptance and actual use of e-learning system in a post-COVID era through technology acceptance model. E3S Web of Conferences, 484. doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202448402003
  40. World Bank. (2020). Indonesian Village Governance Under the New Village Law (2015–2018): Sentinel Villages Report. Retrieved from https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/220661590726265687

Authors

1 Muhamad Nur Fajar
Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
2 Heri Fathurahman
Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Downloads

View PDF

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2026): August
Section: Articles
WhatsApp Instagram Facebook LinkedIn Email