Blended Learning: An Innovative Approach on Social Sciences at Indonesian Higher Education
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 19 February 2020

Blended Learning: An Innovative Approach on Social Sciences at Indonesian Higher Education

Erond Litno Damanik

Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.03.01.117

Pages: 52-65

Keywords: Blended Learning, Social Sciences, Citizenship, 4IR, Indonesia

Abstract

This article aims to formulate a format for blended learning in Social Sciences at Indonesian Universities that contributes to participant citizenship. This study is a projection of the future of Social Sciences education based on two factors, namely the low quality of education and literacy of Indonesia in the world and the participation of citizens in multicultural order. The fundamental problem in this study is the gradation of participant citizenship. Data were collected from journal articles, OECD and UNESCO survey results, and questionnaires to 600 informants. The framework of global competence and skills in the C21st is used to analyze the blended learning format in Social Sciences that is most suitable for developing participant citizenship. The advances in science and technology in the C21st, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) fostered the Internet of Education Things (IoET). In Social Sciences, the digital revolution spawned the Internet of Social Things (IoST). This study concludes that Blended learning's innovative approach to Social Sciences in higher education correlates with examining local and intercultural issues, understanding and appreciating the perspectives and Indonesian views of others, taking action for collective well-being and sustainable development, and engagements in open, appropriate and effective interactions across cultures.

