Digital Creativity as a Mediator between Attitude Toward Digitalization and Educational Management Information Systems

Abstract

Amid ongoing digital transformation, the effectiveness of Educational Management Information Systems (EMIS) is shaped not only by the availability of technological infrastructure, but also by users’ attitudes and their creative engagement with digital tools. Although technology adoption in education has been widely studied, research examining the combined influence of attitudes toward digitalization (ATD) and digital creativity (DCR) on EMIS performance across different institutional contexts remains limited. This study, therefore, explored the mediating role of DCR in the relationship between ATD and EMIS performance. Data were gathered from 345 respondents through online surveys. The findings show that ATD positively influences EMIS performance both directly and indirectly through DCR. In particular, DCR plays a crucial mediating role, suggesting that positive attitudes toward digitalization encourage the use of technology. At the same time, creative application of digital tools enables these attitudes to be translated into innovative and context-sensitive EMIS practices. These results enrich current understanding of how attitudes and creativity together contribute to the effective implementation and improvement of digital educational systems, while also offering practical guidance for strengthening technology adoption in higher education institutions.

Keywords

• Attitude towards digitalization
• Digital creativity
• Educational technology
• Educational management information system

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung, Indonesia.

Thanks

We are thankful to the Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung, Indonesia for their research support. We also thank the Doctoral School of Education, the University of Szeged, Hungary, which provided suggestions and discussions for an idea from a research perspective.

References

1. R. Saner, L. Yiu, and M. Nguyen, “Monitoring the SDGs: Digital and social technologies to ensure citizen participation, inclusiveness and transparency,” Develop. Policy Rev., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 483–500, 2020, doi: 10.1111/dpr.12433. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12433
2. M. H. Musolin et al., “Toward an Islamic education administration system: A critical contribution from technology adoption,” in Proc. 9th Int. Congr. Inf. Commun. Technol., X.-S. Yang, R. S. Sherratt, N. Dey, and A. Joshi, Eds., Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 1054. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2025, doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-5035-1_23. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-5035-1_23
3. Y. A. B. El-Ebiary, I. S. M. Najam, and W. Abu-Ulbeh, “The influence of management information system (MIS) in Malaysian’s organisational processes—Education sector,” Adv. Sci. Lett., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 4129–4131, 2018, doi: 10.1166/asl.2018.11556. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.11556
4. H. A. Al-Ababneh and S. A. S. Alrhaimi, “Modern approaches to education management to ensure the quality of educational services,” TEM J., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 770–775, 2020, doi: 10.18421/TEM92-46. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM92-46
5. C. Wang, X. Chen, T. Yu, Y. Liu, and Y. Jing, “Education reform and change driven by digital technology: A bibliometric study from a global perspective,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y
6. F. Blin and M. Munro, “Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory,” Comput. Educ., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 475–490, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017
7. A. Kashada, H. Li, and O. Koshadah, “Analysis approach to identify factors influence digital learning technology adoption and utilization in developing countries,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., vol. 13, no. 2, 2018, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7399. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7399
8. Z. Shao, X. Li, and Q. Wang, “From ambidextrous learning to digital creativity: An integrative theoretical framework,” Inf. Syst. J., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 544–572, 2022, doi: 10.1111/isj.12361. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12361

