Document

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION
ISSN: 2146-0353 ● © RIGEO ● 11(5), SPRING, 2021
www.rigeo.org Research Article
Education Curriculum Reform in Higher

Education Through Evaluation Measures
(Case Study of Research and Development
of Teaching Material for Scientific Writing
Courses at Iain Sultan Amai Gorontalo)
Muhammad Arif1 Yuwin R. Saleh2
Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, IAIN Sultan Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, IAIN Sultan
Amai Gorontalo Amai Gorontalo
Yanty K. Manoppo3 Harni Jusuf4
Enni Akhmad5 Munirah6
Abstract
There are four components that are assessed as feasible, namely the content or material of teaching
materials, the presentation system, graphic design, and linguistic elements. The trial was conducted using
teaching materials in learning activities involving 10 students in limited trials, and 25 students in extensive
trials. The implementation of teaching materials uses an experimental design of 109 students who are
divided into three study rooms. Evaluation of effectiveness in terms of student learning outcomes. Data
analysis techniques using descriptive statistical techniques. The results of the feasibility test or the validity
of the construction of instructional materials indicate that the component content or material, the
presentation system, graphics, language, and media components have met the ideal teaching material
standards based on expert judgment.
Keywords
Reform, Curriculum, Development, Teaching Materials, Feasibility, Effective
To cite this article: Arif, M.; Saleh, Y.R.; Manoppo, Y.K.; Jusuf, H.; Akhmad, E.; and Munirah. (2021) Education
Curriculum Reform in Higher Education Through Evaluation Measures (Case Study of Research and Development of
Teaching Material for Scientific Writing Courses at Iain Sultan Amai Gorontalo) Layers. Review of International
Geographical Education (RIGEO), 11(5), 3103-3119. doi: 10.48047/rigeo.11.05.202
Submitted: 06-02-2021 ● Revised: 10-04-2021 ● Accepted: 02-06-2021

© RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
Introduction
The main problem that underlies this research is findings related to the limitations of student
learning materials. This limitation does not mean that there is no learning material but there is a
lack of effort, low interest, and partly due to the economic limitations of students to get quality
teaching material. Because, around the IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo itself can be found several
book figures who provide teaching materials related to scientific writing courses. However, this
cannot be forced, but there are responsibilities and obligations of each lecturer to overcome
these problems. Lecturers must be able to design and develop their own learning processes so
that the objectives to be achieved can be realized according to the ideals of national education.
This is as outlined in the 1945 Constitution Article 31 paragraph 3 that the government strives and
organizes a national education system that enhances faith and piety and noble character in the
context of intellectualizing the life of the nation which is regulated by law. Furthermore, it is
emphasized in the National Education System Law Number 20 Year 2003 Article 40 Paragraph (2a)
that education staff (lecturers) are obliged to have a professional commitment to improve the
quality of education. So, there is no longer any reason for educators, especially lecturers to not
think, do activities, be creative, and give birth to the latest innovations in order to fulfill these tasks
and responsibilities. The task of developing teaching materials for lecturers is also regulated in
Government Regulation (PP) No. 19 of 2005 Article 20 that lecturers are expected to develop
learning materials or teaching materials as well as other supporting devices. The PP was reinforced
through Permendiknas No. 41 of 2007 concerning Process Standards which read the planning of
the learning process which requires lecturers to develop plans for implementing learning. Thus,
lecturers can no longer circumvent or avoid their obligations to develop teaching material.
Davis, E (2006) and Villegas & Lucas (2002) in their writings explain that educators in the current
era are required to behave and think critically in order to advance the education curriculum.
Thinking and being critical should have become a culture or habit for them. However, Remillard,
J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004) revealed that all of these would be successful if the orientation of the
educator was in line with the policy of developing the educational curriculum. Not by ignorance
of the curriculum and the development of students.
The law in Indonesia explains in detail the instructional instructions for implementing the
professional performance of lecturers, one of which is the development of educational processes
and units as described in the National Education System Law Number 20 Year 2003 Article 39
Paragraph (1) that the teaching staff is tasked with implementing administration, management,
development, supervision, and technical services to support education processes and units. As
stated by Cronje (2006) that the problem is the situation of lecturers or teaching staff who do not
understand and understand their tasks and functions as explained in the law.
Then, do you know the impact of the limitations of students in obtaining quality learning resources
and the inability of lecturers to overcome this? The answer is the low quality of the learning process
which impacts on the low student learning outcomes. Not only that, students' interest and
motivation to learn become low. So, in learning students do not show good enthusiasm on the
grounds that the source of learning is limited so they are also limited knowledge. This problem can
be found in courses in scientific writing. The worst, this course has not been able to bring students
to good academic writing skills.
The description of teaching materials for writing scientific papers that are used by students at the
IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalois a draft form prepared by lecturers by taking material from the
internet. The draft is then neatly bound and then distributed to students as a guide for learning.
Disseminated here is not a free gift but must be purchased at a high enough price. In terms of
quality not guaranteed. Furthermore, students also use the internet as a learning resource. The
description of the teaching materials does not meet the eligibility standards. The National
Education Standards Agency (2006) and Yazid (2011) explain that the rules that must be obeyed
in providing (developing) learning materials for students is to pay attention to their feasibility,
effectiveness and practicality. Borg & Gall (1983) also think so. According to him, the general
procedure of an educational product that has been developed basically consists of two main
objectives, namely: (1) developing a product, and then (2) testing the feasibility and effectiveness
of the product in achieving its objectives.
In this study, reforming the educational curriculum for writing scientific papers at the IAIN Sultan
Amai Gorontalo is an effort to improve the quality of the curriculum through teaching materials
by examining or testing the appropriateness of teaching materials used by students. The test results
are used as a reference in developing teaching materials products as a result of improvements
3104
Arif, M.; Saleh, Y.R.; Manoppo, Y.K.; Jusuf, H.; Akhmad, E.; and Munirah. (2021) Education Curriculum Reform …
from existing teaching materials. Solano-Flores, & Nelson-Barber, (2001) revealed that currently, a
lot of learning material is used without going through scientific testing or assessment stages so that
the results generated from these materials are not truly scientific. Solano-Flores, & Nelson-Barber,
(2001) revealed that before use, learning material must actually go through the stages of testing
the validity or feasibility so that the material becomes standardized. Hamsiah, et al (2017) state
that the curriculum (teaching material) developed by educators (lecturers) must be measured for
eligibility through feasibility testing either conducted by experts or through a series of trials. In
developing teaching materials, the design principles and development process used must follow
national standards (Reiser, et al. 2003). According to the National Education Standards Agency
(BSNP 2006), the feasibility of teaching material is reviewed from the results of the assessment of
several aspects including content / presentation, graphics, and language.
Effendy (1989) defines effectiveness as communication in which the process of achieving the
planned objectives is in accordance with the budgeted costs, the time determined and the
number of personnel determined. Effectiveness according to the above understanding means
that the indicator of effectiveness in the sense of achieving a predetermined goal or goal is a
measurement in which a target has been achieved in accordance with what has been planned.
Effectiveness is also interpreted as the message power to influence or the ability level of messages
to influence (Susanto, 1975). According to Susanto's understanding above, effectiveness can be
interpreted as a measurement of the achievement of well-planned objectives. According to
Reigeluth (Yazid, 2011), an important aspect in the effectiveness (potential effect) of an
instrument, theory, or model is knowing the level / degree of application of the theory, or model
in a particular situation. This level of effectiveness, according to Mager, is usually expressed by a
numerical scale based on certain criteria. Related to the effectiveness of the development of
instruments, models, theories in education, Akker (1999) states "Effectiveness refers to the extent
that experiences and outcomes with the intervention are consistent with the intended aims"
consistent with the intended purpose.
According to Kesidou, S., & Roseman, JE (2002) a good curriculum is (a) motivating students to
learn, (b) not making it difficult for students to learn, (c) supporting students to create scientific
ideas through learning activities. These three concepts by Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. can be
used as a reference project for curriculum development in 2061. According to Lynch, et al (2005)
a curriculum product must be measured for its effect on the target subject. Lynch, et al. explain
that the effectiveness of curriculum products (teaching materials) is measured from student
learning outcomes by comparing the increase in learning outcomes between learning outcomes
before and after the application of the curriculum products. If the learning outcomes are
consistently increasing from time to time, then the product can be said to be effective. The
effectiveness of a teaching material is usually seen from the potential effects in the form of quality
of learning outcomes, attitudes, and motivation of students. According to Akker (1999) there are
two aspects of effectiveness that must be met by a teaching material, namely (1) Experts and
practitioners based on their experience state that the teaching material is effective, (2)
Operationally the teaching material provides the expected results.
Research Methods
The research method used is the second level of research and development (R&D), namely
researching and developing existing products and then testing the feasibility, testing, and
effectiveness of existing teaching material products. The development classification in this study
is to improve the teaching material products previously used. The prototype of this new teaching
material was developed by paying close attention to aspects that were judged to be weak or
lacking in previous teaching materials such as material aspects, systematic presentation,
grammar, and language. Based on the level of exploration this research is descriptive research.
This research was conducted at the IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo in the even semester of 2018.
Data collection techniques used were questionnaires and tests. To test the feasibility of teaching
materials, a questionnaire was given to experts to be filled out based on the results of examination
of teaching materials. The data analysis technique used is descriptive statistical techniques. The
trial was conducted by implementing teaching materials in learning then asking for the responses
of students of the test subjects to determine the feasibility of teaching materials based on the
results of the trials. The trials were carried out in two forms, namely limited trials and extensive trials.
Limited trials use 10 students and extensive trials use 25 students. The next step is to carry out
3105
implementation and evaluation. Implementation using experimental techniques. Experiments
were conducted on 109 students. After the experiment is carried out, the effectiveness of teaching
material is measured using a test technique.
Research Results
Description Of Feasibility of Pre-Development Teaching Materials
Following are the results of the pre-examination of the feasibility of pre-existing teaching materials
from three experts. Aspects of teaching material being examined for eligibility are (1) content or
material, (2) presentation system, (3) graphic design, and (4) linguistic elements.
Table 1.
Results of examination of material eligibility
Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

