Volume 13, Issue 7 (July 2026), Pages: 145-157

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Designing meaning and momentum: A value-integrated academic services framework for distance education

 Author(s): 

Rhini Fatmasari ¹, Eko Suroso ^2, *, Onok Yayang Pamungkas ², Ade Imelda Frimayanti ¹, Tita Rosita ¹, Kadarisman Kadarisman ¹, Mudayat Mudayat ¹, Zahriyah Simargolang ³

 Affiliation(s):

¹Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Terbuka, Jakarta, Indonesia
²Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, Banyumas, Indonesia
³Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4193-9597

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.07.014

 Abstract

This study develops, validates, and tests a Transformative Academic Service Framework (TASF) for graduate distance education—grounded in service-dominant logic, transformative learning, and values-based education—to deliver human-centered services that advance engagement, values formation, and wellbeing. Design-based, convergent mixed methods paired iterative framework development with a quasi-experimental rollout across five centers (students = 247; faculty = 32; staff = 15). Validation used four-factor CFA (α = 0.88–0.91); fidelity was tracked via audits/LMS/training logs; outcomes were tested with 2×2 repeated-measures ANOVAs and SEM (multi-group invariance, bootstrapped mediation), and interviews/FGDs underwent reflexive thematic analysis. Good model fit (χ²/df = 2.14, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.067; AVE ≥ 0.56) held under metric–scalar invariance (|ΔCFI| ≤ 0.010; |ΔRMSEA| ≤ 0.009); fidelity was high (SOP 92.4%, micro-reflection 85.6%, training 91–94%), and all outcomes showed time × group effects (all ps < 0.001; partial η² ≥ 0.22) with large gains in the implementation arm (mean d = 1.13, 95% CI [0.98, 1.28]). In SEM, Integrative Service Design predicted Academic Engagement (β = 0.34) and Values-Embedded Processes predicted Values Integration (β = 0.42); both mediators predicted Academic Wellbeing (β = 0.28, β = 0.33) with significant bootstrapped indirect effects (β = 0.09–0.14), corroborated by qualitative themes of belonging, purpose, self-efficacy, and feedback loops. TASF, a validated high-fidelity framework, measurably improves service quality, engagement, values integration, and academic wellbeing in distance higher education, offering a scalable blueprint for human-centered, outcomes-oriented academic services by embedding values into integrative service design and reflective routines.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Academic services, Distance education, Student engagement, Values integration, Academic wellbeing

 Article history

Received 17 January 2026, Received in revised form 13 July 2026, Accepted 21 July 2026

 Funding

This research was fully funded by the Direktorat Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (DPPM), Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi, Sains, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia, under the national higher education research grant scheme. 

 Acknowledgment

We would like to express our gratitude to the Direktorat Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi, Sains, dan Teknologi Indonesia for fully supporting this research. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia (Approval No. EC-UT/045/2025, issued on 12 May 2025). All participants provided informed consent before participation. Participation was voluntary, and all data were treated confidentially and anonymized for research purposes. 

 Citation:

Fatmasari R, Suroso E, Pamungkas OY, Frimayanti AI, Rosita T, Kadarisman K, Mudayat M, and Simargolang Z (2026). Designing meaning and momentum: A value-integrated academic services framework for distance education. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(7): 145-157

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (42)

