G. Accomodating Local Culture as a Directional of Educational Goals
3. Root Standard Measurement Error (RSME)
The accuracy of equating method and estimation method can be seen from RMSE, the smaller RMSE, the more accurate tested equating method and estimation method. RSME or RMSD is determined by using the following formula
2( ) 1 n
i i
RMSE j
n
with N = sample size
i = respondent’s ability to-i after synchronized
i = respondent’s ability to-i before synchronized RESEARCH METHOD
The method used is experimental method. The data used in this research is score of National Math Exam for Junior High School in 2011 on A17 and B29 package for Jakarta area. Score of student’s work in the form of option A, B, C, D, and E. The length of test device mathematics for Junior High School is 40. Dimension of samples used in this study is 300 and named the small sample size. Equating method used is Mean and Sigma method, and Robust Mean and Sigma method. The estimation method used is Joint Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian
165 Table 1. Design of Estimation Parameter Research and Equating Method
on Small Sample Size Joint Maximum Likelihood Estimation (A1)
Bayesian Estimation (A2)
Mean and Sigma (B1)
Robust Mean and Sigma (B2)
Mean and Sigma (B1)
Robust Mean and Sigma (B2)
Y 1.1.1
Y 1.1.1
. . . Y1.1.30
Y 1.2.1
Y 1.2.1
. . . Y1.2.30
Y 2.1.1
Y 2.1.1
. . . Y2.1.30
Y 2.2.1
Y 2.2.1
. . . Y2.2.30
A1B1: equating group with Mean and Sigma method using Joint Maximum Likelihood method A1B2: equating group with Mean and Sigma method using Bayesian method
A2B1: equating group with Robust Mean and Sigma method using Joint Maximum Likelihood method
A2B2: equating group with Robust Mean and Sigma method using Bayesian method The procedures of this study are:
1) determine the fit model items to the two-parameter logistic model (L2P),
2) randomized take scores of 300 respondent for the first group and second group, each performed 30 times replication
3) to estimate respondent’s ability and item difficulty and item discrimination index using Joint Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Estimation.
4) determining A and K value using RS and TRS 5) perform item parameters equating
6) calculate RSME and RSME average value of each replication 7) hypothesis testing
The analysis were conducted in this study are (1) comparing RSME in A1B1 and A1B2, (2) comparing RSME in group A2B1 and A2B2, (3) comparing RSME in group A1B1 and A2B1 and (4) comparing RSME in group A1B2 and A2B2.
RESULTS
1. Data Description
Figure 1 shows the distribution of RMSE average from 30 replication in group A2B2 is more homogenous than group A1B1, A1B2 and A2B1.Distribution of RMSE average of A2B1is more homogeneous than A1B1 and A1B2. Distribution of RMSE average of A1B2 is more homogeneous than A1B1. Distribution of A1B1 and A1B2 is positive. This means that RMSE average of group A1B1 and A2B1 group assembled at low value. Based on exploration data from Figure 1, its shown that the A1B1
RMSE average is not different with A1B2, A2B1 RMSE average is not different with A2B2, while A1B1
RMSE average is greater than A2B1, A1B2 RMSE average is greater than A2B2.
Figure 1. Boxplot of RSME Average from 30 replication
166 Research Result
Variance homogeneity test results obtained by the variance of RMSE average of A1B1 and A1B2
is not different, variants of RMSE average of A2B1 and A2B2 is not different, while variants of RMSE average of A1B1 and A2B1, variants of RMSE average of A1B2 and A2B2 is different then testing comparison of RSME average of A1B1 and A1B2, A2B1 and A2B2 using the t test, while testing comparison of RSME average of A1B1 and A2B1, RMSE average of A1B2 and A2B2 using non- parametric statistics.
Testing result of RMSE average of A1B1 and A1B2 is obtained sig. Value of 0.344 > 0.05, A2B1
and A2B2 RMSE average is obtained sig. Value of 0.2545 > 0.05 then concluded RMSE of A1B1 and A1B2 is not different and RMSE of A2B1 and A2B2 is not different too. Th Testing result of RMSE average of A1B1 and A2B1 as well as A1B2 and A2B2 obtained sig. 0.00 > 0.05. By comparing the average values in Table 1 it may concluded RSME of A1B1 is lower than RMSE of A1B2 and RMSE of A2B2 is lower than RMSE of A2B1.