1 45 52.94% Quite Feasible
2 41 48.23% Less Feasible
Average 44.33 48.82% Less Feasible
From the table above, it is known that the total score of aspects of teaching material used by
students prior to development is 44.33 (48.82%) of the ideal score of 85 which indicates that the
teaching material is in the category of less feasible.
Table 2.
Results of a feasibility inspection on presentation

Average 34.67 53.33 Less Feasible
From the table above, it is known that the total score of aspects of the presentation of teaching
materials used by students prior to development is 34.67 (53.33%) of the ideal score of 65 which
indicates that the presentation of teaching materials is in the category of Less Feasible
Table 3.
The results of the graphic layout feasibility check

Average 71 55.38% Quite Feasible
From the above table, it is known that the total score of the graphic aspects of teaching material
used by students before development is 71 (53.33%) of the ideal score of 130 which indicates that
the graphic system of teaching materials is in the category of quite feasible. In this study, the
category of being sufficiently adequate did not meet the established standards, so the results of
this assessment still concluded that the graphical aspects of teaching materials used by students
before development were not declared feasible.
3106
Table 4.
Results of language eligibility checks

1 33 55% Quite Feasible
Average 33.67 56.11% Quite Feasible
From the table above, it is known that the total score of the language aspects of teaching
materials used by students before development is 33.67 (56.11%) of the ideal score of 60 which
indicates that the language aspects of the teaching materials are in the category of quite
feasible. In this study, the category of being decent enough does not meet the established
standards, so the results of this assessment still conclude that the language aspects of teaching
materials used by students before development is not declared feasible.
Description of the Feasibility of Post-Development Teaching Materials
After the results of the examination of teaching materials are known, the next step is development.
The development in this research is an effort to improve the quality of teaching materials based
on the results of the examination. That is, pre-existing teaching materials are evaluated and
improved again to produce better or higher quality teaching material products. The aspects
examined in teaching materials are the same as the examination of previous teaching materials,
namely (1) content or material, (2) presentation system, (3) graphic design, and (4) language
elements.
Table 5.
The results of the post-development feasibility examination material

1 78 91.76% Very Feasible
Average 80.33 94.51% Very Feasible
From the table above, it is known that the total score of aspects of teaching material after
development is 80 (94.51%) of the ideal score of 85 which indicates that the teaching material is
in the category of very feasible.
Table 6.
The results of the feasibility inspection after the development are presented

