Introduction

Along with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, since March 2021, learning at the basic education level to higher education has been temporarily suspended. Teacher-student face-to-face learning is temporarily replaced by online through the use of mobile phones, Personal Computers (PCs), laptops, notebooks, and internet channel support. The role of the teacher is increasingly being expanded by the demands of making adjustments to their teaching tasks and being able to develop and utilize digital technology for learning. However, online learning often does not run smoothly, one of which is faced by teachers and students who do not have mobile phones, PCs, laptops, notebooks, and internet network disturbances.

In fact, online learning does have various implications for teacher-student teaching and learning activities. What is often highlighted is student learning outcomes which are alleged to have decreased, both in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, the delivery of the curriculum is hampered by what students should receive, even though the ministry has issued an emergency curriculum. In terms of quality, students' absorption of teaching materials tends to decrease due to the limited learning carried out by teachers. The Indonesian Child Protection Commission (2021) stated that students complained about distance learning (on-line), including: piled up assignments, no internet quota, limited study time, and unsupportive learning facilities. The lack of teacher skills has resulted in the implementation of online learning by teachers providing more tasks that must be done by students. As a result, the student's learning burden becomes piled up, such as: giving questions to do at home, looking for study materials, recording study materials, and so on. Students also often experience difficulties in learning, without getting assistance in solving them. The survey results from the Ministry of Women's Empowerment and Child Protection (PPPA) found that 58% of children did not like online learning activities (Hussain, Akhter, Qureshi & Khan, 2021).

The problem of Learning From Home (LFH) is often seen from a teaching and learning perspective. It is still rare for people to see it in terms of the mental, emotional and psychological conditions of students, even though it is predicted that it will determine the achievement of student learning outcomes. Poor emotional mental condition, lack of peace and quiet, will affect the use of thinking skills and less than optimal potential in facing challenges (including absorbing learning materials), mood disorders, emotional control, and establishing positive relationships with others (Mulyani et al., 2021). Psychological conditions of students who are less prosperous will result in mental stress, lack of independence, low environmental control, lack of a meaningful life orientation, and less able to realize their potential (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Danner, Snowdon & Friese, 2001; Baram & Boniwell, 2007).

It is necessary to know the impact of LFH on mental emotional conditions, psychological well-being, and student learning outcomes. LFH is a variable in which there are indicators of school management, learning management, learning facilities, parental participation, and community participation (Zakso & Agung, 2020). The effect of LFH on emotional mental status variables consists of indicators of emotional symptoms, behavioral problems, hyperactivity/ inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ahmad & Ahmad, 2021). The impact of LFH on the variables of psychological well-being consists of indicators: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationship, life purpose, and self-acceptance (Ryff, 2007; Kállay & Rus, 2014). Furthermore, mental emotional conditions and psychological well-being are thought to affect the achievement of student learning outcomes.

This paper aims to determine the impact of Learning From Home (LFH) on the mental emotional state and psychological well-being of students. Furthermore, mental conditions and psychological well-being are thought to affect student learning outcomes. In addition, by using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique, this study also wants to analyze the contribution of indicators to each variable that is of concern here.

Literature Review

LFH is a teaching and learning activity for teachers - students using digital technology media (HP, PC, Laptop, Notebook) which was carried out due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. LFH was forced to replace face-to-face learning as an effort to prevent the danger of spreading the Covid-19 virus, especially in the school community. In Indonesia as of mid-August 2021, nearly 3.5 million people have been infected with this virus, and 97,291 people have died. As online learning, LFH cannot be separated from the influence of various aspects inside and outside the school, including: principal leadership, learning management, learning facilities, parent participation, and community participation.

Education management can be defined as the implementation of an education system that combines human and material resources to oversee, plan, strategize, and implement the structure of the education system (Griffin, 2004; Colquit, Lepine & Wesson, 2011; Robbins, 2017; Wibowo, 2007; Wikipedia, 2018). Educational management is related to the process of planning, organizing and directing activities in schools that utilize human and material resources, to achieve school goals (Zulifqar et al., 2020). Principal leadership has an important role in creating educational management in order to create an effective learning environment by adapting teaching to the individual, cognitive and emotional needs of students. This leadership ability will determine the implementation of activities, direction, and achievement of common goals (Nanus, 2001; Agung, 2010; Anderson, 2016; Luthans, 2017; Thoha, 2018; Claudia, 2020). In a pandemic situation and the implementation of online learning, the principal's leadership needs to be directed to support the implementation of LFH, such as: coaching and mentoring curriculum development, providing computer equipment and internet networks, providing training on the development and use of digital technology to teachers, carrying out supervision of learning implementation, carrying out interactions and communication with parents, implementing health protocols in schools, providing assistance to teachers and students who have difficulty implementing online learning, and so on.

Learning From Home (LFH) requires learning management by the teacher which is different from face-to-face teaching tasks. The challenges and demands faced by teachers are not only limited to mastering the material, but managing learning through the development and use of digital technology, and still producing good quality student learning outcomes, creative, thinking, collaborating, and communicating (Pearlman, 2009; ISTI, 2014; Agung, 2017). Online learning is faced with limitations in teacher-student interaction and communication, so teachers must really have the ability to develop and utilize digital technology, choose teaching materials to be delivered, use appropriate and interesting methods, arouse enthusiasm for learning, and so on.