Table 2. RSME Average of Group A1B1, A2B1 A2B1 and A2B2
Group RMSE Average
A1B1 0,03450
A1B2 0,03740
A2B1 0,00956
A2B2 0,00844
DISCUSSION
The accuracy of equating method and estimation method can be seen by RMSE, the smaller the RMSE, the more accurate equating and estimation method that became the independent variables in this study. The test results using the t test states RSME of group A1B1 is not different with RSME of group A1B2 and RSME of group A2B1 is not different with RSME of group A2B2, so it can be stated that (1) on the small sample size and Mean and Sigma equating method, the accuracy of parameter estimation using joint maximum likelihood method similar to the Bayesian method, (2) on the small sample size and Robust Mean and Sigma equating method, the accuracy of parameter estimation using joint maximum likelihood method similar to the Bayesian method.
Test results using a non-parametric statistics obtained lower RSME of A1B1 and A2B1 RMSE RMSE a2b2 lower than RMSE A2B1, we conclude (1) the small sample size and parameter estimation using joint maximum likelihood method, method of equating Robust Mean and Sigma is more accurate than Mean and Sigma method, (2) the small sample size and parameter estimation using Bayesian methods, equating method Robust Mean and Sigma is more accurate than the mean and sigma method.
The test results using non-parametric statistics obtained that RSME of A1B1 is lower than RMSE of A2B1 and RMSE of A2B2 is lower than RMSE of A2B1 we may conclude (1) on small sample size and parameter estimation using joint maximum likelihood method, equating method of Robust Mean and Sigma is more accurate than Mean and Sigma method, (2) on small sample size and parameter estimation using Bayesian method, equating method of Robust Mean and Sigma is more accurate than Mean and Sigma method.
This result indicate in the same equating method produce the same accuracy between the joint maximum likelihood method and Bayesian method, while at the same parameter estimation method, which produces a different accuracy Robust Mean and Sigma method is more accurate than Mean and Sigma. RSME difference depends on the accuracy of the equating method due to the RSME calculation using estimation of respondent’s ability after and before synchronized using joint maximum likelihood and Bayesian method.
In the Mean and Sigma method, and Robust Mean and Sigma method uses mean and standard deviation of the estimation of item difficulty to two groups of respondent. Equating difference between Mean and Sigma method, and Robust Mean and Sigma lies in the A and K coefficient. In the Mean and Sigma method, the A coefficient is obtained from the comparison between the standard deviation of
167 item difficulty of the two groups, while K coefficient is obtained from the difference in the mean of item difficulty of second group, and multiplication A with mean of item difficulty of first group.
On Robust Mean and Sigma method A coefficients is obtained from the comparison between standard deviation of scored item difficulty of the two groups, while K coefficient is obtained from mean difference of scored item difficulty of the second group and multiplication A by scored item difficulty of first group. weighted item difficulty of first group and second group in item to-j obtained from the multiplication difficulty with the score scale. The score scale item to-j *
1 j
j n
i i
w w
w
with wj is inverse value of the largest variance of item difficulty to-j to the first and second group.Thus the score scale to-j has a value between 0 and 1 so that scored item difficulty less than value of non-scored item difficulty. Robust Mean and Sigma method is more accurate than Mean and Sigma method, when item difficulty is estimated by Bayesian and joint maximum likelihood method because the problems found in Mean and Sigma method does not consider the estimation of item parameter with different accuracy degree (Hambleton, Swaminathan and Rogers, 1991: 132).
CONCLUSION
At the same equating method generate the same accuracy between joint maximum likelihood method and Bayesian method and at the same parameter estimation method generate, equating with Robust Mean and Sigma method is more accurate than Mean and Sigma method.
