psychological capital based learning system and learning environment design of sbm-itb

354 The 2nd

International Research Symposium in Service Management Yogyakarta, INDONESIA, 26 – 30 July 2011

Psychological Capital Based Learning System

and Learning Environment Design of SBM- ITB

Jann Hidajat Tjakraatmadja

1 and Achmad Fajar Hendarman

†2

Center of Knowledge for Business Competitiveness,

School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology

Ganesha 10th Street Bandung 40132, Indonesia, Phone: +62 22 2531923,

[email protected]

Abstract –Psychological Capital (Psy-Cap) has been explored in the academic context of its

relationship with the student achievement index (GPA) by Tjakraatmadja and Febriansyah (2007).

The research found that Psy-Cap factors are positive-significant influence to the student of School

of Business and Management ITB (SBM-ITB) GPA index. Furthermore the research indicates that

not all of the learning environment factors give significant influence to the SBM-ITB student‟s

Psy-Cap. In the academic context, learning environment design should be depend on the

curriculum and learning system design. The SBM-ITB student‟s satisfaction gap about the

learning system and learning environment has been measured using the questionnaire. The

research findings are all of the learning system and learning environment variables indicates

gap (existing conditions minus expected conditions). Based on the maximum gaps, several

variables are selected to be the priorities of The SBM ITB‟s improvement in learning system

design and learning environment design.

Keywords: psy-cap, learning environment design, learning system design, SBM-ITB student‟s

satisfaction gap, improvement.

INTRODUCTION

Background Psychological Capital (Psy-Cap) has been defined (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Steven, 2006) as “an

individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by: self efficacy,

optimism, hope, and resilience. Psy-Cap has been explored in the academic context of its relationship

with the student achievement index (GPA) by Tjakraatmadja and Febriansyah (2007). The research

found that Psy-Cap factors (hope state, optimism state, resiliency state, self efficacy and subjective

well being state) are positive-significant influence to the student of School of Business and

Management ITB (SBM-ITB) GPA index. Furthermore the research indicates that the learning

environment could influence the SBM-ITB student’s Psy-Cap but not all of the learning environment

factors give significant influence to the SBM-ITB student’s Psy-Cap. The main important factors

which influence the SBM student’s Psy-Cap are computer and information technology, writing

experiences, art, music and theater. The factors which are not the main important ones are library,

lecturing, the experiences with lecturers and sponsor staffs, campus facilities, club and organization,

personal experiences, scientific and quantitative experiences, friendliness with students, the topic of

conversations, and the source of information for conversations. In working condition context results

indicated a significant positive influence regarding overall employees’ Psy-Cap with employees’

performance both manufacture and service companies (Tjakraatmadja, Hendarman, & Ferbriansyah,

2008)

So SBM-ITB need to redesign their learning environment, for example: library might be have

sufficient facilities enough, the design suppose to become a knowledge center where knowledge

sharing and knowledge creation can be implemented (Greene, 2006). In the academic context,

† Corresponding author

e-mail address: [email protected]

355 The 2nd


learning environment design should be depend on the curriculum and learning system design.

Learning system design will discuss about the theme of learning experiences on each year, lecturing

methods, delivering tasks, learning evaluation methods, etc. The learning system design should best fit

to the SBM-ITB student’s character since those students was born after 1980 (Generation Y), because

Generation Y have their preference in freedom to express ideas and need for fun and comfortable

environment (Wulansari, 2009). Some researchers have proposed more specific about students who

was born after 1980, they propose to classify the student who was born after 1990, called Generation

Z. But they have found it difficult to classify the generation precisely. Some generational experts say

that they were born as early as 1991, which makes the oldest now 18, while there will not be any

consensus soon about where Generation Z begins and ends, most educators agree that today’s kids are

extremely different from youngsters of previous generations (Posnick, 2010).

Research Questions Based on SBM-ITB student’s Psy-Cap needed to improve and SBM-ITB student’s perception about

existing conditions and expected conditions (gaps):

1. Which variables of The SBM ITB’ learning environment need to be improved?

2. How should be The SBM ITB’ learning environment design?

3. Which variables of The SBM ITB’ learning system need to be improved?

4. How should be The SBM ITB’ learning system design?

5. If there are certain gaps, why do these gaps can appear?

Research Objective This research will give concept to redesign learning system and learning environment of SBM-ITB

based on SBM-ITB student’s Psy-Cap needed to improve based and SBM-ITB student’s perception

about existing conditions and expected conditions.

