THE IMPACT OF SI AND QCL ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE IS MODERATE BY STUDENT CULTURE

: Spiritual intelligence and the quality of campus life are interesting to study in contributing to student performance. This research aims to (1) analyze and prove empirically the impact of spiritual intelligence on student performance, (2) analyze and prove empirically the influence of campus life on student performance, (3) analyze and prove empirically the moderation of student culture on the influence of spiritual intelligence on student performance, and (4) empirically analyze and prove the moderation of student culture on the influence of the quality of campus life on student performance. Therefore, the research used mixed qualitative and quantitative descriptive-analytical methods with an active student analysis unit of 96 respondents at private higher schools in East Java. The analytical tools were descriptive statistics, validity tests, reliability tests, classical assumption tests, and regression analysis. As the results, the research found that (1) spiritual intelligence had no effect on spiritual performance, (2) the quality of campus life had no effect on student performance, (3) student culture negatively moderated or weakened the effect of spiritual intelligence on student performance, and (4) culture students could not moderate the impact of the quality of campus life on student performance.


Introduction
Higher education institutions worldwide face a "crisis of adjustment," including being trapped in outdated bureaucracy, increasing costs, and declining quality (Singh 1988).This challenge is for universities to overcome the "adjustment crisis," which is through a change process by increasing effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency to increase competitiveness (Corcoles et al., 2011).Higher education, especially private universities (PTS), has a role in increasing higher education participation rates (Wirosuhardjo, 2015).Therefore, private universities are required to make efforts and struggle for themselves to achieve educational quality standards mandated by law (Wirosuhardjo, 2015), compete for survival, requiring knowledge and management skills such as profit-oriented entities (Djokopranoto & Indrajit, 2004), and becoming economical pressure (Lea 2011).Competition is a topic of interest (Dearden 1972) and a threat to organizations (Rich, 1988).Universities and non-profit organizations must stay competitive (Zhou-ling 2009).The competition encourages universities to improve the quality of education, teaching, and research (Rey, 2003).According to Schmitt and Keeney (2009), higher education institutions (PT) can win the competition if PT develops students who are successful academically, interpersonally, and psychologically.An organization's survival competitiveness can be built through customer loyalty (Lam et al., 2004).Customer loyalty impacts organizational performance substantially; even customer loyalty is considered necessary in competition.Likewise, universities can build customer educational loyalty (student loyalty) to increase competitiveness.Student loyalty is vital for higher education since it provides the financial basis that guarantees higher education activities (Yu & Kim, 2008).Student success can be seen in the outcome, namely student performance (Schmitt & Keeney, 2009).Student performance is vital for higher education (Jalomo 2000).Student performance is obtained through the learning process at a university (Atmadja & Saputra, 2018).Student performance is engaging and challenging to observe.Instead, there needs to be clarity in defining it (Youssef & Dahmani, 2008).The interesting phenomenon is related to student performance.Jalomo (2000) argues that students whose performance is a minority are better prepared for the workforce compared to students who perform better.Another fact is that student performance has yet to strengthen students in dealing with students.So, expanding research on spiritual and emotional intelligence is necessary.This research also looks at the quality of campus life, which can create the expected teaching and learning process.Many studies show that emotional intelligence and spiritual intelligence impact individual performance.Putra and Latrini (2016) found that emotional and spiritual intelligence influence auditor performance.In their study, Tjun et al. (2009) found that success in life is determined more by emotional intelligence.Emotional intelligence positively affects students' understanding of accounting (Hariyoga & Suprianto, 2011).Emotional and spiritual intelligence positively correlate with achievement (Ardana et al., 2013).The findings of Cook et al. (2011) report that emotional intelligence is a variable that increases knowledge.Palmer (2001) indicates that emotional intelligence is essential in leadership behavior, individual judgment, and motivation.Thus, emotional intelligence and spiritual intelligence influence an individual's existence in life roles.Student performance is also related to student culture (Wood et al., 2009).Value systems, social interactions, rewards, and punishments can be studied in organizational culture (Person and Christensen 1996).Person and Christensen (1996) added that the culture of students in a college from one generation differs from that of the next generation because the student culture developed well before the students entered college (Mgadla 1988).Therefore, it is necessary to understand student culture because it will support the work of a tertiary institution and the policies that will be implemented by a tertiary institution (Nathan, 2005).Student culture significantly influences aspects of campus life (Kuh 1998).Student culture as an adaptation of family or community-based practices plays a role in producing college outcomes (Levinson 1998).Thus, student culture plays a vital role in producing the outcomes of an institution.In other words, student culture influences student performance.The quality of campus life is one of the strategic keys to developing quality in a higher education institution's teaching and learning process (Wahyuni , 2015).The quality of campus life is various forms of satisfaction of student needs, which will influence life on campus.Empirical studies from Wu and Yao (2006) prove that the quality of campus life makes students willing to work, leading to higher performance.Thus, student performance cannot be separated from the quality of campus life.In other words, the quality of campus life affects student performance.Vignati and Dominik (2010) stated that evaluating or knowing student performance requires unique methods.Student performance provides different benefits to students (Timmerman & Kruepke, 2006).Performance in higher education, including student performance, requires an adequate response over a long period (Chemers et al., 2001).So, student performance is essential for students and universities.In this study, student performance was used as the dependent variable because Sparzo et al. (1986) stated that there were still many gaps in student performance, so it was necessary to improve testing procedures for student performance.Based on this statement and Chua (1996), intellectual intelligence often measures a person's abilities.Based on this, this research tries to find a relationship between student performance and emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and the quality of campus life among high school students in East Java.