REFERENCES
Ayalo, R. J. De, The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York, The Guilford Press, 2009
Cohen, Allan S. dan Seock-Ho Kim. Comparison of Linking and Concurenrent Calibration Under Item Rersponse Theory. Journal Applied Psychological Measurement. Vol 22 No 2 Juni 1998.
Hambleton, Ronald K and Hariharan Swaminathan, Item Response Theory Principles and Aplication.
Boston: Kluwer.Nijhooff Publishing, 1990
Hambleton, Ronald K, H Swaminathan,dan H Jane Rogers. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory.
London : Sage Publications, 1991
Kolen, Michael and Robert L Brenan, Test Equating. New York: Springer, 1995.
Naga, Dali Santun. Teori Sekor Pada Pengukuran Mental. Jakarta, Nagarani Citrayasa, 2012.
168 PERILAKU GREEN CONSUMERISM MAHASISWA DALAM KAITANNYA DENGAN
PEMAHAMAN KONSEP EKOPEDAGOGIK Suwirman Nuryadin1
1Program Studi Pendidikan Kependudukan dan Lingkungan Hidup (PKLH) Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
Abstrak
Penelitian ini mencoba mengungkapkan apakah melalui kurikulum yang ada, sudah terbentuk konsep ekopedagogik pada alumni dan mahasiswa, sehingga mereka memiliki perilaku yang berbasis “green consumerism”. Dan apakah terdapat hubungan antara pemahaman terhadap konsep ekopedagogik dengan perilaku “green consumerism”.
Metodologi penelitian yang digunakan adalah survey.
Educational for Sustainable Development (ESD) adalah merupakan suatu konsep yang sejalan dengan konsep ekopedagogik. Bila ESD dipandang sebagai suatu sasaran atau tujuan, maka ekopedagogik bisa dipandang sebagai suatu pendekatan dalam mencapai sasaran tersebut.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemahaman mahasiswa terhadap tiga aspek konsep ekopedagogik adalah sebagai berikut: 57% mahasiswa memahami konsep ekoliterasi teknis, 39% memahami kosep ekoliterasi budaya dan 27% memamami konsep ekoliterasi kritis. Perilaku “green consumerism”, lebih ditandai oleh indikator “menilai”
terhadap proses pembuatan barang (produk) dan agent-agent penyalur (distributor) barang tersebut. Sedangkan perilaku “green consumerism” terhadap jenis produk dan produsen lebih ditandai oleh indicator “menerima”. Dan tidak terdapat hubungan yang siknifikan antara pemahaman terhadap konsep ekopedagogik dengan perilaku “green consumerism”.
Kata Kunci: ekopedagogik, green consumerism; educational for sustainable development Abstract
This research tries to reveal if through aught curriculum, was formed ecopedagogic's concept on collegiate and college student, so they have behavior that get basis green consumerism. And what exists relationship among understanding to ecopedagogic's concept with green consumerism behavioral. Observational methodology that is utilized is survey.
Educational for Sustainable Development (ESD) are constitute an in line with concept ecopedagogic's concept. If ESD is viewed as a target or to the effect, therefore ecopedagogic can be viewed as an approaching in achieving that target.
Result observation link to point out that college student grasp to three ecopedagogic's concept aspect is as follows: 57% college student understands ecoliterasi's technical concepts, 39% understands ecoliterasi's cultures concept and 27% understand ecoliterasi's critical concepts. Green consumerism behavior more marked by indicator to assesses to process goods makings and dealer agent (distributor) those goods. Meanwhile green consumerism behavior to product type and producers to be marked by indicator to accepts. And there is no relationship that significant among understanding to ecopedagogic's concept with green consumerism behavior.
Keywords: eco pedagogic; green consumerism; educational for sustainable development
169 PENDAHULUAN
Misi program studi Pendidikan Kependudukan dan Lingkungan Hidup (PKLH) antara lain adalah: 1) melakukan pembinaan dalam rangka menghasilkan tenaga kependidikan yang memiliki ciri keimanan dan ketaqwaan kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, berjiwa Pancasila, bermoral luhur, menunjang kode etik profesi serta kebanggaan dan kecintaan kepada almamaternya dan 2) menyelenggarakan kegiatan pendidikan yang dapat menghasilkan kemampuan dalam mengembangkan konsep baru di dalam bidang ilmu dan profesi Pendidikan Kependudukan dan Lingkungan Hidup, melalui pendidikan, penelitian, dan pendekatan interdisipliner.