From the table above, it is known that the total score of aspects of the presentation of teaching
materials after development is 60.33 (92.81%) of the ideal score of 65 which indicates that the
presentation of teaching materials is in the category of very feasible.
3107
Table 7.
The results of the post-development graphical feasibility examination

From the above table, it is known that the total score of the instructional aspects of the teaching
material after the development is 122.67 (94.35%) from the ideal score of 130 which indicates that
the graphic management of the teaching material is in the category of very feasible.
Table 8.
Results of post-development language feasibility examinations

1 57 95% Very Feasible
Average 57 95% Very Feasible
From the above table, it is known that the total score of the language aspects of teaching
materials after development is 57 (95%) of the ideal score of 60 which indicates that the graphic
system of teaching materials is in the category of very feasible.
Description of Trial Results

Limited Trial Results
A limited trial was conducted on 10 students who were randomly selected. The trial results are
described as follows
Table 9.
Frequency distribution of test subject responses is limited
Interval Categori Frequency Percentage

30 and above Very Feasible 9 90
24 – 29 Feasible 1 10
18 – 23 Quite Feasible 0 0
12 – 17 Less Feasible 0 0
11 and below Not Feasible 0 0
Total 10 100
Based on table 9 above, it is known that the responses of test subjects have various tendencies.
Nine students responded to teaching materials in the very feasible category and 1 student
responded to teaching materials in the feasible categories. Meanwhile, there were no students
who gave adequate, inadequate and inappropriate responses on teaching materials. Data
distribution of the tendency of the value above is presented in the following graph.
3108
Frequency distribution of test subject is limited

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ST (30 and above) T (24 – 29) S (18 – 23) R (12 – 17) SR (11 and below)
Interval
Figure 1. Distribution of the response frequency of test subjects 1
The total response score of 10 test subjects was 307 with a percentage of 87, 71%. From the total
score, it is assumed in the following interval table for the tendency of the values.
Table 10
Interval classification of responses of trial subjects is limited
Interval Percentage Interval Catagori

295 – 350 84.2% - 100% Very Feasible
239 – 294 68.2% - 84% Feasible
183 – 238 52.2% - 68% Quite Feasible
127 – 182 36.2 % - 52% Less Feasible
70 – 126 20% - 36% Not Feasible
Table 4.77 above explains that the total score of 307 is in the interval 295 - 350 (84.2% - 100%) with
the category "very feasible". Based on the results of the assessment of students as test subjects the
teaching material was declared feasible.
Broad Trial Results
An extensive trial was carried out on 25 randomly selected students. Extensive test results are
described as follows
Table 10
Frequency distribution of classifications of broad test subjects' responses
Interval Categori Frequency Percentage

30 ke atas Very Feasible 20 80
24 – 29 Feasible 5 20
18 – 23 Quite Feasible 0 0
12 – 17 Less Feasible 0 0
11 ke bawah Not Feasible 0 0
Total 25 100
Based on table 10 above, it is known that the responses of test subjects have various tendencies.
In trial 2, 20 students who responded to teaching materials with a very decent category and 5
students responded to teaching materials with an appropriate category. Meanwhile, there were
3109
no students who gave adequate, inadequate and inappropriate responses on teaching
materials. Data distribution of the tendency of the value above is presented in the following
graph.
Frequency distribution of responses of extensive trial subjects

25
20
15
10
0
ST (30 and above) T (24 – 29) S (18 – 23) R (12 – 17) SR (11 and below )
Interval
Figure 2 Frequency distribution of propensity for trial values 2
The total response score of 25 test subjects was 781 with a percentage of 89, 25%. From the total
score, it is assumed in the following interval table for the tendency of the values.
Table 11
Interval classification of broad trial subject responses
Interval Interval Persentase Catagori