LFH really needs the involvement of parents in helping students learn, in the form of providing learning facilities, learning assistance, paying attention to children's study time, and so on. Davis & Newstrom (1985) say, participation is the involvement of a person taking responsibility for achieving certain goals. Several studies have shown that parental participation greatly affects children (Putri, 2010; Mutodi & Ngirande, 2014; Syamsuduha, 2017; Ahmad & Ahmad, 2021). In the context of LFH, parental participation is increasingly important to support children's learning processes at home. Zakso & Agung's research (2021) found that in online learning only 68.96% of students said their parents helped at home, 60.57% of parents cared about their children's study time at home, and 71.50% of parents provided learning resources.

The community can also realize their participation to support LFH students. Community participation can manifest its roles in the form of psychological, physical, psychological and physical participation, skills, materials, and money (Keith & Newstrom, 2014; Ahmad & Ahmad, 2020). In the Covid-19 pandemic situation, community support (individuals and groups) for LFH can provide advice to parents to pay attention to their children's study time at home, play, recite the Koran, worship, and others, provide cellphones, PCs, laptops, Notebooks, internet quotas, guiding learning, providing books that can be borrowed by students, generating student motivation, and so on.

LFH is thought to have an impact on students' mental and emotional conditions, especially emotional symptoms, behavioral problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ahmad & Ahmad, 2019). Emotional symptoms refer to conditions in which students' emotions differ from the general norm, according to their age, ethnicity, or culture. Emotional symptoms can include depression or anxiety, irritability, frustration, and also physical symptoms, such as stomach pain, headache, or nausea (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Behavioral issues are related to unacceptable, bad, disturbing and wrong behavior (Maria, 2021). Hyperactivity/ inattention is a response disorder that becomes inhibited and leads to a lack of self-regulation, weak ability to regulate present and future life goal behaviors, and difficulty adapting social, and environmental behaviors (Chervin et al., 2002; Wood et al., 2009). Problems with peer relationships are emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal behavior disorders of a person with other individuals. Peer association is important for adolescents as a source of status determination, making friends, sharing feelings, and others (Asatsa & Ntarangwe, 2021). Prosocial behavior can be defined as a voluntary action to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). This prosocial behavior refers to the consequences of the perpetrator's actions covering various aspects: sharing, entertaining, saving, and helping.

LFH is also thought to have an impact on students' psychological well-being, particularly autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationships, life goals, and self-acceptance (Ryff, 2007; Kállay & Rus, 2014). Ryff (1989) defines psychological well-being as a condition in which individuals have positive attitudes towards themselves and others, regulate and manage their environment according to their needs, develop positive relationships with others, have a more meaningful life purpose trying to explore and develop their potential, and accept their own circumstances, make decisions, and regulate their own behavior.

In this paper, LFH has an impact on students' mental, emotional and psychological well-being, and both will affect student learning outcomes, especially study quality, study habits, character development, study sustainability, and social relationships. The theoretical framework of the study is shown in the following figure 1.

Methodology

This paper is a 2021 case study type with a sample of 24 elementary schools. Determination of the school sample using a purposive random technique with 6 (six) criteria each categorized as good, moderate, and unfavorable. The sample schools and students are located in 4 (four) cities in the three provinces of DKI Jakarta, West Java, and Banten, namely: Central Jakarta, Bekasi, South Tangerang, and Bogor. Each school obtained 25 students of class V through random sampling technique, so that a total of 600 people.

Data was collected through questionnaires distributed online with the help of principals and teachers. The questionnaire was designed using the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWB) developed by Ryff (1989). SDQ is a psychological assessment instrument to measure mental emotional disorders experienced by individuals. To interpret the mental emotional state of students, it is done by categorizing them into three groups, namely: normal for a score of 0–15, a score limit of 16–19, and abnormal for a score of 20–40. The higher the SDQ score of a student, the greater the mental emotional difficulties faced. Individuals who get scores in the abnormal category can be interpreted that in general these individuals experience mental emotional difficulties. For psychological well-being, measurements are made that the higher the PWB score, the better the psychological well-being, on the contrary, the lower the PWB score, the worse the psychological well-being. PWB scores in this study were categorized into three, namely low (X<47.74), moderate (X 47.74<58.32), and high (X 58.32). Before the instrument was applied in the actual research, a trial was conducted on 30 elementary school students to determine the level of validity and reliability using the Pearson and Cronbach Alpha product moment criteria.

The data collected were analyzed as a whole, without distinguishing between school levels. The data were analyzed using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique with the help of the Lisrel 8.70 program. SEM analysis includes CFA to determine the validity and reliability of question items related to research indicators, GOF models, the structure of the relationship between the variables studied, and the contribution of indicators of each variable (Ferdinand, 2002; Hair et al., 2010; Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Sarjono & Yulainita, 2019). Then these results become the basis for the necessary deepening of the qualitative analysis.

