Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178

Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia




W. Suana1*, N. Maharta1, I D. P. Nyeneng1, S. Wahyuni2

Physics Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia
Physics Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Jember, Indonesia

DOI: 10.15294/jpii.v6i1.7205

Accepted: September 6th 2016. Approved: March 23th 2017. Published: 30th April 2017


This research was conducted to: (1) design a Schoology-based blended learning media for Basic Physics I course
on the topics of vector quantity, linear motion, and translational dynamics, (2) describe the validity of the prod-
uct, (3) describe the product’s effectiveness in enhancing students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving
skills, and (4) describe students’ responses towards the media and blended learning model. The development
procedures employed were ADDIE model which consisedt of five stages: analysis, design, development, imple-
mentation, and evaluation. In development stage, the assessment had been conducted by two experts to assess
validity of media both in content and construct aspects. The results showed that the validities in content aspect
and construct aspect were “very good” and “good”, respectively. The results from classroom implementation
revealed the effectiveness of the product in enhancing students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving
skills. Students’ responses towards the product’s utility, attractiveness, and easiness as blended learning media
were also positive. The conclusion was that the media was valid and effective as blended learning media of Basic
Physics I course.

© 2017 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang

Keywords: basic physics i; blended learning (BL); schoology

INTRODUCTION fact, integrating ICT in Basic Physics I course at

Physics Education Program University of Lam-
Facing the rapiddevelopment of globaliza- pung is still poor. ICT especially the internet is
tion era in the 21th Century, teachers and educa- only used as a source to look for learning materi-
tionalinstitutions are demanded to be able to pre- als and questions. On the other hand, the lecturer
pare their students to have competences or skills. often feels the limited time for face-to-face mee-
Problem-solving skill, effective communication ting since this course covers extent topics. Becau-
skill, decision making skill, collaborating skill, in- se of limited time, most assignments given to the
formation literacy, information and communica- students were usually without feedback.
tion technology (ICT) literacy are parts ofthe21st- Meanwhile, from the survey about stu-
Century competencies (Binkley, et al., 2012). As dents’ internet access, it is known that 90% of 59
a consequence, teachers should design learning students have internet access through laptop, PC
activity which could fulfill the demands of those or mobile phone. At campus, wifi access is also
competencies. One of the ways is through integ- free. The students who do not have their internet
rating ICT with learning process to train students access stated they could access it through internet
about information literacy and ICT literacy. In cafes around the place they live. However, more
than half students stated that the speed is not fast
*Alamat korespondensi: enough. The survey showed that the internet ac-
E-mail: wsuane@gmail.com
W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178 171