736 - 875 84,1% - 100% Very Feasible
596 - 735 68.1% - 84 % Feasible
456 - 595 52.1% - 68% Quite Feasible
316 - 455 36.1 – 52% Less Feasible
175 - 315 20% - 36% Not Feasible
Table 11 above explains that the total score of 781 is in the interval 736 - 875 (84, 1% - 100%) with
the category "very feasible". Based on the results of the assessment of students as test subjects the
teaching material is declared feasible or can be implemented.
Discussion
Human culture, needs, and behavior develop as the rate of development of the times. Likewise,
the world of education, the components that are in it must always develop towards a better
direction with the times. One of these components is the curriculum. Therefore, he hopes that all
parties involved or involved in the world of education must be able to position themselves as
agents of change. In this case, the lecturer has a position as the main pillar of the change.
Rutherford (1997) in his writings revealed that in order to achieve educational reform towards a
better direction, the initial step that must be taken is to prepare actors (brain) for educational
reform. In this case, Rutherford positioned the role of educators (teachers or lecturers) as its main
pillar. Therefore, it is not wrong if Kemenristek Dikti synergizes with university institutions strictly and
seriously in developing the potential and skills of lecturers through various training programs that
are both mandatory and supplementary in nature such as the Pekerti, Applied Approach, Lesson
Study, Workshop programs, etc... The important role of an educator in education reform was also
stated by Mbarushimana & Daniel (2017) that educators have a very important role in changing
the curriculum for the better. The forms of participation are planners, designers, agents of change,
and evaluators.
3110
After understanding the strategic role of a lecturer in reforming the education curriculum, the
question that must be answered is how to make the curriculum quality. Stabback (2016) in his
paper entitled "What Make Quality Curriculum?" provide practical concepts on how to make the
curriculum quality through evaluation procedures and ongoing curriculum development.
According to Stabback, this effort will minimize the weaknesses that exist in the curriculum, then
ultimately create a quality final curriculum product. This is what researchers are trying to carry out
through research and development activities in the educational curriculum, which are teaching
materials, especially in scientific writing courses at IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo. This research and
development activity begins with a study of the problems contained in the curriculum. As a result,
it is known that the quality of teaching materials used so far has not met the standards of eligibility
both in terms of content, presentation, graphics, and language. In developing teaching materials,
the design principles and development process used must follow national standards (Reiser, et al.
2003). The National Education Standards Agency (BSNP, 2006) explains that the criteria for
teaching materials that are good or feasible to use are measured through their content,
presentation, graphic, and linguistic aspects. If the four components have not been achieved,
then the teaching material is not suitable for use. If this is avoided, it will have an impact on student
learning processes and outcomes. This is indeed true, the results of a survey regarding the
satisfaction of students of the IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontaloon the availability of learning advice in
the form of teaching materials showed that only 7% of students stated that they were quite
satisfied and considered the teaching materials used in learning to be sufficient, 83% of students
stated that they were less satisfied and assessed the teaching materials that were used in
inadequate learning, and another 10% expressed dissatisfaction with teaching materials because
during the learning process the teaching materials were inadequate or did not meet student
expectations. This has a direct impact on the quality of the process and student learning
outcomes. The results of interviews with students confirmed that the lack of quality teaching
materials disrupts interest and learning activities. Students find it difficult to explore the critical
power of the material due to material resources that are not available. The result, during the
learning process, students only play an active role as a listener and note taker. In fact, it is
expected that students are actively involved and participative in the whole series of learning. This
problem is also the basis for consideration of development research conducted by Sehe, Tolla,
Kamaruddin, and Hamsa (2016), Irlidia, Tolla, Noni, and Ansari (2015), Kamariah, Husain,
Atmowardoyo, Salija (2018), Suriaman, Rahman, Noni (2018), Hamsiah, Tang, Tolla, Jufri (2017).
The impact of the problems experienced by students due to the unavailability of teaching
materials is the low learning outcomes. Schneider, Krajcik, & Marx, R. (2000) have emphasized that
teaching material is very important in its role in learning. Without teaching material, the direction
of learning becomes uncertain so that it will be difficult to reach the goal. The results showed that
the tendency of the pretest learning outcomes of 109 students who were subjected to
implementation was that there were no students whose learning outcomes were in the very high
category, only 1 person (0.91%) was in the category of high learning outcomes, 96 people (88.07%)
were in the category learning outcomes are quite high, 12 people (11.02%) are in the category of
low learning outcomes, and no one is netted with very low learning outcomes. If examined more
closely, the figure of 88.07% for students with quite high learning outcomes is still far from
expectations.
From the problems that have been described, a common thread is drawn that the teaching
materials of scientific papers used so far need to be improved through quality development
activities. Improvement in the quality of nature in terms of two aspects, namely aspects of
teaching material construction and media aspects. The design of teaching materials developed
is based on electronic autoplay. This electronic media selection consideration refers to the results
of a study of some of the results of research developments such as Wahyudi (2012) that electronic-
based teaching materials (Macromedia Flash) make it easier for students to understand learning
materials, increase the atmosphere of activity, and improve student learning outcomes.
In development research, after the prototype of teaching materials is developed, the initial step
taken is feasibility testing. Testing the feasibility of teaching materials involves experts and
practitioners who are asked to read and examine carefully the content and structure of teaching
materials including content, presentation, graphics, linguistic, and media. This feasibility test is very
important, Solano-Flores, & Nelson-Barber, (2001) revealed that today, many learning materials
are used without going through a scientific testing or assessment stage so that the results
generated from these materials are not truly scientific. Therefore, before it is used, learning
material must really go through the stages of testing the validity or feasibility so that the material
3111
becomes standardized. This feasibility assessment stage was also carried out in the research and
development of Rukayah, Achmad Tolla, and Ramly (2017), Sehe, Tolla, Kamaruddin, and Hamsa
(2016), Irlidia, Tolla, Noni, and Ansari (2015), Kamariah, Husain, Atmowardoyo , Salija (2018),
Suriaman, Rahman, Noni (2018), Hamsiah, Tang, Tolla, Jufri (2017). Related to the feasibility of the
developed curriculum instrument, Sugiyono (2010) explained that the instrument or device that
will be used in 1 particular population must go through a series of trials in a limited group to
determine the level of validity. Meanwhile, Prastowo (2015) explained that one of the conditions
that must be taken by educators in testing the feasibility of using instructional materials that were
developed was through a limited series of trials on the subject (students).
Assessment of the feasibility of teaching materials is carried out on an ongoing basis until declared
valid by the validator. In this case, the instructional materials that have been developed by
researchers are tested for eligibility in 2 stages. At each stage, the validator is asked to examine
carefully the four components mentioned above then provide an assessment based on the level
of "very feasible", "worthy", "quite feasible", "less feasible", and "not feasible". The summary of the
results of the assessment of the feasibility of teaching materials from three validators can be seen
in the following table;
Table 4.120
Summary of the results of the three validator feasibility tests
Component
Material/content Presentation Language
Graphics (%)
(%) (%) (%)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
SL 91.76 92.30 95.38 95.0
L
Expert 1 CL 52.94 55.38 55.0
KL 52.30
TL
SL 95.29 92.30 91.53 93.33
L
Expert 2 CL 53.07 56.66
KL 48.23 52.30
TL
SL 96.47 93.84 96.15 96.66
L
Practitioner CL 55.29 55.38 55.38 56.66
KL
TL
Based on the above table, it can be seen that the process of evaluating the feasibility of teaching
materials by the validator is carried out in 2 stages. This is because in the first assessment, there
were still a number of weaknesses or errors that resulted in the validator giving the highest feasibility
value to the category quite feasible. Meanwhile, the standard of feasibility of teaching materials
required at a minimum must be in the appropriate category and the maximum in the very feasible
category. Therefore, all forms of weaknesses or errors encountered in stage 1 assessment must be
revised. Next, the revision results are checked again to find out the level of eligibility.
Furthermore, after the teaching material is declared feasible based on the results of the feasibility
test by the expert, the teaching material must go through a trial phase. The trials are divided into
2 parts, namely limited trials and extensive trials. This trial is a prerequisite for teaching materials to
