Danaryanti 2 Elli Kusumawati 2
D. Conclusions and Suggestions Conclusion
d. See
Reflection of the implementation in second cycle was conducted right after the implementation. Based on observations, the number of students who came late was very significantly declined, from 10 people down to 2 people. This indicated the impact of the motivation given by the model lecturer. Group discussion was also well conductedbecause of the given worksheet that gave students guidance to carry out activities. Only discussion in sharing groupseemed ineffective. Model lecturers needed to be more assertive in providing reinforcement and suggestion to the conflicts that occur in sharing groups discussion.
Limitations in Implementation of LessonStudy
Some limitations in implementation of LessonStudy were described as follows.
1. Lecturer model didn’t involve observer in designing lesson flow. This implied on the lack in data collection since the observer didn’t quite understand about lesson flow and objectives.
2. The lack of time (only in two weeks) contributed to un-optimal implementation of lesson study. Minimum of lesson study session required (four meeting) was not fulfilled.More time was needed in conducting stages of do and see.
3. The size of class (forty five students in one class) was also the problem faced in this lesson study. The class was too big that lecture was not effectively conducted because of the lack of supervision and monitoring from the lecture. Lecturers were often also overwhelmed in organizing thediscussions, both in large groups and small groups so that miscommunication and mismanagement frequently happened in the classroom.
D. Conclusions and Suggestions
2. Lesson Study generally went smoothly, however, some limitation on the timing and size class was some problems to deal with.
3. Lesson Study provides a significant impact on improvement of the learning process of Introduction to Geography.
4. Attribute of learning is successfully developed in Introduction to Geography courses through lesson study activities,including:
a. Cooperation. Students’ cooperation improved in each cycle and its quality was more visible during group discussion and presentation.
b. Discipline. It was indicated by the accuracy of the implementation and the plan made by students as well as the participation and contributions of students make from preparation to the implementation of the discussions and presentations.
Suggestion
1. Observer needs to be involved in planning lesson flow
2. Time allocation should meet the minimum requirement of lesson study, that is four time of meeting.
3. Class size should be regulated so that the lesson could be conducted effectively
4. Collaborative learning can be implemented in any other courses to build learning attributes and enhance collaboration among students.
5. Workshop was required as a follow-up to the result of the research.
References
Ari Ginanjar Agustian. (2007). Rahasia Sukses Membangun Kecerdasan Emosi dan Spiritual: ESQ. Jakarta: Arga.
Arends, R. I. (1998). Learning to teach. Singapore: McGraw-Hill book Company.
Arends, R. I. (1997). Classroom instruction and management. New York: McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2002). Instructional media and technology for learning, 7th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Jacobs, G. M., Lee, G. S, & Ball, J. (1996). Learning Cooperative Learning via Cooperative Learning: A Sourcebook of Lesson Plans for Teacher Education on Cooperative Learning. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Mukti Amini. (2008). Pengasuhan Ayah-Ibu yang Patut Kunci Sukses Mengembangkan Karakter Anak. Dalam Character Building Umar Suwito dkk.2008. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research. 65(2). 129- 143.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Second edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tadkiroatun Musfiroh. (2008). Pengembangan Karakter Anak Melalui Pendidikan Karakter. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana
The Development of Lesson Study trough Learning Community in Mathematics, Science and Information Technology Education Faculty of
Universitas PGRI Semarang
Intan Indiati1, Eko Retno Mulyaningrum2, Ernawati Saptaningrum3, and Azizul Ghofar Candra Wicaksono4
Universitas PGRI Semarang [email protected]
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to identify the implementation of lesson study forlearning community (LSLC) in Math, Science and Information Technology Education Faculty, Universitas PGRI Semarang. LSLC was done into three phases of lesson study, including plan, do and see. Learning community was conducted by the involvement of many participant from different subject interest who acted as an observer. The implementation of LSLC then recorded and measured by monitoring sheet and media documentation. The data is analysed descriptively using qualitative method. the percentage of implementation rate in plan, do and see phase of LSLC also perform as an additional data analysis. By identifying the LSLC implementation, it known that the LSLC was successfully implemented with average 83,12% in plan, do and see phase. LSLC also strengthen the learning community and collaboration among the lecturers in Math, Science and Information Technology Education Faculty. So we suggested to implement LSLC in another Faculty and institution to develop a learning community.
