Aina Nindiani (1), Aris Insan Waluya (2), Annisa Indah Pratiwi (3)
General Background: Higher education learning systems require continuous improvement to ensure learning quality, student participation, and satisfactory academic outcomes. Specific Background: In an applied engineering course at a higher education institution in West Java, student attendance averaged 74.45 percent per meeting and was associated with incomplete learning experiences and repeat rates. Knowledge Gap: Prior studies predominantly evaluated learning methods or attendance outcomes without systematically designing learning innovations grounded in student needs and experiential data. Aims: This study aims to apply design thinking as a structured framework to identify attendance-related barriers and enablers and to formulate learning system innovations in an applied engineering course. Results: Findings indicate strong student preferences for offline lectures and simulation-based learning, while attendance is primarily enabled by interesting lecture materials and constrained by work obligations. Significant relationships were identified between age and selected learning formats, as well as between gender and specific assessment types. Incremental innovations such as flipped classrooms and guest lectures, alongside radical innovations including experiential learning and AI-based learning platforms, were formulated through the ideate phase. Novelty: This study frames student attendance and learning quality as a design challenge and empirically integrates attendance data, student preferences, and structured innovation using design thinking. Implications: The results provide a data-driven framework for lecturers and academic managers to redesign applied engineering learning systems through continuous improvement grounded in participation behavior and student-centered innovation.
• Student attendance reflects learning system configuration.• Design thinking structures learning innovation based on empirical data.• Continuous improvement aligns learning design with student needs.
Design Thinking; Continuous Improvement; Applied Engineering Education; Learning System Design; Student Attendance
S. Küfeoğlu, “SDG-4 Quality Education,” in Emerging Technologies, Sustainable Development Goals Series, Springer, Cham, pp. 255–275, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-07127-0_6.
I. B. Franco and E. Derbyshire, “SDG 4 Quality Education,” in Actioning the Global Goals for Local Impact, Science for Sustainable Societies, Springer, Singapore, pp. 57–68, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-981-32-9927-6_5.
G. A. Tetteh, “Effects of Classroom Attendance and Learning Strategies on the Learning Outcome,” Journal of International Education in Business, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 195–219, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1108/JIEB-01-2017-0004.
W. J. Glover, J. A. Farris, and E. M. Van Aken, “The Relationship Between Continuous Improvement and Rapid Improvement Sustainability,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 53, no. 13, pp. 4068–4086, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2014.991841.
S. Guaman-Quintanilla, P. Everaert, K. Chiluiza, and M. Valcke, “Impact of Design Thinking in Higher Education: A Multi-Actor Perspective on Problem-Solving and Creativity,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 217–240, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S10798-021-09724-Z.
R. Wolniak, “The Design Thinking Method and its Stages,” Systemy Wspomagania w Inżynierii Produkcji, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/113710.pdf
E. Y. L. Au and R. S. Goonetilleke, “Leveraging Design Thinking to Enhance Engineering Teaching: An Operational Model,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 95–102, 2025, doi: 10.1109/TE.2024.3467387.
R. Rohmanto and T. Setiawan, “Perbandingan Efektivitas Sistem Pembelajaran Luring dan Daring Menggunakan Metode Use Case dan Sequence Diagram,” INTERNAL (Information System Journal), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53–62, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.32627/INTERNAL.V5I1.506.
A. S. Zenab and S. Sukawati, “Studi Komparasi Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa Melalui Metode Daring dan Luring pada Mata Kuliah Bahasa Indonesia,” Semantik, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 245–256, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.22460/SEMANTIK.V11I2.P245-256.
F. Nadziroh, “Analisa Efektifitas Sistem Pembelajaran Berbasis E-Learning,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://journal.unusida.ac.id/index.php/jik/en/article/view/28/19
A. Nindiani, A. Suhara, and Gusni, “Kano Approach for Developing Learning Experiences in the Educational Service Industry.” [Online]. Available: https://repository.widyatama.ac.id/items/804ec940-ab9b-4fc2-87de-b9fb3fe7cc6b
K. Ali and A. Al-Hameed, “Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient in Statistical Analysis,” International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3249–3255, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.22075/IJNAA.2022.6079.
P. C. N. Subramani and V. Iyappan, “Recent Trend of Teaching Methods in Education,” India Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, vol. 2018, no. 3, pp. 20–22, 2018, doi: 10.21839/jaar.2018.v3S1.161.
S. Cattan, D. A. Kamhöfer, M. Karlsson, and T. Nilsson, “The Short- and Long-Term Effects of Student Absence: Evidence from Sweden,” 2021, doi: 10.1920/WP.IFS.2021.621.
A. Diemer, F. Khushik, and A. Ndiaye, “SDG 4 ‘Quality Education’, the Cornerstone of the SDGs: Case Studies of Pakistan and Senegal,” Journal of Economics and Development Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.15640/jeds.v8n1a2.
F. Ozdamli and G. Asiksoy, “Flipped Classroom Approach,” World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 98–105, 2016.
H. Galindo-Dominguez, “Flipped Classroom in the Educational System,” Education and Information Technologies, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27032855
T. Låg and R. G. Sæle, “Does the Flipped Classroom Improve Student Learning and Satisfaction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” AERA Open, vol. 5, no. 3, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1177/2332858419870489.
H. Al-Samarraie, A. Shamsuddin, and A. I. Alzahrani, “A Flipped Classroom Model in Higher Education: A Review of the Evidence Across Disciplines,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 1017–1051, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1007/S11423-019-09718-8.
D. G. Pepple et al., “Using Guest Lectures to Enhance Student Employability: Pedagogical Considerations,” Cogent Education, vol. 12, no. 1, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2452076.
L. Li and R. Guo, “A Student-Centered Guest Lecturing: A Constructivism Approach to Promote Student Engagement,” 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.aabri.com/copyright.html
P. S. Seow, G. Pan, and G. Koh, “Examining an Experiential Learning Approach to Prepare Students for the Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) Work Environment,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 62–76, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.IJME.2018.12.001.
N. A. S. Bahri et al., “Benefits of AI-Driven Learning Platform in Engineering Education Context,” International Research Journal on Innovations in Engineering, Science and Technology, vol. 9, pp. 32–35, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i06.11231.
C. L. Kok et al., “Preparing Future Engineers: Strategies for Integrating AI Platforms in Higher Education,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Annual International Conference (TENCON), 2024, pp. 1869–1872, doi: 10.1109/TENCON61640.2024.10902925.