cess of students supports to integrate internet in detail explanation and problem-solving (Smart,
learning process. 2006) or to extend students’ understanding and
One of the forms in integratinginternet connect the concept to the further area (Collopy
in learning processis e-learning. Implementing & Arnold, 2009). Whereas in face-to-face– onli-
e-learning in science learningby using problem- ne, the materials are given in face-to-face session
based learning model could improve students then the students are asked to discuss and think
ICT literature (Eliana et al., 2016). Similar with critically via online (Aycock et al., 2002). Michi-
e-learning, another integration is blended lear- nov & Michinov (2008) also supported this kind
ning (BL). BL or also known as hybrid learning is of BL to deliver togetherness (a sense of commu-
a learning model which combines various presen- nity) among students. Another purpose is to help
tation model at class with online learning (asyn- students be familiarwith the online class structu-
chronous and synchronous) (Wu et al., 2010). re.
Graham (2006) more specifically stated that BL The two types of BL have their own be-
is a kind of learning model which combines two nefits. BL does not have astandard type (Aycock
different learning environment: face-to-face mee- et al., 2002). It was also emphasized by Helms
ting and online learning. (2014) who stated that there may be differences
Some researchshowed that BL had many in the best way to schedule a course based on the
advantages like increasing flexibility (Pratt & discipline, course content, and other concerns”.
Trewern, 2011), increasing effectiveness and stu- By the reasonto have the benefits of both BL ty-
dents’ motivation (Barbour & Reeves, 2009), gro- pes, in this study the researchers used the format
wing students’ independence in learning (Parkes of online – face-to-face – online. The first online
et al., 2011), and improving students’ ICT skill learning would be used to give initial understan-
(O’Dwyer et al., 2007). Compared to the pure- ding to students whereas the second online lear-
face-to-facelearning or pure e-learning/online ning would be used to discuss concept applicati-
learning, BL is said to be more effective (Means on on the certain topic.
et al., 2009) students joining BL model have bet- Nowadays, many applications could be
ter performance than those following traditional used to create online learning freely. Those appli-
learning method (Yapici & Akbayin, 2012). The cations are called Learning Management System
same result also reported by Poon (2013) who (LMS). LMS web based is referred to facilitate an
compared BL class with traditional classroom. access towards learning material and administra-
The result was the class given BL method has tor anytime and anywhere (Black et al., 2007).
higher test score than the class using the tradi- The use of LMS brings good advantages for
tional method. A researchby Kazu & Demirkol students or teachers. From the view of students,
(2014) also found that students using BL method the advantage is in the increase of control they
have higher average scores than those using tradi- have wherever and whenever they involve in the
tional learning method. learning process.From the view of teachers, the
The use of BL could stimulate students to benefits are very structured tasks management,
be more active, creative, and independent in loo- efficient, and safe (Fadde & Vu, 2014), and could
king for information needed so they could learn grow students’ critical thinking through discussi-
independently and understand the concept well. on forum (Comer & Lenaghan, 2013).
The use of BL also could repair some weaknesses One of LMS which has the basic version
from conventional learning method, one of them available freely and easy to use because it is si-
is the lack of time in face-to-face meeting. Online milar to social media like Facebook is schoology.
learning could be used as an addition to impro- The menu which Schoology has are Courses, it
ve students’ understanding of the material who is a facility to create one course, Group, which
has not been explained by the lecturer in class. is a facility to create community learning, and
Besides adding knowledge, features from online Resources, which is a facility to save learning ma-
learning also make students more enthusiastic terial. In Courses menu, there is quiz menu which
and interested in learning since they could access has many kinds such as multiple choice, true-fal-
many sources via online. se, matching, and short answer. Making questions
BL types that are usually implemented are in Schoology is equipped with tools Symbol and
online – face-to-face and face-to-face – online. In Equation. All questions with Figure, symbol, and
the former type, students follow online learning equation could be written on Schoology. Besides,
first before face-to-face meetingso that each stu- schoology has many features and an interesting
dent has the same initial understanding (Smart, layout like online assessment book, attendance
2006). Face-to-face session is usually used for list, the reminder of feature user from students
172 W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178

(Nugroho, 2015). Other benefits that Schoology face meeting was done with discussion method.
has are mobile access, integration with Google The students were given two to four problems
Drive, tools to make content, and access to the to discuss with their classmates through lecturer
library, etc. (Medved, 2016). guidance. Online discussion was done asynchro-
Based on the explanation above, this stu- nously, in which the students did not discuss at
dy was conducted to develop a product which the same time, but it depended on their availa-
is technology based BL in basic physics I course bility. Online discussion forum on Technology
with main materials vector, straight motion, and was organized so that students could answer first
translation dynamics. The developed BL media before using, reviewing, or studying their friends’
included handout, material for online discussion, answer.
and online questions uploaded in Schoology on-
line class. Not to mention, this study also desc-
ribed the validity of BL content and construct
based on expert assessment, the effectiveness in
improving concept understanding and students’
problem-solving skill, and students’ responses to-
wards its benefit, its attractiveness, its ease and its
class model.