keywords: Lesson study, learning community
A. Introduction
The efforts to improve quality of teaching and learning processes in educational institutions put the lecturer in a central position to determine the development and academic quality of students. In addition, lecturers have a strategic position in the development of higher education, especially to produce professional graduate pre-teacher. In this global era, it necessary when lecturers have innovative thinking and act effectively in improving the quality of teaching and the development of learners. In carry out his professional duties as an educator, the lecturer gets the obligation to perform basic activities in accordance with the Minister of Culture of Higher Education No.44 of 2015 article 28 that is planning, implementation and control of the learning process, and the last is the evaluation of learning outcomes.
The main tasks undertaken by Lecturers are aimed to the achievement of the quality of graduate students who can partially be seen by the achievement of students. Therefore, Lecturers need to design and conduct learning process along
with the evaluations appropriately and effectively. Learning activities should be in good quality, student centered, be able to involve active participant and focus on the process and high-order thinking skills. Basically, each lecturer will arrange and prepare the lesson according to the condition of each class. However, in reality, not all lesson plan can be realize perfectly, sometimes there are mistakes during the learning activities.
Today many students mostly not be able to achieve the competency perfectly, lack of skills and lack of competition ability in the community. This condition is mostly due to the less conducive learning environment and the implementation of irrelevant learning. Thus, updates in the formulation of learning activities need to be done by educators both individually and in teams. Formulation of learning activities in teams is preferred because it has many advantages when compared with individuals. Teamwork will provide many inputs and opinions from different perspectives. Thus, the preparation of learning will be better and able to accommodate various aspects of learner needs.
The Cooperation between educators in improving the quality of education and learning should be cultivated. This activity can be packaged into a collaborative and sustainable learning study based on the principle of colleague known as Lesson study. Lesson study is a process of school-based professional and collaborative development that is done to improve the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Lee (2008) points out several benefits of lesson study, first is to develop the professionalism of Teachers and Lecturers and help to see things from the perspective of students, so that the learning will be carried out in accordance with the needs of students. Marsigit (2007) has conducted research on the implementation of lesson study and found that lesson study can improve student's motivation, activity and performance. Lesson study is able to improve the professionalism of Teachers and Lecturers in terms of teaching performance, variation of teaching methods, and collaboration activities.
Based on the results of the implementation of the lesson study conducted by Sulistyoningsih et al (2013), it can be seen that lesson study activities can improve the quality of learning process and lecturer competence in planning and implementing the lesson. Another study conducted by Indiati et al (2013) through the application of Microteaching Lesson Study (MLS) in PPL 1 course was able to reduce misconceptions and improve students' teaching skills. This shows that through the implementation of Lesson Study, learning activities can be improved in terms of the quality of the implementation of the learning itself and the achievement of learner competency.
However, the interdependent learning through Lesson Study has not shown the maximum result. It found that this activity only intensive at the beginning of the program, but will decrease the intensity of collaboration on an ongoing basis, the
longer the collaboration activities through Lesson study will be reduced even until it is not done at all. Lesson study implementation is not easy, especially in maintaining the intensity and frequency of that implementation. Therefore it is necessary to make an update in the implementation of lesson study, one of them with the implementation of Lesson Study oriented learning community (LSLC).
Learning community can be interpreted as a community, where educators (teachers and lecturers) collaborate to improve the quality of learning, collectivity and professionalism with each other both in one clump of knowledge and between clumps, and involving the participation of parents and society (Sato, 2012). With this learning community, the lesson study activity can run continuously and further strengthen cooperation among educators and other academics.
Based on this background, the problem in this research is: "How is the implementation of lesson study for learning community (LSLC) in FMIPATI PGRI University of Semarang?". In general, the purpose of this study is to improve professionalism of educators and to build ideal learning in the classroom. The particular purpose of this study is to find out the implementation of lesson study for learning community (LSLC) in FMIPATI Universitas PGRI Semarang.