Results

Characteristics of Respondents

From the distribution of questionnaires, answers were obtained from 328 male students and 272 female students. During the Covid-19 pandemic and the implementation of online learning, only a small proportion have PCs/laptops/notebooks, on the contrary, most of them are done using mobile phones. What is concerning is that quite a number of students do not yet have digital technology to support online learning, so they have to go to the nearest internet cafe, borrow cellphones from relatives, friends, next door neighbors, or others. Another obstacle is students who live relatively far from the city center, so it is not uncommon to experience internet disturbances and make learning difficult.

As many as 87.33% of student respondents answered that in carrying out online learning at home it was often emphasized to read the material provided by the teacher from the textbook; 82.00% gave assignments to conclude from the book; 86.38% gave practice questions. On the other hand, teachers rarely give lessons based on factual problems, and assign students individually or collaboratively in groups to find solutions. Almost all students said that Learning From Home (LFH) tends to reduce the quality of material absorption compared to that obtained from face-to-face learning by teachers in schools.

Goodness of Fit Model (GOF Model)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is a test of validity and reliability to determine the construct measurement model or confirmatory factor model. The model will show the operationalization of variables into measurable indicators formulated in the form of equations and/or certain path diagrams (Ferdinand, 2002; Hair et al., 2010; Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Sarjono & Yulianita, 2019; Yohana, Dania & Prihandono, 2021). Validity test to find out whether the indicator really forms the latent variable under study by comparing the loading factor of at least 0.5. If the load factor value is greater than 0.5 then the indicator is valid. Reliability test to find out how well the measuring instrument can produce relatively the same results if repeated measurements are made on the same object, measured by Construct Reliability (CR) and Variance Extract (VE). It is said to be reliable if CR>0.70 and VE>0.50 (Joreskog & Sorborn, 1993).

From the data processing, the indicators studied were declared valid and reliable, although they are not shown in this paper. Furthermore, valid and reliable conclusions become the basis for knowing the model used (Goodness of Fit Model), whether most or all of the indicators are fit or good, and are able to answer the theory built. These results become the basis for further reviewing the structural relationship between variables and the contribution of indicators to each of the variables studied. The critical value of the model test can be seen from the summary in table 1, with the conclusion that all indicators show the SEM model is Fit or good.

Table 1 The Results of the Sem Model Suitability Criteria
Goodness-of-Fit	Cutt-off-Value	Results	Conclusion
RMR (Root Mean Square Residual)	0,05 atau  0,1	0.0151	Good Fit
RMSEA (Root Mean square Error of Approximation)	0,08	0.0112	Good Fit
GFI (Goodness of Fit)	0,90	0.99	Good Fit
AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index)	0,90	0.98	Good Fit
CFI (Comparative Fit Index)	0,90	0.98	Good Fit
Normed Fit Index (NFI)	0,90	0.99	Good Fit
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)	0,90	0.99	Good Fit
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)	0,90	0.99	Good Fit
Relative Fit Index (RFI)	0,90	0.98	Good Fit

Structural Relationship Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

The study found that the average score of students' mental emotional difficulties was at a score of 13.05, meaning that the SDQ categorization was in the normal category (scale 0-15). The mean obtained by male students is 12.81 and female students are 13.98 which also show that female students tend to experience greater emotional mental difficulties than male students. Another finding showed that most of the students (64.39%) were in the normal category, 19.00% in the border category, and 16.61% in the abnormal category. In fact, only a small number of students experience mental emotional difficulties, but they need to be taken seriously. If the results are compared with the findings of Balitbangkes (2019) that during face-to-face learning as many as 9.8% of students were categorized as abnormal emotional mental disorders, it also showed an increasing trend (Sachin, Ramesh, Saravana & Rajashekar, 2021).

On the other hand, the results of the study found that the average PWB score was 47.7% in the medium category, 23.9% in the high category, and 28.4% in the low category. Especially the last one, if it is not considered and alternative solutions are sought, it tends to increase the number of students with low psychological well-being due to LFH. Furthermore, when differentiated by gender, it can be seen that the psychological well-being scores of males are higher than females, meaning that males are relatively better off than females. These results are in line with the research of Matud, Curbelo & Fortes (2019) which showed that there was a significant difference in psychological well-being between the two sexes, where males tended to have higher scores than females.

It is interesting to analyze the impact of Learning From Home (LFH) imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic on the mental emotional state and psychological well-being of students. Until now, LFH is still ongoing, although there are several schools that have started to try to implement face-to-face learning. The government (read: Minister of Education and Culture Research and Technology) in June 2021 has opened the door for schools that want to try to carry out face-to-face learning on a limited basis, only 25% of students take face-to-face learning in class (https://www.kemdikbud. go.id/main/blog/2021/06/mendik budristek-ptm-limited-not-school-as-usual). However, it is also said that face-to-face learning in schools is the choice and decision of parents, whether to allow their children or choose to carry out face-to-face learning or from home. Schools are asked to carry out LFH for children whose parents have not allowed them to take part in face-to-face learning.

The following is an analysis of the structural relationship between the variables of LFH, Mental Emotional State (EMC), Psychological Well-Being (PWB), and Student Learning Outcomes (SLO).

Figure 2 show that LFH has a significant positive impact on students' mental emotional state and psychological well-being. The impact on mental emotional state shows a higher number (0.93) compared to psychological well-being (0.74). Furthermore, both have a significant positive effect on student learning outcomes with psychological well-being conditions having a higher number (0.69) than mental emotional 0.58).