9. K. Junus, H. B. Santoso, P. O. H. Putra, A. Gandhi, and T. Siswantining, “Lecturer readiness for online classes during the pandemic: A survey research,” Educ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 3, Art. no. 139, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11030139. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030139
10. T. W. Afrianty, I. G. L. S. Artatanaya, and J. Burgess, “Working from home effectiveness during Covid-19: Evidence from university staff in Indonesia,” Asia Pac. Manage. Rev., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 50–57, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.05.002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.05.002
11. B. Eaglestone, N. Ford, G. J. Brown, and A. Moore, “Information systems and creativity: An empirical study,” J. Documentation, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 443–464, 2007, doi: 10.1108/00220410710758968. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710758968
12. S. D. Muller and F. Ulrich, “Creativity and information systems in a hypercompetitive environment: A literature review,” Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, Art. no. 7, 2013, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.03207. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03207
13. A. Haleem, M. Javaid, M. A. Qadri, and R. Suman, “Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review,” Sustain. Oper. Comput., vol. 3, pp. 275–285, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
14. M. D. Vasilescu, A. C. Serban, G. C. Dimian, M. I. Aceleanu, and X. Picatoste, “Digital divide, skills and perceptions on digitalisation in the European Union—Towards a smart labour market,” PLOS ONE, vol. 15, no. 4, Art. no. e0232032, 2020, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232032. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232032
15. D. Vlachopoulos, R. B. Thorkelsdóttir, D. Schina, and J. G. Jónsdóttir, “Teachers’ experience and perceptions of sustainable digitalization in school education: An existential phenomenological study of teachers in Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Iceland, and The Netherlands,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 18, Art. no. 13353, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151813353. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813353
16. L. M. Wei, C. Y. Piaw, S. Kannan, and S. A. Moulod, “Relationship between teacher ICT competency and teacher acceptance and use of school management system (SMS),” Malaysian Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 36–52, 2016.
17. L. W. Mwangi-Ng’ayo, M. Sitawa, and M. Mutisya, “Education management information system (EMIS) and learning management in informal schools: A case of Bridge International Schools, Nairobi-Kenya,” Int. J. Soc. Develop. Concerns, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 16–26, 2023, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8379375. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8379375
18. OECD, Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2012, doi: 10.1787/9789264130852-en. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
19. M. J. Sánchez-Franco, F. J. Martínez-López, and F. A. Martín-Velicia, “Exploring the impact of individualism and uncertainty avoidance in Web-based electronic learning: An empirical analysis in European higher education,” Comput. Educ., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 588–598, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.006
20. K. Hakkarainen et al., “Students’ skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland,” Comput. Educ., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 103–117, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00007-5. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00007-5
21. K. Heinonen, “Positive and negative valence influencing consumer engagement,” J. Serv. Theory Pract., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 147–169, 2018, doi: 10.1108/JSTP-02-2016-0020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2016-0020
22. J. Hoffmann, Z. Ivcevic, and M. Brackett, “Creativity in the age of technology: Measuring the digital creativity of millennials,” Creativity Res. J., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 149–153, 2016, doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162515. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162515
23. F. Karakas and A. Manisaligil, “Reorienting self-directed learning for the creative digital era,” Eur. J. Training Develop., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 712–731, 2012, doi: 10.1108/03090591211255557. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211255557
24. M. Massaro, R. Bardy, and M. Pitts, “Supporting creativity through knowledge integration during the creative processes: A management control system perspective,” Electron. J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 254–263, 2012.
25. P. Lill, A. Wald, and J. C. Munck, “In the field of tension between creativity and efficiency: A systematic literature review of management control systems for innovation activities,” Eur. J. Innov. Manage., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 919–950, 2021, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0329. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0329
26. A. Di Vaio, R. Palladino, A. Pezzi, and D. E. Kalisz, “The role of digital innovation in knowledge management systems: A systematic literature review,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 123, pp. 220–231, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.042. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.042
27. J. E. Lee-Partridge, T. S. H. Teo, and V. K. G. Lim, “Information technology management: The case of the Port of Singapore Authority,” J. Strategic Inf. Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 85–99, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00035-4. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00035-4
28. S. Seidel, F. Müller-Wienbergen, and J. Becker, “The concept of creativity in the information systems discipline: Past, present, and prospects,” Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 27, no. 1, Art. no. 14, 2010, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.02714. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02714
29. D. K. Wulan, H. Agustiani, F. D. Purba, and F. Y. Lubis, “Mapping empirical factors of digital creativity: A systematic review,” J. Creativity, vol. 35, no. 2, Art. no. 100103, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.yjoc.2025.100103. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2025.100103
30. A. Margaryan, A. Littlejohn, and G. Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies,” Comput. Educ., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 429–440, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
