cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Irwanto
Contact Email
editor-jrep@spm-online.com
Phone
+6282323169338
Journal Mail Official
editor-jrep@spm-online.com
Editorial Address
Scientia Publica Media. Perumahan Wonolelo Indah No. 39, Muntilan, Magelang 56411, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia
Location
Kota magelang,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy
Published by Scientia Publica Media
ISSN : 30476410     EISSN : 30477131     DOI : https://doi.org/10.70232/jrep.v1i2
Core Subject : Education, Social,
Education Social Sciences
The Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy (JREP) is an international, double-blind peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by Scientia Publica Media. The journal is published four times a year in February, May, August, and November. It publishes original papers, reviews, and case studies that reflect the latest research and developments in both theoretical and practical aspects of education and pedagogy. JREP covers all levels of education, from early childhood to higher and vocational education, as well as formal, informal, and non-formal education. The journal also publishes refereed research papers that include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed analyses. It strives to encourage and provide international publications for the benefit of researchers, academics, institutions, educators, and students with good professional practices. JREP serves as an invaluable resource for educators, supervisors, curriculum planners, counselors, administrators, and educational researchers, offering insights to inform the design of future curricula.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Pendidikan
Articles 112 Documents
 8   9   10   11   12 
AI as a Personal Tutor: Enabling Students to Access Smart Tools Daniel Lee; Amy Robinson
Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy
Publisher : Scientia Publica Media

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70232/jrep.v3i3.213

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used by university students, yet enabling/preparatory cohorts may require explicit guidance to realise learning benefits while maintaining academic integrity. This study explored GenAI tools as “personal tutors” within a leading Australian university preparatory context, focusing on how students actually used these tools, how institutional transparency requirements shaped practice, and what barriers remained. A blended descriptive methodology combined autoethnography of teaching practice with student-generated artefacts (Statements of AI Engagement and assessment extracts). Dataset 1 comprised the educator’s reflective journal notes, analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Dataset 2 comprised de-identified student artefacts, analysed using Inductive Thematic Analysis. To contextualise the qualitative findings, Statements of AI Engagement were also coded according to the institution’s four AI-engagement levels and to the tools and usage reported, and then summarised using descriptive frequencies/percentages. Participants were students (n=74) enrolled in two university preparatory courses (English Literacy and Research Design) during Semester 2, 2024. 72 Statements of AI Engagement were collected from 98 submitted assessments. Findings indicate broad acceptance of GenAI as supportive learning aids, most commonly for idea generation, rephrasing, summarisation, and basic editing/proofreading. ChatGPT was the most frequently acknowledged large language model, while AI-enabled search and writing-support tools were used more selectively. Although students generally positioned themselves as retaining authorial control, the study also identified persistent concerns regarding over-trust in automated outputs, cognitive load associated with evaluating and integrating AI suggestions, and an internalised stigma that reduced willingness to access both human and AI writing support. The findings suggest that structured, guidelines-based integration, including explicit verification instructions and reflective Statements of AI Engagement, can promote responsible, transparent GenAI use in enabling education.
Governance Capacity: A Critical Analysis of Vocational Education Administration Models in Local Government of Laos Sengbandith Khinnithuck; Fang Huang; Sengbandith Phonethana
Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy
Publisher : Scientia Publica Media

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70232/jrep.v3i3.215

Abstract

Centralized governance frameworks in developing economies frequently generate a fundamental tension between national policy coherence and the operational responsiveness required by diverse local labor markets. In Laos, this tension is acutely manifest within the administration of Vocational Education (VE), where provincial and district authorities bear expanding implementation responsibilities without commensurate transfers of fiscal authority, administrative capacity, or technical expertise. This study critically examines the administration models operationalized within local VE governance in Laos, identifies the structural constraints limiting their effectiveness, and proposes an evidence-grounded five-component governance reform framework. Employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, the study integrates quantitative survey data from 781 stakeholders across all provinces, comprising local government officials, VE administrators, educators, and industry representatives, with semi-structured qualitative interviews and systematic policy document analysis. Quantitative findings reveal that administrative model typology (centralized, decentralized, hybrid) accounts for less than 2% of the variance in perceived governance effectiveness, whereas process-level governance qualities, institutional autonomy, stakeholder participation, decentralization depth, and resource adequacy jointly account for 56% of the variance in perceived suitability. Public-Private Partnership (PPP) strength emerges as the strongest predictor of institutional effectiveness. Qualitative findings illuminate the mechanisms underlying these patterns: local authorities function as pragmatic brokers, navigating structural rigidities through informal networks and discretionary project-based initiatives that remain institutionally unsustainable and inequitably distributed. The study identifies a centralization-responsiveness paradox wherein ceremonially adopted decentralization policies coexist with functionally centralized operations, generating accountability ambiguities and inequitable governance costs. Grounded analytically in institutional theory, decentralization theory, and human capital theory, the proposed framework integrates reconstituted multi-level governance architecture, institutionalized demand-side engagement, equitable financing, systematic capacity development, and rigorous performance accountability. Implications are discussed for policymakers, development partners, and VE administrators in comparable transitional economies.

Page 12 of 12 | Total Record : 112

 8   9   10   11   12 

Filter by Year

2024 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): Journal of Research in Education and Pedagogy