Table 2 Hypothesis Testing
Hipotesis		SLF	Conclusion
H1	LFH --> EMC	0.93	Significantly Positive
H2	LFH --> PWB	0.74	Significantly Positive
H3	EMC --> PWB	0.53	Significantly Positive
H4	EMC --> SLO	0.58	Significantly Positive
H5	PWB --> SLO	0.69	Significantly Positive

Discussion

Looking at Figure 2, especially the indicators that contribute to each variable, it will be seen which indicators contribute the highest and lowest values. Of course the five needs to be viewed holistically, in the sense of paying attention to all the indicators involved. However, by knowing the difference in the magnitude of the contribution of the highest and lowest scores, the view needs to be on the highest indicator by giving extra attention to supporting online learning during the pandemic.

In the LFH variable, 5 (five) indicators are used which are estimated to contribute, namely: Principal Leadership (PL), Learning Management (LM), Learning Facilities (LF), Parent Participation (PP), and Community Participation (CP). It seems that the five indicators do not show a significant difference in contribution. However, the indicator of Learning Facilities (LF) gave the largest contribution of 0.89, followed by Learning Management (LM) 0.85, parent and community participation 0.83 (PP & CP), and the Lowest was Principals (LP) 0.75. These results indicate that students tend to think that the indicator of the availability of learning facilities is a very important indicator in supporting the smooth running of LFH, both completeness of textbooks, ownership of cellphones, PCs, laptops, notebooks, and adequate internet networks. Research by Zakso & Agung (2021); Rahayu & Haq (2021) for example, shows that learning facilities are inadequate, such as: possession of gadgets, weak internet network connectivity, and unmet internet quota needs, and so on others become obstacles in the implementation of student LFH.

In 2020, the government has also tried to help LFH by providing free internet quota subsidies to students and teachers, and this commitment will continue in 2021. In fact, to support online learning, the government allows the Regular School Operational Assistance (SOA) funds to be used for purchasing pulses, data packages, and/or paid online education services for teachers and/or students (Minister of Education and Culture Regulation No. 6/2021). Students and teachers have given positive responses to this free internet quota subsidy, but it still causes problems, especially if the quota runs out to do assignments and look for material enrichment from other sources. To support online learning, this year the Ministry of Education and Culture has also allocated funds to purchase laptops for schools (Afreen, 2021). Actually, the laptop procurement program had been launched by the minister of education and culture during the previous government period, but it was not a priority when schools, teachers, and students were replaced by the minister when they needed online learning (Zakso & Agung, 2021). It is hoped that the commitment to procuring laptops in schools can be realized this year.

The second indicator that gives the highest contribution is Learning Management (LM) by teachers. Students assume that the teacher plays a role in the implementation of LFH, so that the implementation of learning is very dependent on the teacher. Therefore, teachers must have ownership, mastery, and ability to use digital technology, but also manage efficient and effective learning. To help teacher-student online learning, the government has issued an emergency curriculum, but students are still complaining and experiencing difficulties in learning. Lack of skilled teachers in managing learning, and less able to develop and utilize digital technology, resulting in difficult teaching materials to digest, limited teacher-student interaction and communication, piling up workloads, learning relies on practice answering questions, weak supervision, and teachers paying less attention to interests and student motivation (Wahyuningsih, 2021; Apriani et al., 2021). As a result, learning situations tend to be monotonous, less creative, and boring.

In LFH, teachers must be able to package and manage interesting learning, arouse students' curiosity, be creative, think critically, collaborate, and communicate in conveying their thoughts and ideas. Rarely do teachers try to manage learning through a factual problem-solving-based approach. While in this approach students can inspire students to be active, creative, and collaborative in finding the materials needed to hone problem solving skills from real experience. This approach is considered relevant in learning to provide challenges, seek and find relevant material, try to solve problems, provide explanations, and communicate thoughts and ideas. Problem-solving-based learning can basically guide students' mindsets, independence, logical thinking, technological literacy, and able to connect education with the real world. Teachers can direct students to observe the phenomena around them, formulate questions, try/collect data and information with various techniques, process data and information, analyze and draw conclusions, and express their thoughts and ideas (see also: Rhem, 1998; Lambros, 2004; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007; Drake & Long, 2009; Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009; Barge, 2010; Joyner, 2016). LFH clearly needs a change by implementing problem solving-based learning, not just receiving material from the teacher, passive students, less passionate and creative, less collaborative, boring, and others.

Another indicator that will be discussed is Parental Participation (PP). Students assume that parents have a contribution to students Learning from Home (LFH). In this contribution, parents play a role starting from providing cellphones, PCs, laptops, and notebooks, supporting the provision of internet credit, paying attention to when children study, accompanying and supervising children's learning, guiding and helping children learn, and others. Zakso & Agung (2071) found that the learning process from home increased parental participation, especially in efforts to provide digital technology and internet credit. However, LFH also has negative impacts, such as children not being able to participate in online learning because they do not have gadgets, seeking gadget loans from people around them, weak internet networks, and so on, and there are even parents who are forced to steal cellphones for children to learn online (Ayalew, 2019; Obomeghie & Ugbomhe, 2021). The encouraging thing is that Community Participation (CP) is quite high to support students' online learning, such as: providing PCs/Laptops in certain places (in houses of worship, community houses, village halls, or others) that students can use, lending gadgets, providing Wifi, helping credit, guiding students to study, and so on.