be used in real learning. This is as determined by Dick, Carey and Carey, (2001) and Borg & Gall
(1983) through the development model he created. The results of a questionnaire of 10 limited
trial subjects assessed that teaching materials were suitable for use with a total score of 307 at an
interval of 295 - 350 (84.2% - 100%) in the "very feasible" category. Likewise with extensive trials on
25 students, the total score of teaching material eligibility at the broad trial stage was 781 at 736 -
875 intervals (84, 1% - 100%) in the "very feasible" category. Thus, the first requirement of good
teaching materials used in learning has been fulfilled, namely the feasibility of being tested based
on the results of the assessment and the results of the trial. Two conditions are separated namely
the effectiveness and practicality of teaching materials (BSNP, 2006).
3112
Learning relates to the acquisition, modification of knowledge, skills, strategies, beliefs, attitudes,
and human behavior (Schunk, 2012: 3). By learning, humans try to change. Lecturers are the main
actors who encourage changes in students by learning. Therefore, the success of student learning
itself is in the lecturers and curriculum. Taba (1962) in his book titled Curriculum Development:
Theory and Practice proposes that there is a definite order in designing a rational and dynamic
curriculum where lecturers or educators must participate or be involved in the core in developing
their own curriculum (grasrooth approach) which is a representation of reality which is in college.
This means that it is the lecturer who understands his own learning environment, such as what he
needs and the needs of students in learning. In this case, developing teaching materials
conducted by lecturers is a demand given the students' need for better learning. For example,
when a lecturer identifies the low student learning outcomes due to poor quality of teaching
materials used, the actions that should be taken by the lecturer are to revise the weaknesses or
weaknesses of the teaching materials or at the same time create new teaching materials. So that
is meant in development.
Related to the developed teaching material products, new stages are needed to find out the
effectiveness of these teaching materials. Because, one of the main requirements of a teaching
material that can be used is effective in achieving learning objectives. One of the learning goals
is realized through learning outcomes. Talking about the use of teaching materials to make
changes in student learning outcomes there are three possibilities that can occur, namely (1) the
benefits of changes occur in a short time, (2) the benefits of changes in a long time, and (3) the
absence of benefits that occur (Ormrod in Arsyad, 2017: 261). The effectiveness measure in this
research and development, of the three possibilities, only refers to the first possibility. Because, it is
very effective when the benefits of an object (teaching material) can be seen or felt in a short
time (fast). This is in line with the results of the implementation of the development of teaching
materials for Scientific Writing for students at IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo.
The effectiveness of teaching materials is measured through learning outcomes, student responses
and lecturer models. First, the implementation of teaching materials based on autoplay scientific
papers can improve student learning outcomes. It is known that the number of students who were
netted with high category learning outcomes prior to the implementation of teaching materials
developed was only 1 person. However, after the implementation of teaching materials in
learning to write scientific papers, student learning outcomes netted in the high category
increased significantly to 84 people. Student responses to the effectiveness of teaching materials
show that teaching materials are very effectively used in learning. The total score of the
questionnaire responses of students to teaching materials is 9476 in the interval of inclination 9157
- 10900 (84% - 100%) with a very effective category. In addition, the lecturer response also showed
the same thing, where the total score of the model lecturer responses of 274 was in the trend
interval of 253 - 300 (84% - 100%) with a very effective category.
Learning is a meaningful process. All components applied during the learning process will be
recorded and internalized directly by the learner (Ansyar, 2017: 207). Therefore, the good or bad
process that is passed will be measured by the mind and heart of each participant learning. That
is, when students take part in learning activities, they will automatically assess the learning
components, such as the quality of teaching lecturers, class management, and even the quality
of teaching materials used. Therefore, lecturers need to encourage or motivate students to study.
As the theory of learning behaviorism, that learning is the result of encouragement of external
events that cause changes in human behavior observed (Brown & Green, 2011: 29).
Related to the teaching material developed, after it is implemented in learning activities, then the
practicality can be measured. The practicality of teaching materials in research and
development is measured through learning evaluation data and student learning activities during
learning that implement teaching materials that are developed. The results of the evaluation of
learning scientific papers during ten meetings have a dynamic dimension, namely improving the
quality of learning by using teaching materials. At the first to fourth meeting, the three observers
assessed that the teaching and learning process was not optimal so that the value of the
inclination was in the quite decent category. Furthermore, at the fifth to eighth meeting, the
teaching and learning process experienced a significant improvement so that the value of the
tendency was in the proper category. Improving the quality of learning is getting better at nine
and ten meetings where the value of the tendency is in the category of very feasible. If the
learning evaluation score is averaged, then it is assumed in the tendency table 4.93, then the
learning process of scientific papers using teaching material that has been developed is in the
feasible category with an average score of 109.4.
3113
The results of evaluating student learning activities in scientific writing courses during ten meetings
have a dynamic dimension, namely improving the quality of activities using teaching materials
that have been developed. In the first to fourth meeting, student learning activities are in the good
category. Furthermore, at the fifth to tenth meeting, student learning activities are in the very
category. If the evaluation score of student learning activities is averaged, then it is assumed in
the tendency table 4.96, then the learning activities of students during the learning process of
scientific papers using teaching materials that have been developed are in the very good
category with an average score of 184.
The development of teaching materials has certainly been done by many previous researchers,
especially the Scientific Writing teaching materials. However, this does not kill the motivation to
work and the creativity of researchers to do the same thing but still puts forward the values of
novelty (innovative) for the work that researchers create with work or teaching materials that have
been there before. Based on these assumptions, the researcher realizes the importance of a
systematic, empirical and logical process in realizing this research and development activity.
Teaching Material Scientific Writing was developed by looking at and considering the weaknesses
in the previous teaching material, was developed by analyzing the learning needs of students,
and has gone through a series of feasibility tests. The presentation system of teaching materials is
developed by referring to the weaknesses of the presentation found in the previous teaching
materials, then it has gone through a series of feasibility tests. In addition, the graphics of teaching
materials are arranged systematically, harmoniously, and attractive to users. Furthermore, the
language aspect of teaching materials has gone through a series of feasibility tests. The material
aspect of teaching materials meets the readability standard. All the weaknesses in previous
teaching materials have been avoided based on the results of expert and practitioner
evaluations. This teaching material is presented in digital form by utilizing AutoPlay digital media.
Digital technology-based learning is the demand of today's education world. This is as a form of
adaptation to the rate of development of the times, especially in the era of the industrial
revolution 4.0 or better known as the millennial era. Not only that, the need for digital teaching
materials can no longer be avoided looking at the styles and characteristics of student learning
today which are all indicated in technological progress. So, lecturers are always required to adapt
and innovate with all their creativity to create a good professional climate.
Conclusion
Electronic teaching materials based on autoplay media scientific papers that have been
produced through Research and Development present as an effort to improve the quality of
teaching materials used at the IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo. In the process of development, the
teaching material has been through a series of tests of feasibility, effectiveness, and practicality,
the electronic teaching materials Scientific Writing has a quality guarantee in accordance with
good teaching material standards according to the National Education Standards Agency
(BSNP).
The results of the feasibility test or the validity of the construction of instructional materials indicate
that the component content or material, the presentation system, graphics, language, and media
components have met the ideal teaching material standards based on expert judgment. The
appropriateness of the component content or material in the Scientific Writing teaching material
means the accuracy and validity of the selection of standardized content or material and as it