References

  1. Abbasy, M. B & Quesada, E.V (2017). Predictable Influence of IoT (Internet of Things) in Higher Education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(12): 914-920. DOI: 10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.12.995
  2. Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of online education in the United States. Babson Park MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
  3. Ananiadou, K & Claro, M. (2009). 21st-century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/218525261154.
  4. Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme (2016). Strategi Menghadapi Paham Radikalisme Terorisme-ISIS. Retrieved from www.belmawa.ristekdikti.go.id. Accessed June 21, 2019.
  5. Badan Nasional Standar Pendidikan (2010). Panduan Pengembangan Indikator. Jakarta: Kemendiknas.
  6. Brooke, E. (2017). Four Keys to Success using Blended Learning Implementation Models, pp. 1-7. Retrieved from www.lexialearning.com
  7. Calhoun, C. (1993). Nationalism and Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, pp. 211-239.
  8. Carreira, V.; Machado, JR & Vasconcelos, L. (2016). “Engaging Citizen Participation: A Result of Trusting Governmental Institutions and Politicians in the Portuguese Democracy” Social Sciences, 40(5):1-11. doi:10.3390/socsci5030040 www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci
  9. Collins, A & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: the Digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  10. Cheng, K. (2017). Advancing 21st Century Competencies in East Asian Education Systems. Hongkong: Asia Society, Center for Global Education.
  11. Chyung, Y. (2007). “Learning Object-Based e-Learning: Content Design, Methods, and Tools” in The e-Learning Guilds Solutions: Practical Applications of Technology for Learning. E-Magazine, August 27, pp. 1-9.
  12. Da Silva, MC. (2010). Global Education Guidelines: A Handbook for Educators to Understand and Implement Global Education. Lisbon, Portugal: The North-South Center of the Council of Europe.
  13. Davidov, E. (2009). Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective. Political Analysis of Advance Access. Retrieved from http://pan.oxfordjournals.org.
  14. Dede, C. 2009. "Introduction: A sea of change in thinking, knowing, learning, and teaching". The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. G. Salaway, J. B. Caruso, & M. Nelson (eds.). Boulder, Co: Educause Center for Applied Research, pp. 19-26.
  15. Dede, C. (2014). The role of digital technologies in deeper learning. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
  16. Dogruera, N; Eyyamb, R & Menevisab, I. (2011). The use of the internet for educational purposes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 28, pp. 606-611
  17. Epignosis LLC (2014). e-Learning concepts, trends, applications. San Francisco, California: Epignosis LLC, pp. 1-110. Retrieved from https://www.efrontlearning.com/.
  18. Fadel, C. (2008). Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems.
  19. Fagnani, A.F. (2013). Fenomena Radikalisme di Kalangan Kaum Muda. Jurnal Maarif, 8(1):4-14
  20. Ferguson, C. (2008). Promoting Social Integration. The report commissioned by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) for the Expert Group Meeting on Promoting Social Integration, Helsinki, Finland, 8-10 July 2008
  21. Fleisch, E.(2010). What is the Internet of Things: An Economic Perspective. Zurich: University of St. Gallen, Auto-ID Labs White Paper WP-BIZAPP-053.
  22. Garner, B. & Oke, L. (2017). Blended Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Indiana Wesleyan University, The Brief Report Series from the Center for Learning and Innovation, Indiana Wesleyan University, pp. 1-32.
  23. Geladze, D. (2015). Using the Internet and Computer Technologies in Learning/Teaching Process. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(2): 67-70.
  24. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of global learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
  25. Groscurth, R.C. (2018). Future-ready leaderships: Strategies for the fourth industrial revolution. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
  26. Hanafy, M.S. (2015). Pendidikan Multikultural dan Dinamika Ruang Kebangsaan, Jurnal Diskursus Islam, 3(1): 119-139.
  27. Hilt, L.T.; Riese, H., & Soroide, G.E. (2018). Narrow identity resources for future students: the 21st-century skills movement encounters the Norwegian education policy context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, pp.1-19. DOI:10.1080/00220272.2018.1502356.
  28. Horn, M. B & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  29. Hyder, K; Kwinn, A.; Miazga, R & Murray, M. (2007). The e-Learning Guild's Handbook on Synchronous e-Learning. Santa Rosa, CA: The e-Learning Guild.
  30. Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1):55-65.
  31. Inkeles, A. 1969. “Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries”, The American Political Science Review, 63(4):1120-1141
  32. Jaffrelot, C. (2003). For a theory of Nationalism. Research in Question, No. 10, June 2003. Centre d'etudes et de Recherches Internationales.
  33. Kahin, G.M. (1995). Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia Refleksi Pergumulan Lahirnya Republik Nasionalisme dan Revolusi di Indonesia. Jakarta: UNS Press dan Pustaka Sinar Harapan.
  34. Kamenka, E. (ed.). (1975). Nationalism: the nature and evolution of an idea. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
  35. Lay, A. & Kamisah, O. (2017). Developing 21st Century Skills through a Constructivist-Constructionist Learning Environment. K-12 STEM Education, 3(2): 205-216.
  36. LaRocca, B. (2017). Social Awareness: Sample Strategies. Retrieved from https://www.transformingeducation.org/social-awareness-toolkit/, accessed on June 04, 2019.
  37. Lalima & Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended Learning: An Innovative Approach. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1):129-136.
  38. Litbang Kemdikbud (2013). Kurikulum 2013: Pergeseran Paradigma Belajar Abad-21. Retrieved from http://litbang.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/index-beritakurikulum/243-kurikulum-2013-pergeseran-paradigmabelajar-abad-21\ accessed April 26, 2019.
  39. Liddle, RW. 1970. Ethnicity, party, and national integration: an Indonesian case study.New Haven: Yale University Press.
  40. Lochan, A. (2019). “Buddhist Education in Southeast Asia: Crisis and Remedies”, in Buddhist Approach to Global Education in Ethnics, Thich Nhat Tu & Thich Duc Thien (eds)., Hanoi, Vietnam: Hong Duc Publishing House, pp. 311-329.
  41. Lupton, D.; Mewburn, I & Thomson, P. (2018). The digital academic: Critical perspectives on digital technologies in higher education. New York: Routledge.