The study was conducted from March to Figure 1. BL type used in the study
October 2016 in Physics Education Program,
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, The data included expert validation from
University of Lampung. This study referred to questionnaire, concept understanding data, and
development model of ADDIE (analysis, design, problem-solving skill taken the test, and students’
development, implementation, and evaluation) responses taken from the questionnaire. Validati-
(Peterson, 2003). ADDIE model as firstly used in on questionnaire was Likert scale with four res-
the 1990s had a function as a reference in develo- ponses, starting from 1(invalid) to 4 (very valid).
ping learning set and infrastructure which were Students’ responses questionnaire were also in
effective, dynamic, and supportive (Sumarti et al., Likert scale with five choices, from 1 (very disag-
2015). ree) to 5 (very agree). The instrument of under-
In analysis stage, the researchers did litera- standing concept used was short essay questions
ture study, field survey, and need analysis. A lite- consisting of 15 numbers with the allocation time
rature study was done to get information related 30 minutes whereas the instrument of problem-
to BL model and previous relevant studies results. solving essay questions consisting of 6 numbers
A field survey was done to get the information with time allocation 75 minutes. Students’ res-
of supportive facilities belonging to students. In ponses questionnaire and two instrument tests
the design stage, the researchers made BL media were validated by the experts of content aspect
draft including handout, online discussion ques- and instrument construct.
tions, online tests. In the development stage, the All data taken were analyzed quantitative-
expert validated to assess the content appropriate- ly and descriptively. The criteria of classification
ness and product construct. In implementation in experts validation data and students’ responses
stage, the product was implemented in limited were shown in Table 1. If the expert assessment
class to test its effectiveness; the test used one shot showed product validity with category “good”
case study design. the learning process could be continued in the
BL type used was “online learning – face to next stages.
face – online learning” in every week (Figure 1).
In every week, face to face class was done once RESULT AND DISCUSSION
to discuss the main topics. There were three main
topics; they were the vector, straight motion, and BL media produced were Syllabus and
translation dynamic. Before face to face meeting Lesson plan, handout, discussion topic before
was done, the students joined online learning, face to face meeting, and online tests with main
and they also joined online learning after face to topics of the vector, straight motion, and transla-
face meeting. tion dynamics. All those materials were uploaded
Online learning before and after face to on online Schoology made with Courses featu-
W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178 173

Table 1. Data classification of experts validation and students’ responses

Average score of validity Category Average score of responses Category
3.26 – 4.00 Very Good 4.20 – 5.00 Very Agree
2.51 – 3.25 Good 3.41 – 4.20 Agree
1.76 – 2.50 Less Good 2,61 – 3,40 Doubt
1.00 – 1.75 Not Good 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree
- - 1.00 – 1.80 Very Disagree

re. The layout of the online class could be seen loped media could be said relevant to the purpose
in Figure 2. Every folder contained: 1) handout, of development and appropriate to used in BL of
made with Add File/Link/External Tool features; Basic Physics I course.
2) discussion forum before and after face to face With experts’ assessment, the product was
meeting, with Add Discussion feature; and 3) inde- then revised by their suggestions. The suggestions
pendent test, with Add Test/quiz feature. given for handout revision were adding material
Meanwhile, the example of the learning explanation related to the similarity and the dif-
process with BL model for vector topics shown in ference in vector, consistency in using terms on
Table 2. Online activity before face to face mee- vector or scale such as distance, position, speed,
ting was used to discuss sub material whereas on- and motion. In online discussion material, the
line activity after face to face meeting was meant suggestions were simplifying unclear questions
to discuss sub material that could not be finished and describing problem illustration. The suggesti-
during face to face class and give applied tests to ons related to online test were the consistency of
finish some problem. feedback in directing students to answer correctly
The produced handout contained mate- and adding the questions about problem-solving.
rial explanation for each discussion topics. The
handout was written with emphasizing basic Product Effectiveness
concepts as the reference of the usual textbook. After revision, the product was then imple-
Discussion material on face to face meeting con- mented in class with topics of the vector, straight
tained questions about the problem related to the motion, and translation dynamics for three weeks
brief material of each discussion topics. Those in the course of Basic Physics I. In the fourth
questions were meant to improve students’ un- week, the test was done to measure students’
derstanding of each topic. Discussion material concept understanding and problem-solving skill.
on face to face meeting was made to facilitate an The data related to students’ concept understan-
online class in the last part of each discussion to- ding and problem-solving skill were shown in
pics. The contain included concept application, Table 3.
last part of the discussion topic that could not be Byusing minimum achievement (MA)
finished at face to face class, and wider explanati- score 66 (B as the minimum category at Lam-
on. The emphasize of discussion after face to face pung University undergraduate program), the
meeting focused on students’ problem-solving percentage of students reaching MA was 80,6%
skill. Question test was meant to facilitate stu- for concept understanding aspect and 74,2% for
dents to do interactive exercise independently so problem-solving skill. Since the percentage of
that their understanding improved. The questions MA was greater than 70%, the product could be
were made in multiple-choice by giving feedback said effective as learning BL media on Schoology
in every wrong answer. in the course of Basic Physics I.