The participation of parents and the community for online learning still needs to be improved. Complaints that LFH only produces low-quality learning can be avoided by increasing parental and community participation. During this pandemic, with the implementation of an emergency situation and requiring workers to Work from Home (WFO), this situation has the potential for parents to accompany their children's online learning. The problem is, parents often find it difficult to meet internet costs. The government has indeed provided cash assistance for workers affected by the pandemic, especially those who have lost their jobs. But the assistance was far from adequate. Not enough to meet the family's daily needs, let alone buying internet credit. As mentioned above, although the government has also helped provide internet credit for students studying online, it is still far from enough. They often complain about the relatively high cost of using the internet, which makes it burdensome and drains teacher-student internet credit quotas quickly. Interested parties need to pay attention to this problem in order to provide a relatively cheap internet usage fee to support online learning.

The other thing is the contribution indicator of School Leadership (PL), which occupies the lowest position on the LFH. Students tend to assume the role of the principal is less important in the implementation of online learning. This assumption may be because the role of the principal is not felt directly to help students learn online. In fact, the position of the principal in online learning is quite important, especially in the managerial role to support the implementation of teacher learning tasks, directing and motivating changes in learning achievement, facilitating digital technology, providing training on the use of digital technology, helping the cost of using the internet, and others.

LFH has an impact on the mental emotional state and psychological well-being of students. This also shows whether or not LFH will have an impact on the mental emotional state and psychological well-being of students. The impact of LFH on students' emotional mental condition is most striking on the indicators of Peer Relationship Problem (PR), followed by Behavioral Problem (BP) indicators, followed by Prosocial Behavior (PB), Emotional Symptoms (ES), and Hyperactivity/ Inattention (HI) (see: Figure 2). In the peer relationship indicator, problems that affect mental emotional conditions are felt by the low frequency of interaction and communication of students with peers, relationships become more tenuous, and the lack of activities to channel hobbies together with peers, study together, and so on.

Another indicator that contributes to the emotional mental state is the prosocial behavior of students in dealing with other people. LFH causes students' prosocial behavior towards one or more people with the aim of providing benefits to be disrupted (see also: Caprara & Steca, 2007; Marbun & Setiawan, 2017). Prosocial behavior that is carried out intentionally with the intention of giving positive consequences for individuals or groups becomes difficult to realize. Students in their early teens have attachments with other people in their social environment, so it is necessary to have good social relationships with parties outside themselves in order to create good attachments. This attachment can be done by developing prosocial behavior that can provide satisfaction, feelings of worth, pride, a better meaning in life, and so on (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010; Megawati & Herdiyanto, 2016; Lucktong, Salisbury & Chamratrithirong, 2018). Barriers in realizing prosocial behavior can lead to vulnerability in students in the form of life dissatisfaction, feeling empty and worthless (Andaritidya & Muliyati, 2007).

The impact of LFH on emotional mental states is also reflected in indicators of emotional symptoms related to the ability to regulate, control, and use emotions as a basis for developing reasoning and self-awareness (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mestre et al., 2006). LFH brings positive or negative changes to students' moods and emotions. Bad or negative moods tend to be reflected in irritability, aggressiveness, sadness, disappointment, low self-esteem, inability to take responsibility, and thoughts that encourage creativity to solve problems. Therefore, the implementation of LFH needs to develop a good or positive mood for students, among others by creating two-way communication and dialogue between teachers and students, developing self-awareness, generating active responses and attitudes, and others (Mestre et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2021).

The lowest contributing indicator influencing the mental emotional state of students is Hyperactivity/Inattention (HI), as a condition in which a person becomes more active than usual. This condition tends to be characterized by impulsive, hyperactive, and inattentive child behavior. Symptoms that arise include: ignoring the other person, not following directions, unable to complete work or study assignments, restlessness, risky behavior without thinking about the consequences. One of the factors that influence hyperactive behavior is the surrounding social environment that does not provide attention, assistance, and guidance to children.

In the implementation of LFH, a student who feels a lack of attention by the school, teacher, and family can be the cause of the emergence of this impulsive and hyperactive behavior. Lack of attention will lead to a weak emotional mental state. Dissatisfaction with the learning practices carried out by teachers, for example, tends to lead to dissatisfied, indifferent attitudes, lazy to complete tasks, less creative in seeking enrichment, and so on. Likewise, the lack of attention, assistance, and family assistance in meeting online learning needs tends to lead to students' attitudes that are less confident, responsible, and show excessive behavior. Therefore, LFH needs changes to pay more attention to student needs, arouse curiosity, be active, creative, and fulfill the requirements needed, will prevent impulsive and hyperactive behavior (Akbar, 2017; Prasasti & Wahyuni, 2018; Rozie, Safitri & Haryani, 2019).