should be learned. Thus, students will really get the material in accordance with their learning
needs. The feasibility of the components of the presentation of teaching materials for Scientific
Writing means that all parts in the teaching materials meet the requirements and standards of
arrangement in harmony. Thus, students will be easier, systematic, directed, and measurable in
using teaching materials. Not only that, with a good arrangement or presentation, students'
interest or motivation to use teaching materials will be better too. The feasibility of graphic means
that the graphic construction contained in the teaching material of scientific papers meets the
harmonious and proportional standards so that the structure of the presentation is clear and
systematic. That way, when this teaching material is used, the appearance will be a good point
of view for its users. Language eligibility in teaching materials means teaching materials have a
good communicative power to the users. Thus, if scientific teaching materials are used by
students, the contents or materials in them are easily understood by students. Furthermore, the
feasibility of teaching material media for scientific papers marks that the teaching material is
adaptive, dynamic, and more advanced when compared to the basis of existing teaching
3114
material. With these adaptive, dynamic, and more advanced conditions, students will be easier
and more dynamic in learning given the current technological developments and student
learning characteristics.
The presence of scientific writing teaching materials is able to overcome the problems faced by
students, especially the low learning outcomes and student responses to teaching materials. This
is evidenced by the results of trials and implementation. Thus, this further clarifies the reliability of
teaching materials for scientific papers to be used in learning to achieve goals based on their
construction and operations.
Teaching materials for writing autoplay-based scientific papers are effectively used in learning to
improve student learning outcomes. It is known that the number of students who were netted with
high category learning outcomes prior to the implementation of teaching materials developed
was only 1 person. However, after the implementation of teaching materials in learning to write
scientific papers, student learning outcomes netted in the high category increased significantly
to 84 people. Student responses to the effectiveness of teaching materials show that teaching
materials are very effectively used in learning. The total score of the questionnaire responses of
students to teaching materials is 9476 are in the interval of inclination 9157 - 10900 (84% - 100%)
with a very effective category. In addition, the lecturer response also showed the same thing,
where the total score of the model lecturer responses of 274 was in the trend interval of 253 - 300
(84% - 100%) with a very effective category.
Teaching material for scientific papers based on digital autoplay is practically used in learning,
while also increasing student learning activities. The results of the evaluation of learning scientific
papers during ten meetings have a dynamic dimension, namely improving the quality of learning
by using teaching materials. At the first to fourth meeting, the three observers assessed that the
teaching and learning process was not optimal so that the value of the inclination was in the quite
decent category. Furthermore, at the fifth to eighth meeting, the teaching and learning process
experienced a significant improvement so that the value of the tendency was in the proper
category. Improving the quality of learning is getting better at nine and ten meetings where the
value of the tendency is in the category of very feasible. If the learning evaluation score is
averaged, then it is assumed in the tendency table 4.93, then the learning process of scientific
papers using teaching material that has been developed is in the feasible category with an
average score of 109.4. The results of evaluating student learning activities in scientific writing
courses during ten meetings have a dynamic dimension, namely improving the quality of activities
using teaching materials that have been developed. In the first to fourth meeting, student learning
activities are in the good category. Furthermore, at the fifth to tenth meeting, student learning
activities are in the very category. If the evaluation score of student learning activities is averaged,
then it is assumed in the tendency table 4.96, then the learning activities of students during the
learning process of scientific papers using teaching materials that have been developed are in
the very good category with an average score of 184.
Suggestions
Based on the results of this study, I specifically recommend that lecturers in charge of writing
scientific papers at the IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo immediately re-evaluate teaching materials
that have been used to determine their appropriateness. In addition, the researchers also invited
all lecturers at the IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontaloto increase their productivity in developing teaching
materials in accordance with their professional work responsibilities. Hopefully the development
efforts undertaken can improve the quality of the education curriculum at IAIN Sultan Amai
Gorontalo.
In general, researchers teach all lecturers and educators to evaluate themselves and the learning
that has been done so far. Review the teaching materials that have been used to find out whether
or not they are used by the study participants. If not, development as a step to improve is one of
the best solutions that must be done immediately for the realization of a better Indonesian
education curriculum.
3115
Reference
Akker, J. Van den. 1999. Principles and Method of Development Research. Dordrecht:Kluwer
Academic Publisher.
Anggiya, Yuni. 2015. “Pengembangan Bahan Ajar: Praktikalisasi, Validitas, dan Realibilitas Bahan
Ajar Cetak”. Makalah. [daring] diakses pada 25 Maret 2017 di www. http://dokumen.tips
Ansyar, Mohammad. 2017. Kurikulum: Hakikat, Fondasi, Desain, & Pengembangan. Jakarta:
Kencana.
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. (Edisi. Revisi). Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). 1986. Definisi Teknologi
Pendidikan. Jakarta: CV Rajawali.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BSNP). 2006. Instrumen Penilaian Tahap I BukuTeks Pelajaran
Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah. Jakarta: BSNP.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. 1996. “Reform By the Book: What is – or Might be – the Role of Curriculum
Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform?”. Educational Researcher, 25(9),
6-8, 14.
Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. 2003. “Building Sustainable Science Curriculum: Acknowledging
and Accommodating Local Adaptation”. Science Education, 87(4), 454-567.
Borg, Walter R & D Gall. 1983. Educational Research an Introduction. New York: Loongman.
Branch, Robert Maribe. 2009. Intructional Design: The EDDIE Approach. London. University of
Georgia (Springer).
Brooks, J.G and Books, M.G. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The Case for Contructivist
Calssroms. Alexandria, VA: Assosiation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, Abbie & Green, Timothy D. 2011. The Essentials of Intructional Design: Connecting
Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice. Boston: Pearson.
Byrne, Donn. 1995. Teaching Writing Skills. London and New York: Longman.
Chaer, Abdul. 2009. Pengantar Semantik Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Chris, Evan. 2007. “The Interactivity Effect in Multimedia Learning”. International Journal
Computers and Education. Volume 49 (hal. 1147-1160).
Crimmon, Mc James. 1984. Writting with Purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cronje, Johannes. 2006. “Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and
Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Science”. International Journal of
Educational Technology Research and Development, 54:387-416.
Davis, E. 2006. “Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Critique of Instructional Materials for Science”.
Science Education, 90 (2), 348-375.
Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. S. 2005. “Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher
Learning”. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
Degeng, I.S. 1997. Strategi Pembelajaran: Mengorganisasi Isi dengan Model Elaborasi. Malang:
IKIP dan Ikatan Profesi Teknologi Pendidikan Indonesia.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2008. Pengembangan Bahan Ajar dan Media. Jakarta:
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Dick, Carey & Carey. 2001. The Systematic Design of Instruction. Library of Congress Cataloging in
Publication Data. Addison–Welswey Educational Publisher Inc.
Dulay, Heidi, dkk. 1982. Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Effendy, Onong Uchjana. 1989. Kamus Komunikasi. Bandung: PT. Mandar Maju.
Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second Language Acquisitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Gere, Anne Ruggles. 1985. Writing and Learning an Overview. New York: Macmilan Publishing
Company.
Hakim, Thursan. 2001. Belajar Secara Efektif. Jakarta: Puspa Swara.
Hamalik. 2006. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Bumi Aksara
Hamsiah, Rapi Tang, Achmad Tolla, dan Jufri. 2017. “Teaching Materials Development for Basic
General Course of Indonesian Language Class Based on Culture Values Elompugi (Elong)
Bugis Literature”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Volume 08, No. 02, pp.
278-285
Hartley, Darin E. 2001. Selling E-Learning. USA: American Society for Training and Development.
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. 2010. Theories of Learning (Edisi ketujuh) (Penerjemah: Tri Wibowo
B. S.). Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Grup.
Irlidia, Tolla, Noni, dan Anshari. 2015. “The Development of Interactive Multimedia for First-grade
3116
Beginning Readers of Elementary School: An Innovative Learning Approach”. International