Spiritual Intelligence
Spiritual intelligence (SQ) is critical in developing soft skills to face the challenges of everyday life (Nachiappan et al., 2014).According to Zohar and Marshall (2004), spiritual intelligence in its development includes many things, including (a) The ability to be flexible, (b) The existence of a high level of self-awareness, (c) The ability to face and utilize suffering, (d) The ability to face and transcend feelings of pain, (e) Quality of life inspired by vision and values, (f) Reluctance to cause unnecessary harm, (g) Tendency to take a holistic view, (h) Tendency to ask "why" or "what if" and strives to find basic answers, (i) Has the ease of working against convention.

Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is accurately understanding and managing emotions well (Holian 2006).Emotional intelligence is an educational strategy that improves emotional and work skills for employee work activities (Navas 2014).In organizational life, emotional intelligence positively affects overcoming and increasing effectiveness in carrying out tasks (Moghadam et al., 2011).

Quality of Campus Life
Higher education is a social institution that aims to create a high-quality workforce, produce innovative research, and develop new technology (Arslan & Akkas, 2013).In its activities, a university must compete with other universities in order to survive.Higher education can survive with a lot of effort and strategy, according to the ability to survive through understanding quality.

Quality of College Life
The quality of campus life is the level of satisfaction and experience that creates positive emotions for students in campus life (Yu & Kim, 2008).In more depth, Yu and Kim (2008) stated that QCL is a construct that captures students' overall experience of the lecture process.In short, QCL is a level for assessing the quality of campus life (Sirgy et al., 2007).

Student Culture
Culture has the power created by organizational situations (Schein, 2010) to improve managerial and organizational performance (Smart & John, 1996).Culture permeates and influences how a company operates in various ways, and culture also plays an essential role in many aspects of an organization (Denison & Mishra, 1995).One culture is organizational culture, which in the last decade has become essential in organizational behavior research (O'Reilly et al., 1991) with two managerial and organizational approaches (Neagu & Nicula, 2012).Work communities create and maintain a work culture involving task rituals, behavior standards, and routine work practices (Waite et al., 2004).A culture can be understood through the work community in which the cultural environment is (Weick 1979).Thus, student culture must also go through an understanding that characterizes the student work community.From an anthropological perspective, culture, including student culture, needs to be clarified (Nathan, 2005).Thus, Nathan (2005) added that there is a need to differentiate normative student culture from students as individuals.Based on observations, several researchers stated that student culture and student activities were present when students entered college (Mgadla 1988).Student culture plays an essential role in the outcome of a university (Levinson 1998).