LFH also has an impact on students' psychological well-being. Ineffective LFH tends to result in low psychological well-being of students related to indicators: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationships, life goals, and self-acceptance. From the results of statistical analysis (figure 2), it can be seen that there is no significant difference between these indicators in contributing to the psychological well-being of students. However, from these figures it appears that the autonomy indicator gives the largest contribution (0.82) to students' psychological well-being, followed by a positive relationship (0.81), life goals (0.81), environmental mastery (0.80), self-acceptance (0.78) and personal growth (0.71).

The autonomy indicator refers to an understanding of a person's ability to direct behavior independently, confidently, and responsibly. LFH is important to form and encourage students' ability to carry out learning independently and carry out actualization with confidence, so that they can achieve satisfactory achievements. Students who have the ability to be independent and fully functional have the characteristics of supporting personal views, evaluating themselves, and the ability to regulate self-behavior (Ryff, 1995; Prabowo, 2016). Therefore, LFH must strive to produce autonomy and independence of students to be able to make their own decisions, escape from stress, regulate learning behavior, optimize self-function for achievement, consistently complete homework, foster self-esteem, discipline, and have good learning motivation.

The next indicator is Positive Relationship (PR), as the ability to build relationships with other people. Psychological Well-Being conditions (PWB) tend to be high if they support positive relationships with others based on trust, caring, empathy, and understanding the principles of mutual acceptance and giving. Conversely, it tends to be low, if the relationship tends to be closed, less caring, difficult to be warm, less sensitive, and less controlling the environment (Ryff, 1995; Prabowo, 2016). Therefore, LFH needs to develop positive teacher-student relationships by increasing trust, caring, empathy, mutual acceptance and giving (especially helping with learning difficulties), and so on.

LFH must also have an impact on the creation of student maturity. Through maturity, students will find meaning and Purpose in Life (PL). Learning at LFH needs to be designed to shape the characteristics of students who have a purpose in life, namely directiveness which is based on a view of life as something meaningful: holding fast to the belief in meaning to achieve life goals. On the other hand, LFH that does not encourage the development of life goals will only lead to students' attitudes that have no meaning in life, have low goals, feel disoriented, and hopes or beliefs that do not give meaning to themselves.

Another indicator is the mastery of the Environment (EM) that needs to be considered in LFH in creating conditions for students' psychological well-being. This capacity refers to the effective management of life and the environment by modifying the environment to manage learning needs and demands. Environmental mastery emphasizes students' ability to master and control their environment and change it creatively through physical or mental activity (Ryff, 1995; Prabowo, 2016). For this reason, learning in LFH must contain material that arouses curiosity, an active attitude, competence in managing the environment, utilizing it effectively, selecting needs, and practicing problem solving skills.

Another indicator that contributes to the creation of conditions of psychological well-being is Self-Acceptance (SA), in the form of awareness of one's strengths and weaknesses. LFH must also be able to create this self-awareness in students about their strengths and weaknesses in the past and present, so as to try to improve their weaknesses. Learning that does not pay attention to indicators of self-acceptance will only bring disappointment, dissatisfaction, and hinder the quality of personality, because it is not able to make the desired self-change.

LFH must also pay attention to aspects of personal growth that contribute to the creation of conditions for students' psychological well-being. Learning from home must be able to develop students to actualize and realize their potential. The characteristics of personal growth include: being able to see oneself as an individual who grows and develops, is open to new experiences, realizes the realization of one's potential, adds personal knowledge, and understands oneself to build sustainable behavior (Prabowo, 2016).

Mental Emotional Condition (EMC) and Psychological Well-Being (PWB) affect Student Learning Outcomes (SLO). The highest effect is seen in the indicators of the quality of Learning Outcomes (QL) of 0.92, Character Development (CD) of 0.92, followed by a commitment to Continue Study (CS) of 0.85, Study Habits (SB) of 0.81, and the lowest is Social Relations (SR) of 0.76. It seems that EMC and PWB have the most influence on the quality of learning outcomes and the formation of students' character. The implication is that if the impact of LFH on EMC and PWB creates low or weak conditions, then the quality of learning outcomes and character development in students also tends to be low. Even the conditions of EMC and PWB also had a significant effect on commitment to continuing studies, study habits, and relationships with other people.

This influence is a serious concern, especially indications of the implementation of LFH which leads to the low quality of results and the formation of student character. LFH with a long time (it is not known when it will stop) raises concerns if learning does not change and looking for the right strategy. Various efforts still have to be made by the government, schools, and teachers. Efforts are not only limited to fulfilling the completeness of technology and internet networks, implementing an emergency curriculum during a pandemic, but also creating a high mental emotional state and psychological well-being of students, applying appropriate, creative, interesting, collaborative learning approaches, arousing curiosity, developing habits. Learning, as well as being the basis of character building for students.

Conclusion

This study shows that Learning From Home (LFH) during the Covid-19 pandemic has a significant effect on Mental Emotional State (EMC) and Psychological Well-Being (PWB), then both of these conditions affect Student Learning Outcomes (SLO). The implication is that the effective implementation of online learning from home will have an impact on the highs and lows of the emotional mental state and psychological well-being of students, and so on will affect the level of achievement of learning outcomes. The implementation of learning from home must also strive to create mental emotional conditions and high psychological well-being to produce student achievement. For this reason, the indicators that give the highest contribution are: learning facilities, learning management, and parental participation in the LFH variable; indicators of peer relationship problems, behavioral problems, and prosocial behavior in the EMC variable; and indicators of autonomy, peer relationship problems, and life goals in the PWB variable. These indicators are important to consider in planning online learning because they determine student learning outcomes. High or low EMC and PWB conditions will affect student learning outcomes, especially the quality of learning, character building, and commitment to continuing studies.