Research Advantage The advantages of this research are:

1. For SBM-ITB: recommendation about element of learning system and learning environment

should be improved so that their students having better Psy-Cap in order to achieve better

academic performance.

2. For the others academic institution: source of considerations to improve element of learning

system and learning environment.

METHOD

Sample The respondents of this research are SBM-ITB students 2009 and 2010 intakes. Questionnaires are

spread using random sampling method, the number of collected and valid questionnaires can be seen

at Table 1.

Table 1. Number of questionnaires

Questionnaire Number

Collected 115

Valid

2009 Intakes 51

2010 Intakes 59

Total 110

Measurement Learning environment was examined by the 10 negative influence factors to the Psy-Cap based on

Tjakraatmadja and Febriansyah findings in 2006. Learning system will be examined by 3 factors

(curriculum design, learning method, and learning evaluation), all of the factors can be seen at Table 2

and all of variables can be seen at Table 3 and Table 4. Each variable of those factors will be

examined by 5 Likert Scale (1-5), which scale “1” describing very unsatisfied condition and scale “5”

describing very satisfied condition, those scale are applied for existing and expected conditions. Using

average value, Gap can be measured with the formula (1).

356 The 2nd


GAP = EG – ED (1)

with:

GAP = GAP Average (2) EG = Existing Conditions Perception Average (3)

ED = Expected Conditions Perception Average (4)

Table 2. Factor of learning environment and learning system

Construct No. Factor

Learning

Environment

1 Library

2 Lecturing

3 Experience with Teaching Staff

4 SBM and Campus Facilities

5 Student Organization

6 Personal Development

7 Student Familiarity

8 Scientific Facilities

9 Topic of Conversation

10 Source of Information

Learning System

1 Curriculum Design

2 Learning Methods

3 Learning Evaluation

Table 3. List of variables (A)

Library Lecturing

1 Library room 1 Multimedia Facilities at Auditorium

2 Books and articles provided 2

Reliability level of Wi-Fi facilities

at Auditorium

3 Services from the official library 3

Internet Facilities in Computer at

auditorium.

4 Table and chair facilities 4 Room Temperature at auditorium.

5 Index facilities or library database 5 Illumination at Auditorium.

6 SBM – ITB Library website 6 Noise Level at Auditorium.

7 Library Discussion Room 7 Layout of Auditorium

8 Foods and drinks facilities at library 8 Air Circulation at auditorium

9 Room temperature 9 Blackboard of Auditorium

10 The Illumination 10

Multimedia tools at auditorium

(projector, sound system, computer)

11 Noise level 11

Multimedia facilities at tutorial

room

12 Layout 12

Reliability level of Wi-Fi facilities

at tutorial Room.

13 Air circulation 13 Internet facilities at tutorial room

14 Book update 14 Temperature at tutorial room

15 Multimedia facilities 15 Illumination at tutorial room

16 Wi-Fi facilities 16 Noise level at tutorial room

17 Type of magazine provided 17 Layout at tutorial room

357 The 2nd


Table 3. List of variables (A-continued)

Library Lecturing

18 Type of newspaper provided 18 Air circulation at tutorial room

19 Newest books or articles in the library 19 Blackboard at tutorial room

20

Multimedia tools at tutorial room

(projector, sound system, computer)

SBM and Campus Facilities

1 Student Lounge infrastructure of SBM ITB Experience with Teaching Staff

2 ITB Campus Center ITB 1

Infrastructure of discussions room

with the lecturer

3 Social culture activities at campus 2

Infrastructure of discussions room

with the tutor

4 Seminar activities

5 ITB Sport facilities

6 Food facilities of SBM-ITB

7 Khresna security facilities

8 Mosque facilities of SBM

Table 4. List of variables (B)