Student Performance
Performance is a description of the level of achievement of implementing a program of policy activities in realizing an organization's goals, objectives, vision, and mission as outlined through an organization's strategic planning (Moeheriono, 2014).The essence of an organization is good performance because it includes effective and efficient relationships between managers, employees, resource allocation, and the environment in which the organization operates (Abosede et al., 2011).In higher education organizations, student elements have the results of campus life activities, known as student performance.Student performance is challenging to observe, and its definition needs more clarity (Youssef & Dahmani, 2008).Thus, Youssef and Dahmani ( 2008) added that no standard definition of student performance needs to be clarified.However, Poropat ( 2009) states that student performance can be predicted through the five factors model (FFM) dimensions.

Hypotheses Development
Hypothesis development is based on the following research model:  2017), which show that spiritual intelligence plays a positive role in decision-making.Ultimately, the decisions taken can improve performance.Thus, the hypothesis is given: H1: Spiritual intelligence has a positive impact on student performance.Influence of Quality

Quality of campus life on Student Performance
Quality of campus life, also called Quality of college life (QCL) of students, is conceptualized in terms of need satisfaction and impacts on balance (Yu & Kim, 2008).They obtained findings that the quality of campus life has a significant impact on satisfaction and loyalty.In another study, they also found that the quality of campus life model received support from university managers and had implications for determining university policy (Yu & Kim, 2008).In addition, Sirgy et al. (2007) found that university officials applied the quality of campus life model.Thus, the hypothesis is created as follows: H2: Campus life influences student performance

Moderation of student culture on spiritual intelligence and quality of campus life on student performance
Organizational culture has been an important theme in business and management literature for decades (Rastegar & Aghayan, 2012).Two roles of organizational culture: (1) internal integration and (2) external adaptation play an impacting role on performance (Zhang et al., 2011).So, since the 1980s, the concept of organizational culture in the organizational context has become the attention of managers and academics (Muijen & Koopman, 1994).In the management contingency perspective, organizational culture complements the traditional contingency framework used to investigate variables: size, structure, and technology of an organization (Deshpande & Webster, 1989).Empirical analysis of organizational culture Denison's model uses four cultural characteristics, involvement, consistency, capabilities, and mission, as key determinants of business performance.This organizational culture model influences organizational performance.Organizational cultural values influence human resource strategy.This statement reinforces that organizational culture is a shared belief system that permeates an organization or subsystem, which ultimately influences the actions of individuals and work groups (Strode et al., 2009).Organizational culture also influences how organizations do things (Belassi et al., 2007).Organizational culture research on performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment was carried out.Several empirical studies assess organizational culture's impact on company performance.In his study, Agbejule (2011) shows that culture powerfully influences organizational performance.Organizational culture is crucial in determining organizational capacity, effectiveness, and longevity.Woodbury (2006) added that organizational culture also plays an essential role in non-profit organizations.Apart from that, organizational culture has also been proven to be a competitive advantage for a company.Thus, managers must understand the company's organizational culture and strategic direction (Prajogo & McDermott, 2011).Atmadja and Saputra (2018) obtained findings showing that organizational culture positively affects performance, and spiritual intelligence influences the behavior of a profession.Karadeg (2009) and Aydin and Ceylan (2009) obtained findings in their research, which showed that organizational culture is related to spiritual leadership.Based on this, the following hypothesis can be given: H3: Student culture strengthens the impact of spiritual intelligence on student performance H4: Student culture strengthens the impact of the quality of campus life on student performance

Method
This research uses mixed research.Qualitative and quantitative with a descriptive-analytical approach, focusing on in-depth identification of the role of emotional intelligence, quality of campus life, student performance, and student culture at one of the private universities in East Java.The unit of analysis in this research is students actively studying in the management study program.The sampling technique uses random sampling.It is determining the sample size using a margin of error of 5% (Rao 1996) using the formula from Rao (1996) to obtain a sample size of 96 respondents.Operational definitions of variables and measurements can be presented in the following table.Surabaya, October 28-29 th , 2023  (1991).16-item instrument.