  42. Massialas, B & Cox, B. (1968). Inquiry in Social Studies. Journal of Thought, 3(4):312-320.
  43. Mayes, T & Sara, F. (2014). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks, and models. Joint Information System Committee (JISC) e-Learning Models Desk Study, pp. 1-43. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk.
  44. Mayer, R.E. (2008). Advances in applying the science of learning and instruction to education. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), i-ii.
  45. Mohammed, J. & Al-Karaki, J. (2007). Integrating the Internet into Traditional Education: A Practical Study of University Students' Usage and Attitudes. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 5(3) 241-252.
  46. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychological Review, 19, 309-326.
  47. McRea, L.; Ellis, K. & Kent, M. (2018). Internet of Things (IoT) Education and Technology: The relationship between education and technology for students with disabilities. Perth, Australia: Curtin University.
  48. Nichols, T. (2018). Matinya Kepakaran: Perlawanan terhadap Pengetahuan yang Telah Mapan dan Mudaratnya. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Popular Gramedia.
  49. NWCPHP (2015). Effective adult learning: A toolkit for teaching an adult. NWCPHP, University of Washington School of Public Health, Washington, DC.
  50. OECD-PISA (2018). Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: the OECD PISA global competency framework. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pdf. accessed on April 27, 2019.
  51. Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Centre for Educational Technology, 5(1), 4-14.
  52. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5);1-6.
  53. Renan, E. (1994). Apakah Bangsa Itu? (Qu’est ce qu’une Nation?). Bandung: Alumni
  54. Rosyada, D. (2014). Pendidikan Multikultural di Indonesia: Sebuah Pandangan Konsepsional. Sosio Didaktika 1(1):1-12.
  55. Roy, R.S. (1991). Education for the twenty-first century: Asia-Pacific perspective. Thailand, Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and the Pacific Programme of Educational Innovation for Development, pp. 1-93.
  56. Rosenberg, M.J. (2011). E-Learning Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age.McGraw Hill, New York.
  57. Sankey, M., Birch, D. & Gardiner, M (2010). “Engaging students through multimodal learning environments: the journey continues”. In Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings Ascilite Sydney 2010, C.H. Steel, M.J. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (eds.). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Sankey-full.pdf, pp. 852-863.
  58. Sismondo, S. (2017). Post-truth. Social Studies of Science,  47(1):3-6
  59. Subhan, M. (2019). “Imajinasi Kebangsaan yang Rapuh”. Kompas, Kolom Politik, Aug 24, 2019, pp. 2.
  60. Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab. London: Penguin.
  61. Sheninger, E.C & Murray, T.C. (2017). Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow Schools, Today. Alexandria, VA, USA: ASCD.
  62. Shakya, M (2019). "Impact of Digital technology on Buddhist Education", in Buddhism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Thich Nhat Tu & Thich Duc Thien (ed). Hanoi, Vietnam: Hong Dug Publishing House, pp. 207-217.
  63. Smith, S.E. (2019). “Exploring Change and Interdependence to Promote Ethics Education in Secular Classrooms” in Buddhist Approach to Global Education in Ethnics, Thich Nhat Tu & Thich Duc Thien (eds)., Hanoi, Vietnam: Hong Duc Publishing House, pp. 523-544.
  64. Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
  65. Tan, J.; Choo, S.; Trivia, S. & Liem, G. (2017). Educating for twenty-first-century competencies and future-ready learners: research perspectives from Singapore, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(4): 425-436, DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2017.1405475
  66. Talvio, M., Berg, M., Litmanen, T., & Lonka, K (2016). The Benefits of Teachers’ Workshops on their Social and Emotional Intelligence in Four Countries. Creative Education, 7, pp. 2803-2819, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.718260.
  67. Tuiskua, V & Ruokonenb, I. (2017). Toward a Blended Learning Model of Teaching Guitar as Part of Primary Teacher Training Curriculum. The European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences (EJSBS).20: 2520-2537.
  68. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.
  69. Trilling, B & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  70. Trilling, B. & Hood, P. (1999). Learning, Technology, and Education Reform in the Knowledge Age or We're Wired, Webbed, and Widowed, Now what?. Educational Technology, 39(3):5-18
  71. UNRISD. (1994). Social Integration: Approaches and Issues. UNRISD Briefing Paper No. 1 World Summit for Social Development. Geneva, Switzerland.
  72. Van Deth, J.W. (2009). “New Modes of Participation and Norms of Citizenship”, Paper prepared for European Consortium for Political Research Workshop “Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action: Analyzing New ‘Participatory’ Dimensions in Civil Society” Lisbon, April 14-19,
  73. Venieris, D. (2013). Crisis Social Policy and Social Justice: the case for Greece. Greece Paper No.69 Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe.
  74. Wannapiroon, P. (2014). Development of Research-Based Blended Learning Model to Enhance Graduate Students' Research Competency and Critical Thinking Skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 136, pp. 486-490.
  75. Widyaningsih, R.; Sumiyem & Kuntarto (2017). “Kerentanan Radikalisme Agama di Kalangan Anak Muda”. Prosiding Seminar Nasional VII, Pengembangan Sumberdaya Pedesaan dan Kearifan Lokal Berkelanjutan, Purwokerto, 17-18 November 2017. Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.
  76. Wijaya, E.Y; Sudjimat, D.A & Nyoto, A. (2016). Transformasi Pendidikan Abad 21 Sebagai Tuntutan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia di Era Global. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika 2016, 1, pp. 263-278. Universitas Kanjuruhan Malang.
  77. Wood, B. E.  (2013). What is social inquiry? Crafting questions that lead to deeper knowledge about society and citizenship. SET: research information for teachers, 3, pp.20-28
  78. Yoko, S. (2015). 2013 Asia-Pacific Education Research Institute Network (ERI-net) Regional Study on Transversal Competencies in Education Policy & Practice (Phase I), Regional Synrhesis Report. Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok. Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Asia-Pacific Education Research Institutes Network (ERI-Net). ERIC Number: ED559665, pp. 1-81.
bottom of page