31. A. J. A. M. van Deursen, A. van der Zeeuw, P. de Boer, G. Jansen, and T. van Rompay, “Digital inequalities in the Internet of Things: Differences in attitudes, material access, skills, and usage,” Inf., Commun. Soc., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 258–276, 2021, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646777. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646777
32. A. Panori, C. Kakderi, N. Komninos, K. Fellnhofer, A. Reid, and L. Mora, “Smart systems of innovation for smart places: Challenges in deploying digital platforms for co-creation and data-intelligence,” Land Use Policy, vol. 111, Art. no. 104631, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104631. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104631
33. G. Safavi and S. Ghazinoory, “Creative bits: Challenges of applying Industry 4.0 in digital creative industries,” Multimedia Tools Appl., pp. 1–27, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-024-19701-y. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-19701-y
34. C. Janse van Rensburg, S. A. Coetzee, and A. Schmulian, “Developing digital creativity through authentic assessment,” Assess. Eval. Higher Educ., vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 857–877, 2022, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1968791. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1968791
35. G. Janschitz and M. Penker, “How digital are ‘digital natives’ actually? Developing an instrument to measure the degree of digitalisation of university students—The DDS-Index,” Bull. Sociol. Methodol., vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 127–159, 2022, doi: 10.1177/07591063211061760. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/07591063211061760
36. E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 100, pp. 93–104, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017
37. J. Martins et al., “Assessing the success behind the use of education management information systems in higher education,” Telematics Informat., vol. 38, pp. 182–193, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.001
38. S. Jomnonkwao and V. Ratanavaraha, “Measurement modelling of the perceived service quality of a sightseeing bus service: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis,” Transp. Policy, vol. 45, pp. 240–252, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.04.001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.04.001
39. A. Habók and A. Magyar, “Validation of a self-regulated foreign language learning strategy questionnaire through multidimensional modelling,” Front. Psychol., vol. 9, Art. no. 1388, 2018, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01388. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01388
40. S. Suherman and T. Vidákovich, “Relationship between ethnic identity, attitude, and mathematical creative thinking among secondary school students,” Thinking Skills Creativity, vol. 51, Art. no. 101448, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101448. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101448
41. S. Suherman and T. Vidákovich, “Creative self-efficacy, attitudes, creative style, and environmental literacy: Promoting mathematical creative thinking,” J. Educ. Res., pp. 1–11, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2025.2495329. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2495329
42. J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson, 2010.
43. J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” J. Acad. Marketing Sci., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–135, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
44. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press, 2015.
45. L. Hu and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Struct. Equ. Model., Multidiscip. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–55, 1999, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
46. K. K.-K. Wong, “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS,” Marketing Bull., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 2013.
47. L. S. Meyers, G. Gamst, and A. J. Guarino, Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation, 3rd ed. London, U.K.: SAGE, 2016.
48. Y.-C. J. Wu, C.-I. Pan, and C.-H. Yuan, “Attitudes towards the use of information and communication technology in management education,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 243–254, 2017, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212928. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212928
49. J. Drennan, J. Kennedy, and A. Pisarski, “Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 331–338, 2005, doi: 10.3200/JOER.98.6.331-338. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.6.331-338
50. J. D. Kuleshova, I. A. Pinchuk, P. A. Vysotskaya, and S. B. Zabelina, “Creative component of the digital model of higher education,” Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 117, pp. 1715–1719, 2021, doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.226. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.226
51. I. A. Del-Valle-Rojas, A. L. Callupe-Ricaldi, and M. F. Ruiz-Ruiz, “Structural characterization of factors for the digital training of public primary school teachers: The Peruvian case,” in Proc. LACCEI Int. Multi-Conf. Eng., Educ., Technol., vol. 1, no. 8, 2023, doi: 10.18687/laccei2023.1.1.309. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18687/laccei2023.1.1.309
52. W. F. Crittenden, I. K. Biel, and W. A. Lovely III, “Embracing digitalization: Student learning and new technologies,” J. Marketing Educ., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–14, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0273475318820895. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318820895
53. C. Bruno and M. Canina, “Creativity 4.0. Empowering creative process for digitally enhanced people,” Des. J., vol. 22, no. sup1, pp. 2119–2131, 2019, doi: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1594935. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594935
54. L. T. Tuan, “Employee mindfulness and proactive coping for technostress in the COVID-19 outbreak: The roles of regulatory foci, technostress, and job insecurity,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 129, Art. no. 107148, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107148. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107148
55. V. Skrbinjek, M. Vičič Krabonja, B. Aberšek, and A. Flogie, “Enhancing teachers’ creativity with an innovative training model and knowledge management,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 12, Art. no. 1381, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14121381. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121381
56. R. Martínez-Peláez et al., “Sustainable digital transformation for SMEs: A comprehensive framework for informed decision-making,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 11, Art. no. 4447, 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16114447. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114447