Product Validity Students’ Responses

The product assessed by some experts in- At the end of the learning process, stu-
cluded handout, online discussion material, and dents were asked to answer questionnaires related
online question test. The assessment of product to their responses towards the benefit, attractive-
validity done by an expert of Physics Education ness, and ease of BL model with Schoology. The-
and an expert in education technology showed re were 31 students responding. The result could
that the validity of product content had 3,48 in be seen in Table 4. In general, students gave posi-
average with the category “very good” and the tive responses related to the developed media and
validity of construction aspect had 3,21 in avera- BL cmodel class in Basic Physics I course.
ge with category “good.” In conclusion, the deve-
174 W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178

Figure 2. The layout of online class

Table 2. Learning activity sample in BL model with the topic of vector

Standard Compe-
Material Learning Activity Mode
Operating vector Vector sub ma- Discuss the definition of vector, unit vector Online
(addition, reduc- terial: symbol, vector representation in graphic,
tion, and prod- Vector represen- vector component, and the similarity of two
uct) with various tation or more vectors
methods Vector unit
Vector opera- Explain vector writing by using vector unit Face to face
tion Face to face
Doing addition and reduction on vector by
using graphic method and vector component
method Face to face

Doing product on vector, including dot prod-

uct and cross product Online

Training to do applied addition and product

on vector in the context of physics problem

Table 3. The data of concept understanding and problem-solving skill

Concept Understanding Problem Solving Skill
Total Percentage Total Percentage
≥76 3 9.7 1 3.2
66 – 75 13 41.9 9 29.0
61 – 65 9 29.0 13 41.9
< 61 6 19.4 8 25.8
Total 31 100 31 100
W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178 175