Data analysis technique
The analysis techniques used in this research are descriptive statistics, data quality testing, classical assumption testing, and multiple regression analysis.

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics provide information regarding the characteristics of research variables and respondent profiles.Descriptive statistics of respondent profiles are presented in frequencies and percentages, while research variables include theoretical range, actual range, average, and standard deviation.

Test data quality
Data quality from using research instruments can be evaluated through reliability and validity tests.The validity test determines whether each measuring instrument in the research variable is valid or invalid.A valid instrument shows that the instrument can measure what is being measured (Ghozali, 2012).Reliability Test is a measuring tool for measuring questionnaires, indicators of variables, or constructs (Ghozali, 2012).This research uses Cronbach's alpha to test the reliability of the questionnaire.A variable is reliable with a Cronbach alpha value > 0.6 (Nunnaly & Berstein, 1994).

Classic assumption test
The classical assumption test is a statistical requirement for multiple linear regression analysis with the ordinary least squares (OLS).Ordinary least squares (OLS) is a regression analysis often used rather than the maximum likelihood method (Gujarati 2003).The classical assumption tests used in this research are the normality, multicollinearity, and heteroscedasticity tests.

Hypothesis testing
This research uses regression analysis to test all research hypotheses.With the following analysis model:

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics can be presented as follows:

Validity Test and Reliability Test
Based on table 2 regarding descriptive statistics, it can be described as follows.All constructs in the research have a higher actual mean when compared to the theoretical mean.Therefore, the respondent has a good construct.Meanwhile, the standard deviation values for all constructs are smaller when compared to the actual mean value.The result shows that the data does not vary.Data quality is addressed using research instruments that can be evaluated through validation and reliability tests.This test was carried out to determine the consistency and accuracy of data collected using the instrument.The following will present the SPSS output regarding validity tests and reliability tests.Table 3 shows that the validity tests carried out on all construct items are valid because they have a sign value <0.05 except for item no-11, student cultures that must be removed from the analysis.The reliability test using Cronbach Alpha gave results > 0.6, meaning all constructs are reliable and can be analyzed further.

Classic assumption test
The classic assumption test, which includes the normality test using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, multicollinearity test, and heteroscedasticity test, can be presented in SPSS output as follows: Table 4 is the result of the normality test, which gives a significance result of 0.200.If the value is > 0.05, the residual data is usually distributed, and the data can be analyzed.The multicollinearity test in Table 5 obtained a tolerance value of 0.49 and a VIF of 2.227.The tolerance value is > 0.01, and the VIF value is < 10, so it can be stated that there is no multicollinearity in the data between the independent variables.Meanwhile, the results of the heteroscedasticity test in Table 6 show that the QCL construct obtained a significance value of 0.024.This value is <0.05, so the model has heteroscedasticity.This needs to be followed up with recovery, the results of which are presented in the table, which shows that the significance value is >0.05.So, the model does not experience heteroscedasticity