B. Method
This research is classify into descriptive research with qualitative approach.
This research is used to observe the implementation of lesson Study oriented learning community (LSLC). LSLC activities are basically done in accordance with the lesson study procedures consisting of the stage plan, do and see. Phase plan is an activity of preparation of learning tools and design of learning activities on a team. Stage Do is a learning activity and implementation of lesson plan, at this stage the observer will observe the performance and condition of students during learning. Phase see is a reflection and evaluation of learning activities that have been implemented. But the development of activities plan, do and see will be developed again into a learning community that can improve the continuity and sustainability of lesson study.
Instrument used in this research consist of learning device and observation sheet. Learning tools consist of syllaby, lesson plan and student’s worksheet. While the observation sheet consists of the learning device assessment sheet and the lesson study observation sheet.
The subject of this research is the academic community of FPMIPATI Universitas PGRI Semarang (first year). The data collection in this study was conducted through the analysis of learning activities. Thus, the research activity refers to the three stages of lesson study ie plan, do and see which is packaged in learning community by involving various parties in the implementation of the three stages, as an observer. Data analysis is done by calculating the percentage of
implementation of each stage of lesson study based on the existing monitoring sheet. Further descriptive explanation of the implementation of each stage of activity in the lesson study is all in. The results of the implementation percentage of each lesson study stage become the reference of the success quality of LSLC implementation in FPMIPATI with the criteria of achievement <75% for enough category and ≥75% for good category.
C. Findings and Discussion
The implementatipn of plan stage in LSLC in four department in FPMIPATI Universitas PGRI Semarang describe as follows.
Tabel 1.The Monitoring of Plan Stage
Cycle/Department Score Persentage (%)
Cycle I P.Mat 13/15 86.67
Cycle II P.Mat 13/15 86.67
Cycle III P. Mat 9/15 60.00
Cycle I P.Bio 14/15 93.33
Cycle II P.Bio 15/15 100.00
Cycle I P.Fis 14/15 93.33
Cycle II P.Fis 14/15 93.33
Cycle I P.TI 12/15 80.00
Cycle II P.TI 12/15 80.00
Average 85.93
The second step in LSLC is do activity. The implementatipn of do stage in LSLC in four department in FPMIPATI Universitas PGRI Semarang describe as follows.
Tabel 2.The Monitoring of Do Stage
Cycle/Department Score Persentage (%)
Cycle I P.Mat 21/24 87.50
Cycle II P.Mat 18/24 75.00
Cycle III P. Mat 18/24 75.00
Cycle I P.Bio 21/24 87.50
Cycle II P.Bio 22/24 91.67
Cycle I P.Fis 20/24 83.33
Cycle II P.Fis 21/24 87.50
Cycle I P.TI 20/24 83.33
Cycle II P.TI 21/24 87.50
Average 84.26
The last step in LSLC is see activity. The implementatipn of see stage in LSLC in four department in FPMIPATI Universitas PGRI Semarang describe as follows.
Tabel 3.The Monitoring of See Stage
Cycle/Department Score Persentage (%)
Cycle I P.Mat 11/16 68.75
Cycle II P.Mat 12/16 75.00
Cycle III P. Mat 13/16 81.25
Cycle I P.Bio 14/16 87.50
Cycle II P.Bio 15/16 93.75
Cycle I P.Fis 15/16 93.75
Cycle II P.Fis 12/16 75.00
Cycle I P.TI 10/16 62.50
Cycle II P.TI 12/16 75.00
Average 79.17
First Open Lesson in Mathematic Education
In the lesson design, learning process begins with the formation of groups consisting of 4 students in each group (consisting of male and female students). The next activity is an exploration activity with question and answer method. Students observe examples and not examples group to find group concepts and group examples. After that, the students enter the elaboration stage by conducting MFI discussions in groups and proceed with the quiz.