Journal of Langauge Teaching and Research. Volume 06, Nomor 3.
Irlidiyah, Achmad Tolla, Nurdin Noni, dan Anshari. 2015. The Development of Interactive
Multimedia for First-grade Beginning Readers of Elementary School: An Innovative Learning
Approach. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Volume 06, No. 03. Pp. 553-559.
Kamariah, Husain, Atmowardoyo, Salija. 2018. “Developing Authentic-based Instructional
Materials for Writing Skill”. International Journal of Langauge Teaching and Research. Vol
09, Nomor 3.
Kesidou, S., Roseman, J. E. (2002). “How Well do Middle School Science Programs Measure Up?
Findings from Project 2061's Curriculum Review”. JRST 39/6, 522-549.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1986. Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lado, R. 1964. Language Teaching a Scientific Approach. Bombay-New Delhi: McGraw-Hlll Pub
lshlng Co.
Ladson-Billings, G. 1999. “Preparing Teachers for Diverse Student Populations: A Critical Race
Theory Perspective”. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211-247.
Lenneberg, Erick H. 1967. Biological Foundation of Language. New York: Routledge.
Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. 2005. “Examining the Effects of a Highly Rated Science
Curriculum Unit on Diverse Students: Results from a Planning Grant”. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42(8), 921-946.
Majid, Abdul. 2005. Perencanaan Pembelajaran (Mengembangkan Kompetensi Guru). Bandung:
Remaja Rosdakarya.
Mbarushimana, Nelson & Daniel Allida. 2017. “Curriculum Change and Teacher Participation in
Technical and Vocational Education Training Programs (TVET): Experiences of Groupe
Scolaire Aiper Nyandungu, Rwanda. Baraton Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 7 (Special
Issue), pp 1-10
Mbulu, J. dan Suhartono. 2004. Pengembangan Bahan Ajar. Malang: Elang Mas.
McBrien, J.L & Brandt, R.S. 1997. The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education Terms.
Alexandrian, VA. Association for Supervisian and Curriculum Develompemnt.
Mudhofir. 1987. Teknologi Instruksional. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Mulyati, 2005. Psikologi Belajar. Yogyakarta: CV Andi Offset.
Nieveen, Nienke.1999. Prototyping to Reach Product Quality. In J. vam den Akker,R Branch,K
Gustafson, N Nieveen and Tj.Plomp (Eds). Design Approaches and Tools in Education and
Training (hlm. 125-136). Dodrecht : Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Nurchasanah dan Widodo. 1993. Keterampilan Menulis dan Pengajarannya. Malang: FS UM.
Nurdin. 2007. Model Pembelajaran Matematika yang Menumbuhkan Kemampuan Metagkognitif
untuk Menguasai Bahan Ajar. Surabaya: UNESA.
Nurgiantoro, Burhan. 2009. Penilaian dalam Pengajaran Bahasa. Yogyakarta: BPFE.
Nurhadi. 1990. Membaca Sebagai Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Opara, Jacinta A dan Oguzor, N Silas. 2011. “Inquiry Instructional Method and the School Science
Currículum”. International Journal of Research Journal of Social Sciences. Volume 3. Hal.
188-198. ISSN: 2041-3246.
Oyama, S. 1976. “A Sensitive Period in the Acquisitions of a Non-native Phonological System”.
Journal of Psycholinguistics Reserach. Volume 05 hal. 261-285.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 41 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Proses. Jakarta:
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia.
Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) Nomor 19 Tahun 2005 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan. Jakarta:
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional.
Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) Nomor 74 tentang Tugas dan Kewajiban Guru dan Dosen. Peraturan
Menteri Pendidikan Nasional.
Pusat Kurikulum Balitbang. 2006. Kurikulum KTSP: Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar.
Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
Putra, N. 2011. Reseacrh and Development, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Suatu Pengantar. PT.
Raja Grafindo. Jakarta.
Raka, Joni, T. 1991. Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Acuan Konseptual Pengelolaan Kegiatan Belajar
Mengajar. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
Reiser, B. J., Krajcik, J., Moje, E., & Marx, R. 2003. „Design Strategies for Developing Science
Instructional Materials”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. 2004. “Teachers’ Orientations Toward Mathematics Curriculum
3117
Materials: Implications for Teacher Learning”. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 35(5), 352-388.
Rukayah, Achmad Tolla, dan Ramly. 2017. “The Development of Writing Poetry Teaching Material
Based on Audiovisual Media of Fifth Grade Elementary School Bone Regency”.
International Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Volume 01 Nomor 01.
Rukayah. 2016. “Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Menulis Puisi Berbasis Media Audiovisual Siswa Kelas
V Sekolah Dasar Kabupaten Bone”. Disertasi. Makassar. Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri
Makassar.
Ruslan, Rosady. 2003. Metode Penelitian PR dan Komunikasi. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Rusyana, Yus. 1984. Bahasa dan Sastra dalam Gamitan Pendidikan. Bandung: CV Diponegoro.
Rutherford, F. James. 1971. “Preparing Teachers for Curriculum Reform”. Journal of Science
Education, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 555-568.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. 2000. “The Role of Educative Curriculum Materials in
Reforming Science Education”. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 54-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, Dale H. 2012. Learning Theories: An Educational Persfectives. Boston: Pearson.
Sehe, Tolla, Kamaruddin, Hamsa. 2016. “The Development of Indonesian Language Learning