Regression Analysis
The SPSS output results can be presented as follows:   1) means that students' spiritual and cultural intelligence positively relates to student performance.The students' spiritual and cultural intelligence will improve student performance and vice versa.The interaction between knowledge management and organizational culture has a negative relationship to the performance of batik artisans, and increasing the interaction of knowledge management with organizational culture will reduce the performance of batik artisans and vice versa.Meanwhile, equation ( 2) shows that the quality of campus life and student culture is positively related to student performance, meaning that increasing the quality of campus life and student culture will improve the performance of student batik artisans and vice versa.However, when the two independent variables interact with culture, it negatively affects student performance.Hypothesis testing is in Table 8 and Table 9.Table 8 shows that spiritual intelligence does not affect student performance.The result is proven by the significance value of 0.093> 0.05.Student culture negatively moderates or weakens the relationship between spiritual intelligence and student performance when interacting with moderating variables.Table 9 shows that the quality of campus life does not affect student performance because the significance value is 0.368 > 0.05.Moreover, when interacted with, student culture cannot moderate the influence of the quality of campus life on student performance.

Discussion
Research findings show that spiritual intelligence does not affect student performance.Based on research findings, the ups and downs of student performance are not determined solely by spiritual intelligence.Other factors outside this research may determine or influence student performance.These findings support the findings of Tikollah et al. ( 2006), Supriyanto and Troena (2012), and Saida (2013), with the result that spiritual intelligence does not affect student performance.The findings of this study do not support the findings of Ardana et al. ( 2013), whose research concluded that spiritual intelligence influences student performance.
The following finding is that the quality of campus life does not influence student performance.The atmosphere and environment around the campus showed that this research did not impact student performance.The findings do not support the findings (Nguyen et al., 2012), which concluded that the quality of campus life positively affects academic performance.
The following finding is that student culture moderates negativity or weakens the influence of spiritual intelligence and student performance.Findings do not support Zhang et al. (2011), which states that organizational culture has two roles, namely: (1) internal integration and (2) external adaptation, which influences performance.So, this research obtained findings showing that student culture, which interacts with spiritual intelligence, cannot carry out internal integration and external adoption of student performance.This finding does not support the findings of Karadeg (2009) and Aydin and Ceylan (2009), which stated that organizational culture is related to spiritual leadership.The interaction of student culture with the quality of campus life cannot moderate the influence of the quality of campus life on student performance.The findings do not support the findings of Zhang et al. (2011), Denison and Mishra (1995), and Agbejule (2011), which state that organizational culture has a positive influence on performance.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this research found that (1) spiritual intelligence has no effect on student performance, (2) the quality of campus life has no effect on student performance, (3) student culture negatively moderates (weakens) the influence of spiritual intelligence on student performance, (4) student culture cannot moderate the influence of the quality of campus life on student performance.
Moreover, this research needs to be revised.First, there is a lack of samples from only one high school, so it does not provide results that can be generalized well.Second, this research only looks at spiritual intelligence and the quality of campus life as variables that influence student performance.Based on these limitations, further research is recommended to increase the number of students from several universities and add research variables such as student motivation and learning styles provided by lecturers in lectures.

Table 1 . Operational Definition and Measurement
Research hypothesis testing is based on parameter estimation from the full structural equation model.Hypothesis testing for each research hypothesis is based on the value of the regression coefficient (parameter).The research hypothesis is accepted if the CR value is greater than the t-table value (± 1.96) or the significance level is equal to or below 5% (p ≤ 0.05)(Hair et al., 2010).

Source: Primary data processed, 2022 Table 9. Multiple regression analysis model 2 Koefisien Standard error
Proceeding 3 rd International Conference on Business & Social Sciences (ICOBUSS) Source:

Primary data processed, 2022
Table8reports that the coefficient of R2 is 0.240, indicating that spiritual intelligence influences student performance by 24%; the rest is due to variables not revealed in this research.Table9shows the coefficient of determination value of 0.261, showing that the quality of campus life influences student performance by 26.10%, and the remaining 73.9% is influenced by variables not observed in this research.The feasibility model for the two research models shows a significance value of F<0.05.Thus, the research model is suitable for use and analysis.The multiple regression equation can be as follows: (1) SP = -9.008+0.870SI+0.927SC-0.018SI*SC + e; and (2) SP= 7.780 + 0.512 QCL + 0.617SC -0.014 QCL*SC + e Equation (