1. Arthur J (2024). Character education in universities. Church, Communication and Culture, 9(2): 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2024.2390128   [Google Scholar]
2. Basnet S, Bolbot V, Yousaf A, Gunawan S, Zhou J, and Banda OAV (2026). An integrated STPA-STRIDE-BN framework for cybersecurity risk analysis: A case study of ship remote pilotage operations. Future Generation Computer Systems, 183: 108515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2026.108515   [Google Scholar]
3. Bergdahl N, Bond M, Sjöberg J, Dougherty M, and Oxley E (2024). Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21: 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y   [Google Scholar]
4. Bourlakis M, Nisar TM, Prabhakar G, and Smith MH (2026). Campaign design features and funding success: An analysis of reward-based crowdfunding in social media platform ecosystems. Technovation, 155: 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2026.103596   [Google Scholar]
5. Chan CKY (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20: 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3   [Google Scholar]
6. Cimino A, Corvello V, Longo F, Solina V, and Thomas A (2026). Humanizing artificial intelligence: How employee appropriation of technology can improve well-being. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 230: 124737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124737   [Google Scholar]
7. Cornaglia F, Hackmann M, Hackmann N, Vigliotti V, and Turri MG (2026). Measure what matters: Using an AI Chatbot to evaluate the mental wellbeing impact of creative health programmes. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 10: 100388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2026.100388   [Google Scholar]
8. Dabis A and Csáki C (2024). AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11: 1006. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03526-z   [Google Scholar]
9. de Pedro ZM, Alvarez-Montero A, Casas JA, and Munoz M (2025). Active learning in environmental engineering: Combining interactive platforms and project-based approaches to boost engagement and academic performance. Education for Chemical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2025.09.002   [Google Scholar]
10. Ding Y, Zhang L, and Zhang Y (2026). Context-sensitive analysis of disaster resilience and equity through geospatial explainable machine learning. Sustainable Cities and Society, 139: 107203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2026.107203   [Google Scholar]
11. Eivazinezhad S, Akbari M, and Florentin Nkoulou Mvondo G (2025). Impact of green reputation on green evangelism: The role of green fidelity, respect and credibility. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 17(5): 1247-1274. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-04-2024-0198   [Google Scholar]
12. Geibler RH and Wagner K (2026). Participation and dose-response effects of institutional vocational training on recidivism and employment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 103: 102618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2026.102618   [Google Scholar]
13. Hanefar SBM, Ikram M, Chew RSY, Parahakaran S, Tambi F, and Rahman A (2026). Conceptualising parenting as a determinant of holistic student wellbeing: Toward the SPIE model. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13: 102945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102945   [Google Scholar]
14. Harahap F, Nurdiawati A, Arvidsson N, and Urban F (2026). Assessing the climate impact of retail payment services. Ecological Economics, 246: 109004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109004   [Google Scholar]
15. Härpfer K, Kausche FM, Meyer A, Schmidt NB, and Riesel A (2026). Targeting self-reported and neural error sensitivity: Short-and long-term effects of a one-week online intervention. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 26(1): 100667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2026.100667   [Google Scholar] PMid:41631015 PMCid:PMC12861243
16. Hoxha K and Vinson A (2025). The moral dimension of professional socialization in the premedical years. Social Science & Medicine, 384: 118561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118561   [Google Scholar] PMid:40957376
17. Lee S, Cui H, and Jeon S (2025). Exploring the role of psychological ownership in value co-creation in private clubs: Insights from social cognitive theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 131: 104348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104348   [Google Scholar]
18. Li H, Zhang J, Khan WA, and Lamsali H (2025). Teacher responsibility, AI integration, and student well-being: The role of peer collaboration in higher education. Acta Psychologica, 260: 105532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105532   [Google Scholar] PMid:40939452
19. Li J, Zhang J, Zhu M, and Yang F (2026). Equity-sensitive pathways to science teacher identity in Western China: The mediating role of self-efficacy in reframing demands and mobilizing resources. Teaching and Teacher Education, 177: 105555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105555   [Google Scholar]
20. Liu GL, Lee JS, and Zhao X (2025). Critical digital literacies, agentic practices, and AI-mediated informal digital learning of English. System, 134: 103797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103797   [Google Scholar]
21. Lu L, Xu P, Wang YY, and Wang Y (2023). Measuring service quality with text analytics: Considering both importance and performance of consumer opinions on social and non-social online platforms. Journal of Business Research, 169: 114298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114298   [Google Scholar]
22. Lubicz-Nawrocka T and Bovill C (2023). Do students experience transformation through co-creating curriculum in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 28(7): 1744-1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928060   [Google Scholar]