Table 4. Students’ responses related to media and online format every week, students had more
BL model opportunity to interact with their lecturer and
Aspect Score Category mates. Online discussion was done before and
after face to face meeting. Face to face meeting
Benefit 3.85 Agree
was on Wednesday. Online class was done before
Attractiveness 3.72 Agree it, Monday to Tuesday, and after it, Thursday to
Easiness 3.31 Doubt Saturday. Providing more opportunity to interact
Average 3.63 Agree with students and lecturer was the main impor-
tant factor to make a quality BL media (King &
Based on the table above, it was known that Cerrone, 2012). Through online discussion acti-
students’ assessment towards product benefits vity, students became more ready to join face to
and BL model class was considered to be useful. face meeting class (Aspden & Helm, 2004). It was
There were 8 items in the questionnaire related thought to influence the performance of standard
to the benefits; they were benefited for improving understanding and students’ problem-solving
learning interest and motivation, understanding skill.
and problem-solving skill, and students’ ICT Choosing online discussion could also in-
skill. Besides, the students were also asked about fluence students’ activity in online learning. This
their interest to join the next BL model class. The online discussion was chosen because it gave more
responses given on all question items were the chances to students to search and write answers or
“useful” category. opinions before presenting them in the discussion
In similar with students’ responses towards forum (Alim, 2007), and also make students stay
benefit, their responses towards attractiveness as- interacting with the lecturer whenever they have
pect were also good. In the questionnaire, there time to Aspden & Helm, 2004). Also, based on
were 6 questions; these were about product at- the observation in class, the asynchronous online
tractiveness (handout, online class, online test), discussion also helped students who have limited
the attractiveness of online learning activity, and internet connection. They could easily find the
the attractiveness of BL model. Most students’ time when the internet access was fast. However,
responses towards each question were good, ex- it’ weakness was the lecturer needed a long time
cept for the question about the handout, they to gave feedback on their answers.
suggested that the attractiveness on handout was Providing handout and the online test
very good. could also improve students’ concept understan-
Different with two previous aspects, stu- ding and problem-solving skill. By explaining the
dents’ responses towards the easiness of BL mo- material in detail and providing answers of ques-
del, in general, were in “doubt” category. They tion examples, handout helped students learn
were not sure about the easiness in joining BL course material. It was reflected in their responses
class. In the questionnaire, there were 7 questi- towards questionnaire in which they evenly really
ons, they were about the easiness in joining BL agreed with handout attractiveness, related to on-
model class, the easiness in accessing the contain, line test; there were 15 multiple choice questions
the easiness in communicating via online, and the filled with feedback if their answers were wrong.
easiness in answering online test. The lowest res- With the existence of exercises that could be ac-
ponse was on the easiness of online discussion. cessed many times, students were easier to learn
From the interview, the most problem faced was course material. It was also reflected in their res-
the slow internet connection and students’ time ponses stating that online exercise could improve
management. their understanding.
This research was conducted to produce In line with product effectiveness, students
a learning media that could improve students’ also responded positively towards the developed
experience and learning performance. Based on product and BL model based in Basic Physics I
the implemented test in the class above, the pur- course. Their responses indicated that learning
pose of this research could be said as a success. with Bl model gave another benefit, it could imp-
More than 70% of students reached the mini- rove their interest and motivation as it was said
mum standard 66 in both concept understanding by Barbour & Reeves (2009), grow students’ inde-
and problem-solving skill aspects. It meant that pendent learning, as said by Parkes et al., (2011),
the developed Blended Learning media could and improve students’ ICT skill, as stated by
become alternative sources for students, they did O’Dwyer et al., (2007).
not depend only on teachers/lecturers. The result of this research was relevant
Through BL with online-face-to-face- with previous researches about BL effectiveness.
176 W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178

