Students’ Perceptions of Internet Network Problems Facilities at A Public University Using a Qualitative Descriptive Method for Service Improvement

Raden Rocky Anderson; Zidni Ma’ruf; Resa Kurni Pratama; Fattar Firansyah

doi:10.47065/jussi.v5i3.10122

Raden Rocky Anderson Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia
Zidni Ma’ruf * Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5678-1382
Resa Kurni Pratama Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia
Fattar Firansyah Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya, Palembang, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47065/jussi.v5i3.10122

Keywords: Internet Network; Student Perceptions; Qualitative Descriptive Method; Service Quality; Academic Activities

Abstract

This study examines students’ perceptions of internet network services used to support academic activities in higher education. The research was motivated by several issues frequently experienced by students, including unstable internet connections, limited coverage in certain campus areas, network congestion during peak usage periods, repeated login requirements, and limited information regarding technical support services. The objective of this study is to identify students’ perceptions regarding the quality, accessibility, and reliability of campus internet services and to formulate recommendations for service improvement. A qualitative descriptive method was employed through semi structured interviews involving six Electrical Engineering students. The collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring experiences and issues encountered by students. The findings indicate that campus internet services play an important role in supporting access to learning materials, e learning platforms, assignment completion, and other academic activities. However, students reported several challenges related to connection stability, internet speed, roaming capability, and technical support availability. As a practical solution, this study recommends improving network infrastructure, optimizing bandwidth capacity, enhancing roaming functionality across campus areas, and providing clearer technical support information for users. The study provides valuable insights for improving campus internet services and supporting technology-based learning environments more effectively.

References

S. Shah, N. Mehta, and A. Sunil, “Investigation of e-learning adoption in higher education based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model,” E-Learning Digit. Media, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 171–192, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530241232493.

I. Y. Alyoussef, “Acceptance of e-learning in higher education: The role of task-technology fit with the information systems success model,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 3, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13751.

A. Buana and U. Linarti, “Measurement of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in using e-learning in higher education,” J. Teknol. Inf. dan Pendidik., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 165–171, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.24036/jtip.v14i2.471.

F. M. Khan, N. Singh, Y. Gupta, J. Kaur, S. Banik, and S. Gupta, “A meta-analysis of mobile learning adoption in higher education based on unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 3 (UTAUT3),” Vision, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 110–119, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629221101159.

M. I. Baig, L. Shuib, and E. Yadegaridehkordi, “E-learning adoption in higher education: A review,” Inf. Dev., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 570–588, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669211008224.

A. Padalia, A. Jamilah, S. Syakhruni, Y. S. Rini, and A. M. Idkhan, “E-learning application usage in higher education with technology acceptance model (TAM) for students’ assessment,” Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1059–1067, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.3.18691.

A. M. Sayaf, “Adoption of E-learning systems: An integration of ISSM and constructivism theories in higher education,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 97–111, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13014.

M. M. Mashroofa, A. Haleem, N. Nawaz, and M. A. Saldeen, “E-learning adoption for sustainable higher education,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 98–116, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17505.

A. Fernández, B. Gómez, K. Binjaku, and E. K. Meçe, “Digital transformation initiatives in higher education institutions: A multivocal literature review,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 12351–12382, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11544-0.

M. Xiao and L. Su, “Undergraduates’ online teaching satisfaction and influencing factors based on grounded theory under the background of Internet Plus,” J. Comput. Methods Sci. Eng., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 3707–3713, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/14727978241296996.

H. N. Quang and H. M. Tri, “The challenges and opportunities of online learning during Covid-19 pandemic,” Ho Chi Minh City Open Univ. J. Sci. Sci., vol. 34, no. 14, pp. 3–14, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.11.1.1902.2021.

A. P. Akmad and A. V. Abatayo, “Caught in the slow lane: Effects of unstable internet connectivity on accessing academic resources and collaborative learning,” J. Interdiscip. Perspect., vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 278–286, 2024, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0370.

M. Yan and R. G. Pourdavood, “Faculty and student perspectives on online learning in higher education,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 8, p. 801, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080801.

A. Rahman, S. Syamsuardi, and S. Basri, “Bridging the gap: Student perceptions of blended learning’s promise and reality in higher education,” J. Inov. Teknol. Pendidik., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 166–178, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.21831/jitp.v12i2.86101.

S. Graser and S. Böhm, “A systematic literature review on technology acceptance research on augmented reality in the field of training and education,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2411.13946, vol. 13, no. 17, pp. 144–167, 2024, doi: doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.13946.

F. Maujud, M. Nurman, M. Harun, and Z. F. Rahman, “Student Perceptions of the Effectiveness of E-Learning in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Two Universities in Indonesia and Malaysia,” Lentera Pendidik. J. Ilmu Tarb. dan Kegur., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 522–539, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.24252/lp.2024v27n2i14.

M. A. Viola, A. K. Yamkee, F. A. Vilanti, and S. Swastini, “The Influence of System Quality, Information Quality, and Service Quality on Student Satisfaction in Using E-Learning at Universities in Jambi,” Educ. Leadersh. Manag. J., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 15–30, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.22437/element.v2i2.38378.

A. M. Idkhan and M. M. Idris, “The impact of user satisfaction in the use of e-learning systems in higher education: A CB-SEM approach,” Int. J. Environ. Eng. Educ., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 100–110, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.55151/ijeedu.v5i3.91.

J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, 2018.

V. C. V. Braun, Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE publications, 2021.

K. Roulston, B. A. Herron, and C. Farrington, “Learning how to interview for qualitative research,” Qual. Rep., vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 4129–4151, 2025, doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2025.7737.

G. Terry and N. Hayfield, Essentials of thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, 2021.

Bila bermanfaat silahkan share artikel ini

Berikan Komentar Anda terhadap artikel Students’ Perceptions of Internet Network Problems Facilities at A Public University Using a Qualitative Descriptive Method for Service Improvement