The Influence of AI Personalization, Feedback, and Usage on Student Engagement: A PLS-SEM Study on the Mediating Role of Technology Engagement in Indonesian Higher Education

Ahmad Abdullah Aswad; Tegar Angbirah Parerungan; Elma Nurjannah; Muh. Akbar

Authors

Ahmad Abdullah Aswad Universitas Negeri Makassar Author
Tegar Angbirah Parerungan Universitas Negeri Makassar Author
Elma Nurjannah Universitas Negeri Makassar Author
Muh. Akbar State University of Makassar Author

Keywords:

Artificial intelligence, Higher education, PLS-SEM, Student engagement, Technology engagement

Abstract

The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education has the potential to transform learning, yet access to technology does not guarantee active student participation2. Concrete evidence regarding the specific impact of AI features on psychological engagement remains limited. This study aims to examine the structural relationship between AI features (Usage, Personalization, and Feedback) and Student Engagement, specifically investigating the mediating role of Technology Engagement3. Methods: This study employed a quantitative approach with a non-experimental cross-sectional design4. Data were collected from 71 undergraduate students in Eastern Indonesia, predominantly from information technology majors5. The structural model was analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4 software to test direct and indirect effects6. Results: The analysis revealed that the model possesses substantial predictive power, explaining 74.4% of the variance in Technology Engagement (R^2=0.744) and 66.4% in Student Engagement (R^2=0.664). AI Personalization & Adaptivity emerged as the most dominant predictor, significantly influencing Technology Engagement (β =0.516, p < 0.001) and Student Engagement directly (β=0.310, p =0.010). Conversely, AI Usage and Feedback showed no significant direct effects on Student Engagement but demonstrated significant positive indirect effects through Full Mediation of Technology Engagement99. Conclusion: The findings confirm that Technology Engagement acts as a critical "gatekeeper" mechanism. The intensity of AI usage and automatic feedback alone is insufficient to drive academic engagement unless students first establish a strong sense of control and psychological engagement with the technology. Thus, educational strategies should prioritize adaptive personalization over mere instrumental use.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] W. Holmes, M. Bialik and C. Fadel, "Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning," Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019.

[2] H. Luan, P. Geczy, H.-L. Lai, J. Gobert, S. J. H. Yang and H. Ogata, "Challenges and Future Directions of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence in Education," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, p. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820, 2020.

[3] UNESCO, "Guidance for generative AI in education and research," UNESCO, Paris, 2023.

[4] M. Bond, K. Buntins, S. Bedenlier, O. Zawacki-Richter and M. Kerres, "Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map," International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 17, pp. 2, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8, 2020.

[5] Kemdikbud Ristek, "Panduan Implementasi Teknologi dalam Pembelajaran di Perguruan Tinggi," Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi, Jakarta, 2023.

[6] A. Lestariningrum, A. M. A. Ausat, M. I. Wanof, S. A. Pramono and S. Syamsuri, "The Impact of AI Use in Learning and Digital Material Accessibility on Students' Academic Achievement through Technology Engagement as A Mediating Variable," Jurnal Kependidikan: Jurnal Hasil Penelitian dan Kajian Kepustakaan di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1317-1328, doi: 10.33394/jk.v10i4.12896, 2024.

[7] A. Habibi, R. Rafiza and A. Lestariningrum, "ChatGPT in higher education learning: Acceptance and use," Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, pp. 100190, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100190, 2023.

[8] H. L. O’Brien and E. G. Toms, "What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 938-955, doi: 10.1002/asi.20801, 2008.

[9] J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld and A. H. Paris, "School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence," Review of Educational Research, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59-109, doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059, 2004.

[10] I. Ahmed, A. Ghafoor, D. Liliuara and V. Q. Akyuningrum, "The impact of ai learning tools on ESL learners' motivation and success: A systematic literature review," English Learning Innovation (englie), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 134-142, doi: 10.22219/englie.v6i1.38961, 2025.

[11] A. Pant, R. Hoda, C. Tantithamthavorn and B. Turhan, "Ethics in AI through the practitioner's view: a grounded theory literature review," Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 67, 2024.

[12] L. Qian, W. Cao and L. Chen, "Influence of artificial intelligence on higher education reform and talent cultivation in the digital intelligence era," Scientific Reports, vol. 15, p. 6047, 2025.

[13] C. K. Y. Chan and W. Hu, "Students' voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education," International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 20, pp. 43, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8, 2023.

[14] J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2018.

[15] J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen and H. H. Hyun, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

[16] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, Boston: Cengage Learning, 2019.

[17] A. F. Hayes, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: The Guilford Press, 2018.

[18] R. Garland, "The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable?," Marketing Bulletin, vol. 2, pp. 66-70, 1991.

[19] D. L. Streiner, G. R. Norman and J. Cairney, Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, doi: 10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001.

[20] S. Y. Chyung, K. Roberts, I. Swanson and A. Hankinson, "Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale," Performance Improvement, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 15-23, doi: 10.1002/pfi.21727, 2017.

[21] M. H. Faro, T. S. Gutu and A. B. Hunde, "Major factors influencing student engagement in Ethiopian higher education institutions: Evidence from one institution," PLOS ONE, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. e0318731, doi: 0.1371/journal.pone.0318731, 2025.

[22] B. Badarudin, L. Parhanuddin, A. Tohri and M. Suhardi, "The Effect of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in Education on Student Motivation: A Systematic Literature Review," Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 10.23887/jlls.v8i1.91141, 2025.

[23] E. Nurjannah, R. T. Mangesa, M. M. Fakhri, M. F. B, S. Sanatang and F. Arifiyanti, "Enhancing Digital Learning Outcomes: The Combined Impact of Competence and Psychological Traits," Online Learning in Educational Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 277-288, 2025.

[24] I. Molenaar, A. Horvers and R. S. Baker, "What can moment-by-moment learning curves tell about students’ self-regulated learning?," Learning and Instruction, vol. 72, pp. 101206, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.003, 1 April 2021.