Lim & Morris (2009) explained that traditional and prepare learning sources took more time, pre-
(face to face) class equipped with online material paring online discussion forum also need much
had the postive effect towards students’ compe- time like stated by Kenney & Newcombe (2011).
tencies. Applying BL was even more effective in However, the students felt no meaningful lear-
improving their learning performance compa- ning burden in following BL model, as previous
red to face to face meeting only or fully online researchers explained it.
learning (Means et al., 2009). Kazu & Demirkol In this research, there were some limita-
(2014), Poon (2013), Yapici & Akbayin (2012), tions, not all facilities available in Schoology were
and Uzun & Senturk (2010) researched revealing used. The researcher did not use facilities like test
that the performance of students joining BL was or assignment (including project assignment) via
greater than those following face to face meeting online. It should be studied further, considering
only. that in Indonesia online assessment is rarely done
Therefore, there were some obstacles faced (Wijayanti & Basyar, 2016). Face to face meeting
during implementing Schoology based BL mo- was also limited to lecture, discussion, and ques-
del at class. First was internet speed was not fast, tion session. This research also did not consider
so it became the main factor for students to join the quantity of BL media use by students, which
online learning. The second was students were could influence their learning performance (Ló-
difficult to write their answer containing mathe- pez-Pérez, 2011).Another limit in this research
matic equation, symbol or graphic, in Schoolo- was the amount of topic discussion and time
gy discussion forum. Indeed there were symbol duration which was short. So, further research
and equation tool facilities for students. But, they about this should be conducted.
were not used to them, also, how to use them was
different from Microsoft Office Word, the solu- CONCLUSION
tion given by students was that they wrote their
answers on paper and uploaded them on the dis- Based on the result and discussion, it could
cussion forum. Uploading and reviewing Figure be concluded that it was produced Schoology
answer took more time and needed fast internet based BL media in main materials vector, straight
access. motion, and translation dynamic with the score
Other problems were the lack of students’ of content validity 3.48 (very good), and the score
activeness in discussing and their time manage- of construction validity 3.21 (good) from the ma-
ment. In the discussion, they only gave the ans- ximum score 4.00. From the result of implemen-
wer without asking or responding to others’ ans- tation at class, it could be concluded that the BL
wers. Indeed, in this research they were not asked media was effective to improve students’ concept
to comment each other, they were only obligated understanding and problem-solving skill where
to give their answers. Online discussion forum on more than 70% students reached the standard mi-
Schoology could be set so that the students would nimal score. In general, the students also respon-
send their answers before they could see, review, ded positively towards benefit, attractiveness, and
or learn each other answers. From the interview, easiness of NL media, with average score 3.63
there were two reasons why they seemed not to from 5.00 as the maximum score.
discuss with each other, first was they felt afraid, About the result of this research, physics
shame, or hesitate with their lecturer and mates. teachers especially should develop and apply
The second was they always met every day at the blended learning at class. However, there were
campus, so they felt easier and more comfortab- some problems found during the research like
le to ask directly. About time management, most slow internet access, students’ difficulty in writing
students tended to submit their answers on the answer containing mathematic equation, symbol,
late deadline. At the beginning of the discussion, or graphic on Schoology forum, students’ lack
some students even did not send their answer, activeness during the online discussion, and nee-
and they also mistook the schedule. ding much time to prepare online asynchronous
Previous researchers had also stated prob- discussion. So, it needs following researches rela-
lems found in this research. Kenney & Newcom- ted to field study in a bigger scale, developing BL
be (2011) stated that some students wait for the for other courses, and optimizing other features
last minutes to send and submit their answers on on Schoology.
the discussion forum, submit tasks, sometimes
they also face technical problem during online ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
learning. From the researchers himself, the prob-
lem was more burdening work. Besides to design Thank you for the Institute of Research and
W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178 177