At the end of the learning activities the lecturer model provides evaluation (confirmation) as well as awards for group work. Learning activities is end with the
formulation of conclusions. Furthermore, the model lecturer provides structured assignments and confirms the material to be studied at the next meeting.
In the do activity, Lecturer model has been implementing learning plan in accordance with the lesson plan that has been prepared previously. Observations from observers indicate that some students have studied in groups, discussed and worked on MFIs, but some students were inactive and closed during the lesson.
Some of the students are seen as as- sociate with examples, others are having difficulty in discussions, not participating actively in MFI work, and still others are confused by the notations. These students can not learn well because of the lack of concentration, lack of communication and inter-group collaboration, and the lack of students' understanding of the concepts being studied. However, the model lecturers have tried to condition the class by going around in each group to check, motivate, guide, and explain the concepts that students still do not understand. In general, learning objectives have been achieved. Model lecturers have done the learning quite well by applying STAD model, have high spirit in teaching, as well as readiness in teaching including RPP, mastery of material, and media used Second Open Lesson in Mathematic Education
The second open class activity starts with the phase of the plan which was held on October 14, 2106 with the participants of the activity plan as many as 6 lecturers. In the activity plan, Mrs. Sugiyanti, S.Pd.,M.Pd as a lecturer of the model convey the results of the design of learning with material limit. Learning activities are designed using STAD learning model, with discussion method and group assignment. Learning activities open with greetings, explanation of learning objectives, the delivery of apperception about function and function limit, followed by exploring the benefits of studying the material functions and limit functions in everyday life and benefits in other subjects. Furthermore, the core activities begin with the division of groups consisting of three to four students in each group.
Learning is followed by question and answer and material exposure from the lecturer (function, function value, function limit, limit of function and limit limit) by using PPT. After the exposure of the lecturers, students get MFIs to work on and discuss in groups. During the discussion, the model lecturers went around to check student activities. Furthermore, the students were asked to present the results of their discussion in front of the class and the model lecturers gave the review followed by the reinforcement related to the result of the group discussion. After that, the model lecturers together with the students make a conclusion about the material that has been studied.
In the activities do, Lecturer model has been implementing learning in accordance with the RPP that has been prepared previously. Do activities were held
on October 19, 2016 and attended by 4 observers. Observations from the observer indicate that students have not been able to learn from each other well. Most passive and many who have not understood the material described by the model lecturer and just look active during the discussion. Most students are not yet clear in drawing graphs with some interfals. Many students have not yet been able to determine δ and in verifying limits, as well as other issues. Therefore, the model lecturers have sought to continue to guide and provide direction during group discussions. In general, most learning objectives have been achieved. Model lecturers have attempted to prepare learning, media, and tools well despite the need for improvements at subsequent meetings.
First Open Lesson in Biology Education
The first open class activity begins with the phase plan that was held on 7 October 2106. In the activity plan, the model lecturer presented the results of RPP preparation for the topic of learning theory of information processing (Figure 1).
Model lecturers design learning by initiating learning by displaying a video showing the existence of information processing activities, followed by group divisions and discussions related to concepts, principles and learning processes that contain information processing. The lesson plan is followed by review and checking the students understanding by the material confirmation from the lecturer. After that, students return to work in groups to design learning activities that reflect the learning theory of information processing in accordance with the MFI to be distributed. Discussion activities to design lesson learning followed by presentation of group discussion result one by one, and learning ended with review from Lecturer Planning that has been prepared by lecturers of the model get some input from some parties, including is on apersepsi activities should model lecturers display some images that have some meaning in it, then students are given the opportunity to think and conduct information processing activities. Representatives of students are asked to express their thoughts in turn, the differences in perceptions between students are explored by lecturers to be directed to the concept that each individual can process information in ways and results that can be different from one another. It can direct the students' attention that what will be further studied through lectures is about the theory of information-processing learning. In addition, no corrections, additions or improvements are made during the discussion for the stage plan
Activities do and see was done on October 14, 2016. This activity was attended by seven observers. Learning activities are conducted in accordance with those that have been designed at the stage of the plan, but there is little control in the learning of the lack of time management that causes learning activities have not