It is recommended that the application of LFH is not limited to fulfilling the completeness of technology and internet networks, implementing an emergency curriculum during a pandemic, but also creating a high mental emotional state and psychological well-being of students, applying the right learning approach, being creative, interesting, collaborative, arousing curiosity, developing study habits, as well as being the entrance for the formation of student character. Learning that relies on teachers as a source of material, student workloads that accumulate, lack of creativity, and others need to be changed with a factual problem-solving-based learning approach that evokes an active, interesting, curious, creative, and collaborative attitude to master knowledge. and skilled in problem solving.

References

Afreen, M. (2021). Transition assessment of the Bangladeshi financial market stress regimes: A markov switching modeling approach.International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 3(1), 07-11.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Ahmad, I., & Ahmad, S. (2018). Multiple skills and medium enterprises’ performance in Punjab Pakistan: A Pilot study.Journal of Social Sciences Research, Special, 4, 44-9.

GoogleScholar

Ahmad, I., & Ahmad, S. (2019). The mediation effect of strategic planning on the relationship between business skills and firm’s performance: Evidence from medium enterprises in Punjab, Pakistan. Opcion, 35(24), 746-78.

Ahmad, I., & Ahmad, S. (2021). Effect of managerial skills on the performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises: A case study in Pakistan.The Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 8(4), 161-270.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Akbar, S.N. (2017). Modification behavior therapy for treatment hyperactive behavior in mild mental retardation. Journal of Ecopsy, 4(1), 41-51.

Andaritidya, A., & Mulyati, R. (2007). The relationship between prosocial behavior and the meaning of student life. Thesis, Psychology Study Program. Indonesian Islamic University. Yogyakarta.

Apriani, Y., Rusdiawan, Asrin, Fahruddin, & Muhaimi, L. (2021). Management of online learning during the Covid-19 pandemic at SD IT Central Lombok. Scientific Journal of Mandala Education, 7(2), 271-277.

Asatsa, S., & Ntarangwe, M. (2021). The effect of social skills training on self concept of teenage mothers. A case study of training college in Kenya.International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 3(2), 1-09.

GoogleScholar

Ayalew, N.A. (2019). Duty of confidentiality in arbitration process in Ethiopia.International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 1(2), 92-100.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Balitbangkes. (2019). Riskesdas National Report 2018. Jakarta: Publishing Agency for Health Research and Development.

Barge. S. (2010). Principles of problem and project based learning. The Aalborg PBL Model, USA: Aalborg.

Bartram, D., & Boniwell, I. (2007). The science of happiness.Achieving sustained psychological well-being in practice, 29(8), 478 – 482.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Caprara, G.V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self? Efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior acrocc ages.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(2), 220-241.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Chervin, R.D., Archbold, K.H., Dillon. J.E., Panahi, O., Pituch, K.J., Dahl, R.E., & Gieminault, C. (2002). Inattention, hyperactivity, and symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing.Pediatrics, 109(3), 449-56.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar ,Indexed

Colquitt, J.A., Lepine, A.J., & Wesson, J.M. (2011). Organizational behavior. New York: Mc. Graw Hill.

Danner, D.D., Snowdon, D.A., & Friesen, W.V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 804-813.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Davis, K., & Newstrom, J.W. (2014). Organizational behavior: Readings and exercises. Publisher: Mc Graw-Hill.

Drake, K.N., & Long, D. (2009). Rebecca’s in the dark: A comparative study of problem-based learning and direct instruction/experiential learning in two 4th-grade classrooms.Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 1-16.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P.H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Ferdinand, A. (2002). Structural equation modeling in management research: Application of complex models in research for master's thesis & doctoral dissertation. Publisher: BP Diponegoro University.

Griffin, R.W. (2004). Managemet. Jakarta: Erlangga Publishing.

Hair Jr. J.F., William C., Black Ba. J., & Babin R.E.A. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. United States: Pearson.

Haryono, S., & Wardoyo, P. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for management research with AMOS 18.00. Jakarta: Luxima Metro Media.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., & Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Hussain, A.A., Akhter, S., Qureshi, A.H., & Khan, K. (2021). Problem-based learning approach for elementary schools: A case study of five years compulsory education system.International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 3(2), 10-14.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Indonesian Child Protection Commission. (2021). Distance learning. KPAI, Jakarta: Research Report.

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorborn, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS command languanges. Chicago: SSI Inc.

GoogleScholar

José, M., Mestre, J.M., Guil, R., Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., & Gil-Olarte, P. (2006). Emotional intelligence and social and academic adaptation to school.Sicothema, 18, 112-117.

GoogleScholar

Juwita, T., Suminar, T., & Handayani, S.S.D. (2020). Parental involvement in the school program at Bintang champion Early Childhood Education (ECE).Journal of Basic Education, 9(2), 217–227.

