Conference Agenda

The last decade has seen a surge of interest in Virtual Exchange (VE) and Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) as mechanisms for Internationalization at Home (IaH) of Higher Education, bringing intercultural collaboration into mainstream curricula without the logistical and financial barriers associated with physical mobility. Across disciplines, VE/COIL supports interactional authenticity, mutual perspective‑taking, and cross‑institutional teamwork. In addition to cognitive gains, participants report key socio‑emotional developments for global citizenship such as heightened curiosity, empathy, and tolerance for ambiguity.

Assessment of VE/COIL projects is difficult because outcomes are multidimensional, contextual, and dynamic. Intercultural competence comprises attitudes, knowledge, skills, and internal/external outcomes. Evidence accrues in interaction, through written and spoken discourse, collaborative artifacts, and reflection. Traditional surveys and activity counts underrepresent qualitative growth; they are ill‑suited to capturing behavioral transfer over time or linking participation to organizational results. Methodological pluralism is essential, yet reflective and qualitative approaches are labor‑intensive and challenging to scale across large cohorts and multi‑institutional contexts.

The Kirkpatrick Model offers a well‑established scaffold to organize questions, methods, and evidence from immediate experience through long‑term impact. On the other hand, Artificial Intelligence (AI) can provide continuous feedback loops, reduce manual coding burdens, and uncover patterns in large datasets, while human‑in‑the‑loop interpretation preserves pedagogical judgment and contextual nuance.

This paper suggests an evaluation framework that augments each level of the Kirkpatrick Model (Reaction, Learning, Behavior, Results) with AI methods to support VE/COIL evaluation and assessment by enhancing sensitivity, timeliness, scalability, and data‑driven insights. At Level 1 (Reaction), natural language processing (NLP) and adaptive surveys capture participant sentiment and perceived relevance in real time. Level 2 (Learning) integrates adaptive assessments, simulations, and learning analytics to track knowledge and skill acquisition against intended objectives, including intercultural competence. Level 3 (Behavior) leverages behavioral analytics and reflection analysis to identify application and transfer of skills across authentic tasks and over time. Level 4 (Results) connects VE/COIL participation to organizational goals via predictive modeling and data mining, surfacing impacts on performance, collaboration, retention, and cultural understanding. The framework offers institutions a practical pathway to nuanced, scalable, ethically governed evaluation and outlines priorities for mixed‑methods validation, equity‑minded adoption, and institutional sustainability.

<p dir="ltr">The increasing demand for user-centered and socially responsive design has positioned participatory design as an important methodology in architecture and design practice. At the same time, immersive technologies such as extended reality (XR) are changing how design ideas are visualized, communicated, and evaluated. Despite these developments, the integration of participatory design pedagogy and immersive technologies within the design studios in higher education remains limited and insufficiently structured.</p>

<p dir="ltr">This research aims to explore how XR technologies can be integrated into participatory design teaching practices in architecture and interior design schools in higher education. It focuses on enabling students to incorporate intended users’ feedback into the development of studio projects as part of the design process. It also seeks to identify the intersections between participatory design pedagogy, the use of extended reality (XR) in the design process, and teaching and learning practices in studio-based courses. The significance of this paper lies in addressing a prominent gap in current participatory design pedagogy, and in providing insights to inform future technology-driven approaches that support user participation and co-creation in architecture and design education.</p>

<p dir="ltr">The study adopts a structured scoping literature review, guided by PRISMA-ScR screening procedures, followed by thematic analysis of peer-reviewed studies published over the last fifteen years. The review focuses on studies that examine the use of XR in teaching architecture and design as part of the design process. These studies are analysed to understand how XR is positioned within teaching and learning practices as a tool, and to what extent such applications support participatory design within the design process. Rather than only mapping the presence of XR in design education, the analysis critically examines whether these practices enable participation, collaboration, co-creation, and meaningful user involvement. Through this approach, the study aims to develop a grounded understanding of the current connections between three key areas; XR, design pedagogy, and participatory design, while also identifying gaps in existing research and practice.</p>

<p dir="ltr">The research is expected to develop a framework of understanding that highlights how the above three areas can be connected. It is expected that this exploration will reveal strong potential for XR to support more participatory, collaborative, and engaging teaching practices in architecture and design education. </p>

<p>Indonesia's 2024 general election offered a telling illustration: the candidate pair with the highest digital advertising spend across Meta platforms secured the lowest vote share nationally, while broker networks continued distributing cash and goods in the final days before polling. The gap between the reach of digital campaigns and the persistence of transactional politics has not been resolved in the literature, and this study takes it as its starting point. Specifically, it asks: when does digital political communication actually move voter choice, and when does the material logic of broker-mediated exchange take over?</p>

<p>The study works within the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework, treating voter decision-making as an evaluative process with distinct stages and not a direct input-output mechanism. Four constructs operate at the stimulus stage: Integrated Political Marketing Communication (IPMC), measuring the strategic consistency of messages across digital and traditional platforms; Key Opinion Leaders (KOL), covering influencers, religious figures, and local intermediaries who carry and modify political messages within their networks; Political Identity (PID), reflecting the extent to which partisan and communal ties predispose voters toward particular candidates; and Voter Skepticism (VS), measuring distrust of political actors and campaign claims. Informed by Social Exchange Theory and Motivated Reasoning Theory, Candidate Branding (CB) and Perceived Political Integrity Beliefs (PIB) function as organism-stage filters that process incoming stimuli before electoral behavior occurs.</p>

<p>What distinguishes this study is its treatment of context as an analytical variable and not merely a control. Brokerage clientelism is modeled across two dimensions: Social Assistance (SA), which measures voter assessments of whether pre-election welfare distributions were fair, well-timed, and need-based; and Perceived Political Intervention through Brokerage Clientelism (PIBC), which measures the extent to which voters encountered broker-delivered material inducements via personal networks. The central argument is that both dimensions condition whether CB and PIB perceptions carry through to vote choice, or whether transactional considerations take precedence.</p>

<p>Data will be gathered through a structured survey of 600 registered voters across DKI Jakarta, West Java, and Banten. Analysis uses PLS-SEM with a two-stage procedure for second-order constructs and product-indicator interaction terms for moderation testing.</p>

<p>The paper speaks primarily to scholars of digital participation and electoral politics in contexts where party institutionalization is weak and broker networks remain electorally relevant.</p>