Materials Based on Local Wisdom of the First Grade Students in SMA Negeri 3 Palopo”.
International Journal of Langauge Teaching and Research. Volume 07, Nomor 5.
Semi, Atar. 1990. Menulis efektif. Padang: CV Ankasa Raya.
Shubhi, Moh. Latif Risyda, Widyanti, dan Yoto, 2015. “Pengembangan Media Pembelajaran
Interaktif Berbasis Aplikasi Autoplay Media Studio 8 pada Materi Turbin Air Program
Keahlian Teknik Pemesinan Kelas X Di SMK Nasional Malang”. Jurnal Pendidikan
Profesional. Volume 4 Nomor 1. Hal. 83-91.
Siahaan, Sudirman. 2004. “Studi Penjajagan Tentang Kemungkinan Pemanfaatan Internet untuk
Pembelajaran di SLTA di Wilayah Jakarta dan Sekitarnya”. Jurnal Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan Tahun ke-8 No. 039. Jakarta: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan-
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Soekartawi. 2003. Prinsip Dasar E-Learning: Teori Dan Aplikasinya Di Indonesia. Jurnal Teknodik, Edisi
No.12/VII.
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. 2001. On the Cultural Validity of Science Assessments. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553-573.
Stabback, Philip. 2016. “What Make Quality Curriculum?”. Paper in the context of IBE’s Project
“Developing Iraqi Curricula” UNESCO.
Steinberg, LD. 1993. Adolecence3rd- ed. New York: MC Graw-Hill
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. 1992. ”A Revisionist Theory of Conceptual Change”. In R. A. Duschl &
R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory
and Practice (pp. 147-176). Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Sudjana, Nana. 2008. Dasar-Dasar Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algesindo.
Sugihartono, dkk. 2007. Psikologi Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: UNY Press.
Sugiyono. 2013. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D.
Bandung: Alfabeta
Sukmadinata, Nana Syaodih. 2010. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Rosdakarya.
Sulistyowati, E. 2009. Perbedaan Bahan Ajar dengan Sumber Belajar. [daring] diakses Februari
2017. www.endahsulistyowati.wordpress.com.
Sullivan Palincsar, A., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. 2001. “Making Science Accessible
to All: Results of a Design Experiment in Inclusive Classrooms”. Learning Disability Quarterly,
24 (1), 15-32.
Supriadi, Dedi. 1997. Isu dan Agenda Pendidikan Tinggi di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rosda Jayaputra
Jakarta.
Suriaman, Rahman, Noni. 2018. “Developing Web-based English Instructional Material Oriented to
Promote Independent Learning at Indonesian University Context”. International Journal of
Langauge Teaching and Research. Volume 09, Nomor 2 (2018)
Susanto, Astrid S. 1975. Pendapat Umum. Bandung: Bina Cipta.
Suwandi, Sarwiji. 2009. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas dan Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Surakarta: FKIP UNS.
Taba, Hilda. 1962. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovitch, Inc.
Tarigan, Jago. 1995. Metodik Khusus Pengajaran Bahasa Indonesia di SD. Bandung: Angkasa.
Tessmer, M. 1993. Planning and Conducting Formative Evaluations. London: Kogan Page.
3118
Tompkins, Gail E. 1994. Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product, Second Edition. USA:
Macmilan College Publishing Company.
Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 (Amandemen IV) Tahun 2002 Pasal 31 tentang Hak dan Wewenang
Warga Negara Mendapatkan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. Jakarta: Kementerian
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. 2002. “Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers: Rethinking the
Curriculum”. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (1), 20-32.
Wahyudi. 2012. “Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Elektronik Multimedia dengan Macromedia Flash
8.0 untuk Mahasiswa PGSD UKSW”. E-Journal UKSW, Volume 28, Nomor 1, pp; 55-72.
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. 2001. “Rethinking
Diversity in Learning Science: The Logic of Everyday Sense-Making”. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38 (5), 529-552.
Yaniawati, R. Poppy. 2003. Penerapan E-Learning dalam Pembelajaran Matematika Berbasis
Kompetensi. [daring] Diakses pada Februari 2017. [http://www.jurnalkopertis4.org].
Yazid, A. 2011. Kevalidan, Kepraktisan, dan Efek Potensial Suatu Bahan Ajar. Pascasarjana
Pendidikan Matematika Universitas Sriwijaya.
Yazzie, T. 1999. “Culturally Appropriate Curriculum: A Research Based Rationale”. In K. Siwsher & J.
Tippeconnic (Eds.), Next steps: Research and Practice to Advance Indian Education (pp.
83- 106). Charleston, WV: ERIC/CRESS. (ED 427 906).
3119

Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION

ISSN: 2146-0353 ● © RIGEO ● 11(5), SPRING, 2021

www.rigeo.org Research Article

Education Curriculum Reform in Higher

Submitted: 06-02-2021 ● Revised: 10-04-2021 ● Accepted: 02-06-2021

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

Description of the Feasibility of Post-Development Teaching Materials

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

2 119 91.53% Very Feasible

3 125 96.15% Very Feasible

Average 122.67 94.35% Very Feasible

Validator Total Score Percentage of Eligibility Information

2 56 93.33% Very Feasible

3 58 96.66% Very Feasible

Average 57 95% Very Feasible

Description of Trial Results

Interval Categori Frequency Percentage

Frequency distribution of test subject is limited

Figure 1. Distribution of the response frequency of test subjects 1

Interval Percentage Interval Catagori

Broad Trial Results

Interval Categori Frequency Percentage

Frequency distribution of responses of extensive trial subjects

Figure 2 Frequency distribution of propensity for trial values 2

Interval Interval Persentase Catagori

Beginning Readers of Elementary School: An Innovative Learning Approach”. International

You might also like