Online Student Engagement: The Overview of HE in Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of technology in higher education learning has been shown to increase student engagement. However, how its application can increase student engagement is still largely unreported in Indonesia, especially during and after COVID-19, when online learning was used massively and suddenly. This study aims to examine students’ engagement with online learning using a sequential explanatory mixed-method study design that is expected to produce in-depth information. The study involved a number of n = 775 students, with 149 participants who identified themselves as male (19.3%) and 626 participants who identified themselves as female (80.7%). The age range of the participants was 18 to 22 years (M-age = 20.12). Quantitative data analysis was carried out using descriptive tests and ANOVA variance tests, while qualitative data analysis was carried out using thematic analysis. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data analyses results was conducted using a joint display approach. The results showed that 94.45% (n = 732) of students had low engagement scores. Gender and field of study were found to have no effect on the level of student engagement in online learning (F 1,775 = 3.259, p = .071, η2 = .004). Data integration results showed that online learning reduces emotional attachment, participation, and performance, although it does not reduce students’ skill engagement. Based on student experience, online learning is considered less effective than in-person learning. Students with higher self-regulation show engagement in online learning. The online learning model needs an effective formula for increasing student engagement, in addition to help students develop self-regulation skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it