Dari visi dan misi sedemikian maka ada empat profil lulusan Program Studi PKLH yaitu: profil dasar, profil pendidik, profil peneliti dan profil peneliti. Khusus dari profil pendidik, maka alumni program studi PKLH diharapkan bisa diwujudkan menjadi seorang pendidik yang perilakunya (pengetahuan, sikap dan keterampilan) selalu berorientasi kepada nilai-nilai dan masalah-masalah kependudukan dan lingkungan hidup atau pendidik yang memiliki prilaku ekopedagogik. Perilaku ekopedagogik hanya dapat terbentuk jika materi perkuliahan yang disusun dan disampaikan sesuai dengan tujuan tersebut.
Menurut Stefan Krasimirov Grigonov dan Reinaldo Martias Fleuri (2012) ecopedagogik adalah suatu pendidikan dalam perpektif interkultural guna membentuk eko-sosial yang baru. Menurut mereka ekopedagogik bertujuan mencari dan menemukan kemungkinan untuk menciptakan masyarakat yang berkelanjutan yang baru secara ekologis (new ecologically sustainable civilization atau new eco-social civilization) dan menjadikannya sebagai dasar rekonstruksi sistem pendidikan dunia yang democratis.
Marcus (19680) melansir satu konsep “one-dimensional man” (manusia satu dimensi), yang hidup mereka diorganisir oleh mass media sehingga mereka hidup di atas kebutuhan yang salah (false needs). Kebutuhan-kebutuhan itu adalah kebutuhan yang dibuat oleh mass media, yang diciptakan oleh informasi mass media, agar mereka membeli produk-produk yang sebenarnya tidak akan pernah mereka beli jika tidak diinformasikan kepada mereka. Lebih jauh lagi, dalam era globalisasi sekarang kita melihat fenomena tersebut, masyarakat satu-dimensi hidup dengan pola over konsumsi (over- consumerism); yakni masyarakat yang hidup dalam dunia penuh resiko yang diciptakan pasar tanpa tanggungjawab dan tanpa hukum (market irresponsibility and impunity). Masyarakat hidup dimana profit menjadi lebih penting bagi masyarakat kelas ekonomi atas, sedang resiko lingkungan menjadi bagian masyarakat kelas ekonomi bawah.
Perilaku konsumeris hijau (green consumerism), adalah merupakan pola tingkah laku yang ingin diciptakan kembali sebagai upaya membalikkan keadaan yang telah terlanjur buruk, yaitu perilaku over- consumerism yang sangat beresiko.
Berdasarkan uraian tersebut di atas maka masalah penelitian sebagai berikut: apakah kurikulum Program Studi PKLH PPs UNJ, telah berhasi berhasil membentuk perilaku “green consumerism” pada mahasiswanya atau lulusannya.? Apakah kurikulum PKLH telah mempertimbangkan konsep ekopedagogik dalam kegiatan atau proses pembelajarannya, sehingga berdampak pada perilaku mahasiswa atau lulusannya. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah sebagai berikut:
a.Untuk mengetahui pemahaman mahasiswa tentang berbagai konsep ekopedagogik.
b. Untuk mengetahui perilaku ”green consumerism” mahasiswa program studi PKLH UNJ dalam kaitannya dengan konsep ekopedagogik.
Manfaat penelitian ini adalah agar dosen yang mengajar mata kuliah PKLH dapat mengembangkan materi pembelajaran yang lebih sesuai dengan konsep ekopedagogik. Selain itu agar para berbagai kalangan yang mempunyai perhatian terhadap pendidikan kependudukan dan lingkungan hidup memperoleh gambaran bagaimana kesiapan mahasiswa dalam mengantisipasi pembentukan perilaku “green consumerism”
KAJIAN PUSTAKA