Community Service (LPPM) University of Lam- and lessons learned in an action research study.
pung for funding this research through grant of Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
DIPA BLU 2016 of University of Lampung with 15(1), 45-57.
contract number: 550/UN26/8/LPPM/2016. King, S. E., & Cerrone Arnold, K. A. T. I. E. (2012).
Blended learning environments in higher edu-
cation: A case study of how professors make
REFERENCES it happen. Mid-Western Educational Researcher,
25(1), 44-59.
Alim, F. (2007). Evaluation of a Blended Course from Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and in-
the Viewpoint of Constructivism. Online Sub- structional factors influencing learning out-
mission. (Available online at http://files.eric. comes within a blended learning environment.
ed.gov/full-text/ED500169.pdf; accessed on Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282-293.
January 12, 2016). López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-
Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher
in a blended learning environment. Educational education: Students’ perceptions and their rela-
Media International, 41(3), 245-252. tion to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(3),
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Les- 818-826.
sons learned from the hybrid course project. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., &
Teaching with technology today, 8(6), 9-21. Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of practices in online learning: A meta-analysis
virtual schools: A review of the literature. Com- and review of online learning studies. US De-
puters & Education, 52(2), 402-416. partment of Education. (Available at http://
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, www2.ed. gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-
M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). based-practices/finalreport.pdf; accessed on
Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assess- January 21, 2016).
ment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17-66). Medved, J. P. 2016. The Top 8 Fr ee/Open Source
Springer Netherlands. LMSs. (Available at http://blog.capterra.com/
Black, E. W., Beck, D., Dawson, K., Jinks, S., & DiPi- author/jpmed-ved; accessed on February 12,
etro, M. (2007). Considering implementation 2016).
and use in the adoption of an LMS in online Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face con-
and blended learning environments. Tech- tact at the midpoint of an online collaboration:
Trends, 51(2), 35-53. Its impact on the patterns of participation, in-
Collopy, R. M., & Arnold, J. M. (2009). To blend or teraction, affect, and behavior over time. Com-
not to blend: Online and blended learning envi- puters & Education, 50(4), 1540-1557.
ronments in undergraduate teacher education. Nugroho, E. F. 2015. 12 Free / Open Source Learning
Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85-101. Management System (LMS) Terbaik. (Avail-
Comer, D. R., & Lenaghan, J. A. (2013). Enhancing able at http://bpp-tik.kominfo.go.id/2015/03/
discussions in the asynchronous online class- 10/857/12-free-open-source-learning-manage-
room: The lack of face-to-face interaction does ment-system-lms-terbaik; accessed on January
not lessen the lesson. Journal of Management 29, 2016).
Education, 37(2), 261-294. O’dwyer, L. M., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A
Eliana, E. D. S., Senam, S., Wilujeng, I., & Jumadi, study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana Al-
J. (2016). The effectiveness of project-based e- gebra I online course. Journal of research on tech-
learning to improve ict literacy. Jurnal Pendidi- nology in education, 39(3), 289-306.
kan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 51-55. Parkes, S., Zaka, P., & Davis, N. (2011). The first
Fadde, P. J., & Vu, P. (2014). Blended online learning: blended or hybrid online course in a New Zea-
Benefits, challenges, and misconceptions. On- land secondary school: A case study. Computers
line learning: Common misconceptions, benefits and in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Tech-
challenges, 33-48. nology, 23(1), 1-30.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. The Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instruc-
handbook of blended learning, 3-21. tional design at its best. Journal of Educational
Helms, S. A. (2014). Blended/hybrid courses: A review Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241.
of the literature and recommendations for in- Poon, J. (2013). Blended learning: An institutional ap-
structional designers and educators. Interactive proach for enhancing students’ learning expe-
Learning Environments, 22(6), 804-810. riences. Journal of online learning and teaching,
Kazu, I. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Effect of blended 9(2), 271-289.
learning environment model on high school Pratt, K., & Trewern, A. (2011). Students’ experiences
students’ academic achievement. TOJET: The of flexible learning options: What can they tell
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, us about what they need for success. Computers
13(1), 78-87. in New Zealand Schools, 23(2), 137-152.
Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blend- Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students’ percep-
ed learning approach: Challenges encountered tions of online learning: A comparative study.
178 W. Suana, N. Maharta, I D. P. Nyeneng, S. Wahyuni / JPII 6 (1) (2017) 170-178

Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(1), web blog based to increase the scientific literacy
20119, 201-219. of elementary teacher education program’s stu-
Sumarti, S. S., Supardi, K. I., & Sumarni, W. (2015). dent. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 284-
The development of lecture model of chemi- 290.
cal education management based on les- Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A
son study to improve chemistry teacher study of student satisfaction in a blended e-
candidates’profesionalism. Jurnal Pendidikan learning system environment. Computers & Edu-
IPA Indonesia, 4(1), 11-14. cation, 55(1), 155-164.
Uzun, A., & Senturk, A. (2010). Blending makes the Yapici, İ. Ü., & Akbayin, H. (2012). The effect of
difference: Comparison of blended and tradi- blended learning model on high school stu-
tional instruction on students’ performance dents’ biology achievement and on their atti-
and attitudes in computer literacy. Contempo- tudes towards the internet. TOJET: The Turkish
rary Educational Technology, 1(3), 196-207. Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2),
Wijayanti, A., & Basyar, M. A. K. (2016). The develop- 228-237.
ment of thematic–integrated e-portfolio media