Student Organization Learning System

1 Infrastructure of SBM-ITB Student Organization 1 Lecturing in auditorium

2 SBM-ITB Student Organization Activities

Program 2

Studium generale in

auditorium

3 Infrastructure for student unit activities of ITB 3 Guest lecturing in auditorium

4 Program of student unit activities of ITB 4 Practicum

5 Infrastructure of ITB Student Organization 5 Self learning

6 ITB Student Organization Activities Program 6 Task variation

7 Company visit

Personal Development 8 Internship

1 Availability of Personal development books 9

Discussion ggroup at

Tutorial

2 Personal development forum 10 Final Examination

3

Mentoring system in personal development

program 11 Class presentation

12 Case study

Student Familiarity 13 Study exercise

1 Student familiarity with the same level grade at

SBM ITB 14 Role play

2 Student familiarity among different level grade at

SBM ITB 15 Business games

358 The 2nd


Table 4. List of variables (B-continued)

Learning System

16

IBE (Integrated Business

Experience)

Scientific Facilities 17 Community services

1 Computer laboratories facilities 18 Mid Test

2 International journal access 19 Final Test

3 The scientific publication activity in SBM-ITB 20

Readiness Assessment Test

(RAT)

21 Peer review

Topic of Conversation 22 Quiz

1 Topic of Conversation the social field at SBM 23 Soft skill development

2 Topic of Conversation in the political field at SBM 24 Absence System

3 Topic of Conversation in the economics field at

SBM 25 Lateness System

4 Topic of Conversation in the technology field at

SBM 26

Academic information

system

5 Topic of Conversation in the art and culture field at

SBM 27

Lecturing implementation in

real world

28 Lecturer Feedback

Source of Information 29 Tutor Feedback

1 Source of information for academic field 30 Course load

2 Source of information for non-academic field. 31 Curriculum Design

32 Curriculum Implementation

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Result indicates that respondents’ age fall between 17 and 21, with 18 and 19 are the majority of age

(see Figure 1). It means that they were born in 1990-1994 and majority born in 1993-1994, so they can

be classified as Generation Y (Wulansari, 2009) and specifically Generation Z (Posnick, 2010). All of

the variables value can be seen at Table 5 and Table 6, several examples for describing radar chart of

library and student familiarity can be seen sequentially from Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Table 5 and Table 6 show that all of the variables have gap (negative sign), it can answer

research question number 1 and number 3. Refer to the respondents characteristics which is they are

Generation Z, they need comfortable learning environment, they are very impatient as they desire

instant results, The Internet and multimedia is always there and they take it for granted (Ebank, 2010),

so they will expect some highly about learning environment and learning system conditions, it can

answer research question number 5. Some hypothesis can be proposed to answer research question

number 5 such as: SBM students do not optimize the learning environment that exist today (they

should be triggered to optimize utility); SBM students do not understand the intent, purpose, and

meaning systems studied in SBM; the lecturers and tutors have not effectively run the learning system.

Shaded row at Table 5 and Table 6 show top 20% highest gap variables of each learning

environment factor and learning system, these are proposed way to answer the research question

number 2 and number 4. SBM ITB should design about learning environment and learning system

based on highest gap priority. Learning environment and learning system design is about availability,

quantity, quality based on student satisfaction of each variables.

359 The 2nd


21.0020.0019.0018.0017.00

Age

50

40

30

20

10

0

Perc

ent

Age

Figure 1. Percentages of respondents age

Table 5. Average value of all variables (A)