Kállay, É., & Rus, C. (2014). Psychometric properties of the 44-item version of Ryff’s psychological well-being scale.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(1).

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school classrooms. CA: Corwin Press.

GoogleScholar

Lucktong, A., Salisbury, T., & Chamratrithirong, A. (2018). The impact of parental, peead school attachment on the psychological well-being of early adolescent in Thailand.International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 23(2), 235- 249.

Marbun, R., & Setiawan, J.L. (2019). Relationship between prosocial behavior and psychological well-Being. Early Adolescence. Psychopreneur Journal, 3(2), 81-91.

Maria, A. (2021). Building sustainability resiliency during post Covid world focusing ESG and climate risk issue.International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 3(3), 21-27.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Matud, M.P., López-Curbelo, M., & Fortes, D. (2019). Gender and psychological well-being.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3531.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Megawati, E., & Herdiyanto. (2016). The relationship between prosocial behavior and psychological well-being in adolescents. Journal of Psychology Udayana, 3(1), 133-135.

Mulyani, S., Salameh, A.A., Komariah, A., Timoshin, A., Hashim, N.A.A.N., Fauziah, R.S.P., ... Ul din, S.M. (2021). Emotional regulation as a remedy for teacher burnout in special schools: Evaluating school climate, teacher’s work-life balance and children behavior.Frontiers in Psychology, 12(2460), 1-10.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar ,Indexed

Muryati. (2017). Empowering parents in improving the quality of learning at sdn sabranglor no. 78 surakarta. Surakarta: Postgraduate school of Muhammadiyah University.

Mutodi, P., & Ngirande, H. (2014). The impact of parental involvement on student performance: A case study of South African secondary school. Mediterranian Journal on Social Sciences, 5(8), 279 – 289.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Obomeghie, M., & Ugbomhe, U.O. (2021). Globalization and its brunt on Nigeria global economic competitiveness: The need for holistic and dynamic strategies. International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 3(1), 1-06.

GoogleScholar

Prabowo, A. (2016). Psychological welfare of Adolescents in schools. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(2), 216-260.

Prasasti, S., & Wahyuni, H. (2018). The role of parents in handling hyperactive children. Scientific Journal of Counseling, 8(2), 1-19.

Putri, P. (2010). Parental participation in improving academic achievement of class VIII students at Madrasah Tsanawiyah Hasanah Pekanbaru. Pekanbaru: Sultan Syarif Kasim State Islamic University, Riau.

Rahayu, A.D., & Haq, M.S. (2021). Facilities and infrastructure in supporting learning online during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Inspirational Journal of Educational Management, 9(1), 186-199.

Regulation of the minister of education and culture no. 6/2021 Regarding regular school operational assistance.

Rhem, J. (1998). Problem-based learning: An introduction. The National Teaching Learning Forum, 8(1), 1 – 7.

Robbins, S.P. (2017). Essentials of organization behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International Inc.

Rozie, F., Safitri, D., & Haryani, W. (2019). The role of the teacher in handling children's behavior in tk negeri 1 samarinda. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 1(2), 55-59.

Ryff, C.D., & Keyes, S.L.M. (2007). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-27.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.Journal American Psychological Association, 57(6), 1069-1081.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Ryff, C.D., & keyes, C. (1995). The structure of well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719–727.

Sachin, B.S., Ramesh, B., Saravana, K., & Rajashekar, C. (2021). Financial anxiety and resilience among rural poor: An exploration of social work implication. International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 3(3), 28-34.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence.Imagination,Cognition and Personality, 9,185-211.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Sarjono, H., & Yulainita, W. (2019). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): An introduction, application for business research. Publisher: Salemba Empat.

Syamsudduha, St. (2017). Parental participation in children's education at SDIT Al-Fityan School, Gowa Regency. Al-Kalam Journal, 9(2), 141–158.

Wahyuningsih, K.S. (2021). Problems of online learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic in SMS Dharma Praja Denpasar. Pangkaja Journal, 24(1), 107-118.

Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-244.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Wibowo. (2007.) Performance management. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo.

Wikipedia. (2018). Educational management.

Wood. A.C., Rijsdijk, F., Ashersin, P., & Kuntsi, J. (2009). Hyperactive-impulsive symptom scores and oppositional behaviours reflect alternate manifestations of a single liability.PubMed, 39(5), 447-60.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Zakso, A., & Agung, I. (2021). Impact of student learning at home prevent pandemic Covid-19 in Indonesia.Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(2), 228-239.

Crossref ,GoogleScholar

Zhang, Q., Ding, J., Zhang, Z., Yang, X., & Yang, Y. (2021). The effect of congruent emotional context in emotional word processing during discourse comprehension.Journal of Neurolinguistics, 59.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Zulfiqar, U., Mohy-Ul-Din, S., Abu-Rumman, A., Al-Shraah, A.E., & Ahmed, I. (2020). Insurance-growth nexus: Aggregation and disaggregation.The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(12), 665-675.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Received: 23-Dec-2021, Manuscript No. jmids-21-9117; Editor assigned: 25-Dec-2021, PreQC No. jmids-21-9117 (PQ); Reviewed: 07-Jan-2021, QC No. jmids-21-9117; Revised: 20-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. jmids-21-9117 (R); Published: 23-Jan-2022