Correlation underwriter, auditors, profitability and company sizes on stock underprizing by Information Communication Technology (ICT) based learning

• Published in: Journal of physics. Conference series Vol. 1402; no. 7; pp. 77071 - 77081
• Main Authors: Mamase, A R Y, Pratama, N U, Mursalin, A, Rizal, M F, Niswan, E, Ellyta, E, Utomo, S, Muharlisiani, L T
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bristol IOP Publishing 01.12.2019
• Subjects: Data analysis; Data collection; Dependent variables; Independent variables; Learning; Physics; Profitability; Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1742-6588; 1742-6596
• DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1402/7/077071

The purpose of this research are two-fold, first to analyse correlation of underwriter, auditor, profitability and company size on stock underprizing and second, also to know the student learning outcomes through the implementation of ICT based learning in the subjects of stock underprizing. The method used is quantitative research, the follow up data analysis used is multiple regression. The results showed that the three independent variables consisting of underwriter reputation (X1), auditor reputation (X2) and profitability (X3) had a negative effect and only company size (X4) had a positive effect towards the dependent variable namely stock underprizing (Y) with the regression equation Y = 29.760 - 10.011X1 - 11.812X2 - 0.512X3 + 0.366X4 + e and sig value X1 = 0.040, X2 = 0.103, X3 = 0.088 and X4 = 0.750. Thus, its mean that only underwriter has influence toward stock underprizing and a good performance of underwriter can decrease the stock underprizing. This research is Classroom Action Research (CAR) was conducted in two cycles of learning with the stages in each cycle includes planning, action, observation and evaluation, and reflection. Student response data collected through questionnaires/questionnaires. Collected data was then analysed descriptively. The results showed average student learning outcomes before the action amounted to 68.81, after the first and second cycle outcomes increased to 88.70 and 88.00.