Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose – Student feedback in Indonesian higher education is a rich pedagogical resource that stays underused. Sentiment analysis under controlled conditions has rarely reached the Indonesian academic domain. This study compares three classification approaches on student feedback: Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and IndoBERT. Design/methods/approach – Unlike earlier work that splits sentiment and theme into two independent pipelines, we design a multi-task IndoBERT with one shared encoder and two classification heads, so that sentiment and instructional dimension are predicted jointly for the same response. We also build a preprocessing pipeline tuned to Indonesian academic discourse, with slang normalization and domain-specific stop-word filtering. Experiments run on a corpus of 800 annotated responses drawn from four study programs across three disciplinary clusters. Findings – Under repeated stratified 5-fold cross-validation, multi-task IndoBERT reached a mean sentiment accuracy of 77.9%, against SVM (72.8%) and Random Forest (70.1%); on the held-out test set its thematic macro F1 was 0.757. On the same test set, McNemar's test placed IndoBERT significantly ahead of both baselines at the 0.05 level (p = 0.008 against SVM and p = 0.012 against Random Forest); only the margin over SVM also clears the stricter 0.01 threshold. Three thematic dimensions emerged: Instructional Clarity, Assessment Design, and Technological Access. Research implications/limitations – The joint model provides actionable insights for NLP research and targeted faculty development. However, the single-institution scope constrains cross-institutional generalization. Originality/value – The pedagogical contribution lies in that joint output: instead of reporting that feedback is negative, the model identifies which dimension of teaching the negativity concerns, so faculty-development programs can target where dissatisfaction actually concentrates rather than act on an aggregate satisfaction score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mujiyono et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: