Self Learning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Student’s Perception and Learning Outcome Achievement on Blended-Flipped Learning I Made Supartha Utama Department of Agricultural Engineering, Udayana Univerity, Indonesia Linawati and NMAD Wirastuti Department of Electrical Engineering, Udayana University, Indonesia Tsuyoshi Usagawa Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Kumamoto University, Japan Correspondent email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Blended learning has developed in Udayana University, and Moodle is used as the learning platform for the online activities. Class activities are still compulsory and a minimum of sixteen times face to face have to be performed for each course. Postharvest Engineering is one of the courses for a bachelor degree at the faculty of agricultural technology was designed as a model of blended and flipped learning to gain more effective strategy in achieving student learning outcomes of the course. The targeted students were nine students from Udayana University (Unud) and 19 students from Sam Ratulangi University (Unsrat). Lesson plans for sixteen weekly bases of learning were developed for online and face to face (class and practical) activities. The loading time of learning was three credit semester unit or equal to 510 min (3 x 170 min) per week. The 150 min (3 x 50 min) was used for class activities, and 170 min was provided for practical-laboratory work or field study of which was depended on the unit learning outcomes. The rest of time for about 290 – 360 min was allocated for online activities. The online learning resources were provided which consisted of learning modules, narrated power point presentations, web-linked of relevant references and YouTube movies. Students were flexible to choose other references relevant to the unit learning outcomes. Student regular online activities were self-learning and assessment; others were depending on the unit learning outcomes, such as short-long essay assignment, uploading reports of problem-based learning and laboratory practical works. Feedback was given to the assignments and reports using analytic or holistic rubrics. The class activities are mostly student discussion and presentation as well as Q/A to allow them showing up their knowledge construction. The perception of students toward the learning was very positive. The grade achievement of the course outcomes for students at Unud were 45% “A” grade and 45% “B” grade, and no student gained “C” and “E” grade. Only one student received “D” grade. Students at Unsrat were 63% achieved “A” grade, 31% “B” grade, no student received “C” and “D” grade, and only one student got “E” grade. The students who received “D” and “E” grades were due to their lack of online and class activities. Keywords: Blended learning, flipped learning, postharvest engineering. Student’s Perception and Learning Outcome Achievement on Blended-Flipped Learning I Made Supartha Utama, Linawati, Ni Made Wiriastuti, Tsuyoshi Usagawa. Udayana University - Bali OUTLINES • Background • Designing and implementing blended learning and flipped class room • Student Achievement and their perception about online learning • General Conclusion • Future improvement for the Learning • Needs for efficient and effective learning • Students have to ICT literate • Students have to be able in utilizing a variety of learning resources • Students need for more independent in learning • Funding from University and government for e-learning • Indonesia Qualification Framework (KKNI) and National Standards of Higher Education • Class activities are still compulsory and a minimum of sixteen times face to face have to be performed for each course. • Moodle is used as E-LMS for the online activities. • Postharvest Engineering is one of the courses for bachelor students for both at Udayana and Sam Ratulangi Universities • Two groups of students taken this course: Udayana University (9 students) and Sam Ratulangi University (19 students) ASSESSMENT • Students mastery of the concepts of post-harvest handling techniques of fresh horticultural products • Students are able to develop post-harvest technology to prepare products according to the needs of different market levels • Students are able to apply postharvest handlings of horticultural products to maintain quality and shelf life • Students are able to analyze and criticize practices of postharvest handling of horticultural products to make changes to its improvement. • Students can work in a team to design projects related to the improvement of post-harvest handling of horticultural products Week: I dan II Expected LO of Ability to explain the phenomena that occurred during the post-harvest period as a basis for students developing the concept of handling. Able to analyze properly several postharvest quality parameters, Achievement . Depth of understanding (cognitive domain) / accuracy of explanation criteria / . Teamwork (Valuing) (affective domain) / level of participation and contribution in group works indicator . Response to lab-work (psychomotor domain) / level of accuracy on quality parameter analysis Learning Topic The Nature and Structure of Postharvest Horticultural Products: and resources • The basics of postharvest horticultural products • The importance of postharvest physiology in developing postharvest technology • Grouping of harvest products based on morphology • Types of tissues of harvest products • Cell structure Learning Resources – On-line Teks Slide (ppt) Audio Video URL Science and Practice of https://www.yo http://www.biologi- • The Importance Postharvest Physiology utube.com/watc sel.com/2012/06/struktur of Postharvest The Nature and h?v=8S3b_3QlO -sel-hewan-dan-sel- Physiology. Nk • The Practical-lab Structure of tumbuhan.html work Guide Postharvest Products l Cell Structure Method of On-line F2F (Clas activities/Practical Works) Learning Self learning Short presentation, group discussions and student Structured task presentations (development of inter-personal skills) Laboratory works Allocated On-line (Clas activities/Practical Works) times 2 x 2 x 60 minutes self learning; 2 x 2 x 50 minutes Class Activity 2 x 2x 60 minute structured tasks 2 x 1 x 170 minutes Practicum Method Instrument Weight On-line F2F On-line F2F Learning • Long essay assignment Observation (Q/A) • Holistic Rubric Holistic rubric Assessment and feedback Presentation • Multiple choices and T/F (Online • Quiz Format) 10 % • Forum • Forum (Online format) Learning On-line F2F (Class activities) Experiences of Learn to be independent Learning in groups and discussions (development of inter- Report writing practices personal skills) and presentation students Self assessment Practice on measuring the parameters of horticultural post harvest product quality Media of On-line F2F (Class activities) Learning On-line: computer / gadget devices and internet Classroom learning: Computer, head projector (in focus) and access stationery Equipment for Practical works in the laboratory On-line Activities Class and Lab-work Activities Pande Ketut Diah Kencana Facilitator I Made Supartha Utama Gede Arda • Resources Provided: • Activities: – Students read and learn the modules – Modules/teaching books – Students uploaded work sheets and – Worksheets given feedbacks by the facilitator – Students learn other resources given – Power point presentation with on the web-Moodle narration – Forum – Slide show – Short/Long Assignments – Problem based learning – Video Movie • Assessments: – Website links – Quiz and Forum – E-Library – Work sheet - feedback – Structured Task / Assignments - – Other relevant Resources feedback – Feedback on the PBL and Lab-works Reports – Middle and end semester test • Activities: – General Review and Discussion (QA) – Problem solving in learning faced by students – Overall Learning Evaluation • Learning Resources Provided: • Activities: – Guidance for PBL – Students work in different groups (4-5 students per group) – All relevant learning resources – Students find problems directly on the on the web-Moodle field • Assessments: – Two different relevant problems – Rubric and feedback for report submitted and one selected by the facilitators for the topic of PBL of PBL – The groups develop reports for PBL and – Rubric for individual uploaded into the web-moodle performance in group work – The facilitators give feedbacks using the (intra-inter personal skills of rubric (Maximum 2 times feedback) group members) – Two PBL in one semester – Individual performance of students in group works is assessed using rubric • Learning Resources: • Activities: – 4 topics of laboratory works – Manual of lab-practical works provided. – Equipments – 3 topics selected to be implemented. • Assessment: – Students are divided into – Feedback given to the lab- groups, each group consists of 4- practical reports. 5 students. – The practical works were guided – Rubric for individual by facilitators. performance in group work – The report s of practical works (intra-inter personal skills of have to be uploaded on the web-Moodle. Facilitator gives group members) feedback (maximum 2 times feedbacks) Formative Assessment Proportion of Score Problem Based Learning 1 : 15% Problem Based Learning 2 : 15% Laboratory /Practical Based Learning : 15% Work Book : 10% Forum 10% Summative Assessment Multiple Choice Based Assessment (weekly Quiz) : 15% Middle Semester Test : 10% End Semester test : 10% 100% Grading Scale 80-100 A 65- <80 B 55-<64 C 45-<54 D <45 E Formative Assessment Sumative Assessment Total Lab work Work No. Name PBL 1 PBL 2 Forum Quiz MST EST Achieveme Grade Rprt book nt 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% 15% 10% 10% 1 Ramendra Ginting 10.1 12.0 11.0 7.8 8.6 14.0 9.0 8.0 80.4 A 2 Oki Prasetya 10.8 9.8 10.3 8.4 8.0 14.1 9.2 9.4 79.9 A 3 Syaiful Bahri 10.8 12.5 11.6 9.0 9.0 14.9 9.2 9.6 86.5 A 4 Andri Frans Kalvin 10.8 12.0 11.4 8.5 8.4 12.0 8.0 9.0 77.3 B 5 Made Arya N. Inggas 10.8 12.5 11.6 8.7 8.5 14.1 9.4 9.6 85.2 A 6 Novel Pardosi 10.5 9.0 9.8 8.3 8.6 12.3 9.4 9.4 77.3 B 7 I.B. Santa Sulaksana 10.1 11.5 10.5 8.4 8.1 13.2 9.3 9.0 80.0 A 8 G. S. Monica Siahaya 9.8 0.0 4.9 7.3 8.4 13.0 7.6 0.0 50.9 D 9 Henry Yanto Manalu 10.7 9.2 9.9 8.2 8.5 13.8 8.4 9.6 78.2 B 55.5 % Grade A; 33.33 % Grade B.