23. Martin F and Bolliger DU (2022). Developing an online learner satisfaction framework in higher education through a systematic review of research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19: 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00355-5   [Google Scholar]
24. Martin F, Sun T, and Westine CD (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159: 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009   [Google Scholar] PMid:32921895 PMCid:PMC7480742
25. Martin F, Wu T, Wan L, and Xie K (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning, 26(1): 325-359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604   [Google Scholar]
26. Mehraein S, Marefat H, and Karami H (2026). Exploring implicit, automatized, and explicit knowledge: Testing competing CFA models. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5(1): 100303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2026.100303   [Google Scholar]
27. Özalp C (2025). Turkish adaptation of the catheter assessment, management and performance scale for nurses: Validity, measurement invariance and reliability study. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 85: 354-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2025.08.016   [Google Scholar] PMid:40886483
28. Piragauta JAR and de Oliveira JM (2023). Do ethics and values play a role in virtual education? A study on the perception of students and teachers. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21: 343-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09459-z   [Google Scholar] PMid:36247220 PMCid:PMC9540117
29. Reid CA, Dhamankar M, Marsh S, Peterson ER, Erb CD, and Waldie KE (2026). Have we found directionality? Longitudinal associations between screen use and executive function in children. A scoping review. Developmental Review, 80: 101266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2026.101266   [Google Scholar]
30. Richardson JC, Koehler AA, Tagare D, Urena-Rodriguez L, Xu Q, Zhang Z, Fiock H, Long Y, and Duha MSU (2025). Community of Inquiry design decisions across disciplines. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 37: 1119-1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-024-09417-1   [Google Scholar]
31. Rotar O (2022). Online student support: A framework for embedding support interventions into the online learning cycle. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17: 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00178-4   [Google Scholar]
32. Sgherza TR, Becerra R, Bylsma LM, Fresco DM, and Naragon-Gainey K (2026). Investigating functional impairment as a mediator of the association between internalising symptoms and low wellbeing. Journal of Affective Disorders, 405: 121517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2026.121517   [Google Scholar] PMid:41763322 PMCid:PMC13222730
33. Slimmen S, García MFM, Timmermans O, Lechner L, and Oenema A (2026). Mapping system dynamics of academic, social, and online influences on student mental wellbeing: A participatory systems approach using causal loop diagramming. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 100391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2026.100391   [Google Scholar]
34. Sun Q, Lei G, Wang Y, and Guo L (2026). Teacher transformational leadership and international student academic satisfaction: Examining the sequential mediation of student self-efficacy and engagement. Acta Psychologica, 267: 107013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107013   [Google Scholar] PMid:42102682
35. Sun W, Wang X, Ding C, Wang Y, Su Z, and Li G (2024). Bilateral chylothorax after left neck lymphadenectomy for thyroid cancer: A case report. Heliyon, 10(4): e26178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26178   [Google Scholar] PMid:38404876 PMCid:PMC10884482
36. Surya Bahadur GC, Gurung SK, Poudel RL, Yadav US, Bhattacharjee A, and Dhungana BR (2024). The effect of higher education service quality on satisfaction among business students in India and Nepal. Cogent Education, 11(1): 2393521. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2393521   [Google Scholar]
37. Thitalampoon S, Boonpalit A, Thanaphansin N, and Junlarick W (2026). AI adoption in Thailand's e-government services: A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13: 102967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102967   [Google Scholar]
38. Tomaszczyk J and Gołda A (2026). Digital Darwinism in academic libraries: Survival, transformation and evolutionary paths. Journal of Documentation, 82(3): 508-528. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2025-0100   [Google Scholar]
39. Wani SA, Asgar A, and Srivastava M (2023). Learner support services at distance higher education institutions in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 18(3): 246-261. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-02-2023-0026   [Google Scholar]
40. Waterhouse P, Samra R, and Lucassen M (2022). Distance education students’ satisfaction: Do work and family roles matter? Distance Education, 43(1): 56-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.2020622   [Google Scholar]
41. Yaşar YA, Gencer S, İlhan N, and Aştı T (2026). The relationships between frailty and depression, loneliness, and self-neglect in older adults: A cross-sectional study. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 60: 151997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2025.151997   [Google Scholar] PMid:41864685
42. Zhou S, Slemp GR, and Vella-Brodrick DA (2025). Profiling pre-service teachers’ motivational and behavioral characteristics: Relationships with psychological wellbeing and occupational commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 164: 105041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105041   [Google Scholar]