Variable Library

Variable Lecturing

EG ED GAP EG ED GAP

1 3.52 4.70 -1.18 1 3.44 4.83 -1.39

2 3.54 4.58 -1.05 2 3.15 4.66 -1.52

3 3.55 4.67 -1.13 3 3.25 4.69 -1.45

4 3.65 4.74 -1.08 4 3.47 4.73 -1.25

5 3.22 4.65 -1.44 5 3.73 4.74 -1.01

6 3.00 4.58 -1.58 6 3.19 4.61 -1.42

7 2.92 4.52 -1.60 7 3.80 4.66 -0.86

8 2.43 4.39 -1.96 8 3.49 4.70 -1.21

9 3.56 4.65 -1.09 9 3.55 4.71 -1.15

10 3.68 4.65 -0.96 10 3.37 4.77 -1.40

11 3.83 4.64 -0.81 11 3.34 4.75 -1.41

12 3.51 4.63 -1.12 12 3.19 4.72 -1.53

13 3.53 4.64 -1.11 13 3.40 4.68 -1.28

14 3.16 4.70 -1.54 14 3.15 4.67 -1.52

15 3.15 4.69 -1.54 15 3.39 4.68 -1.29

16 3.32 4.71 -1.39 16 3.17 4.65 -1.48

17 3.27 4.72 -1.45 17 3.50 4.60 -1.10

18 3.50 4.70 -1.20 18 3.36 4.65 -1.29

19 3.41 4.75 -1.34 19 3.60 4.66 -1.06

20 3.33 4.75 -1.42

Variable Experience with Teaching Staff

Variable SBM and Campus Facilities

EG ED GAP EG ED GAP

1 3.21 4.72 -1.51 1 2.78 4.76 -1.98

2 3.51 4.67 -1.16 2 3.32 4.62 -1.30

3 3.26 4.60 -1.34

4 3.25 4.70 -1.45

5 3.25 4.75 -1.50

6 2.94 4.76 -1.83

7 3.44 4.69 -1.25

8 3.27 4.60 -1.33

360 The 2nd


Table 6 Average value of all variables (A)

Variable Student Organization

Variable Learning System

EG ED GAP EG ED GAP

1 2.75 4.63 -1.88 1 3.37 4.77 -1.40

2 3.24 4.72 -1.48 2 3.40 4.73 -1.33

3 3.03 4.67 -1.65 3 3.73 4.78 -1.05

4 3.18 4.70 -1.52 4 3.12 4.61 -1.49

5 3.06 4.63 -1.56 5 3.32 4.65 -1.33

6 3.23 4.67 -1.45 6 3.56 4.66 -1.10

Variable Student Familiarity 7 2.94 4.67 -1.74

EG ED GAP 8 2.48 4.74 -2.25

1 3.45 4.79 -1.34 9 3.46 4.75 -1.28

2 3.14 4.75 -1.62 10 3.28 4.69 -1.41

Variable Scientific Facilities 11 3.51 4.63 -1.12

EG ED GAP 12 3.53 4.67 -1.15

1 3.21 4.75 -1.54 13 3.56 4.72 -1.15

2 3.18 4.73 -1.55 14 3.45 4.65 -1.19

3 3.04 4.68 -1.65 15 3.68 4.74 -1.05

Variable Personal Development 16 3.56 4.77 -1.21

EG ED GAP 17 3.46 4.62 -1.15

1 2.82 4.56 -1.75 18 3.53 4.65 -1.12

2 2.90 4.52 -1.62 19 3.52 4.70 -1.18

3 2.76 4.48 -1.72 20 3.49 4.65 -1.15

Variable Topic of Conversation 21 3.45 4.62 -1.16

EG ED GAP 22 3.53 4.64 -1.11

1 3.33 4.58 -1.25 23 3.21 4.74 -1.53

2 2.96 4.51 -1.55 24 3.34 4.70 -1.36

3 3.52 4.69 -1.17 25 3.20 4.67 -1.47

4 3.27 4.63 -1.35 26 3.35 4.65 -1.29

5 3.35 4.63 -1.27 27 3.34 4.72 -1.38

Variable Source of Information 28 3.11 4.69 -1.58

EG ED GAP 29 3.28 4.67 -1.39

1 3.42 4.76 -1.35 30 2.75 4.74 -1.98

2 3.22 4.75 -1.54 31 3.29 4.74 -1.45

32 3.43 4.71 -1.28

361 The 2nd


Figure 2. Radar chart for average value of library variables (1-19)

Figure 3. Radar chart for average value of student familiarity (1-2)

CONCLUSION This research find that there are gap in learning system and learning environment of SBM-ITB based

on SBM-ITB student’s Psy-Cap nedded to improve and SBM-ITB student’s perception about existing

conditions and expected conditions. Some priorities can be an initiative for SBM-ITB to those

findings. Future study need to answer the hypothesis proposed. The others academic institution can

use this research findings as source of considerations to improve element of learning system and

learning environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Special thanks to SBM ITB students 2009 and 2010 intakes who have gave time and attention to fill in

this research questionnaire, also Febriansyah and Wulansari for giving the references.

362 The 2nd


REFERENCES Ebanks, Robert & Ebanks, Christine (2010).Understanding Today‟s Learners: A Generation Profile.

Retrieved May 25, 2011 from http://www.nathanshelpinghandsfoundation.org Freer, Kylie. (2008). Learner Characteristics of The Net Generations: Generation Y and Generation

Z. Retrieved May 25, 2011 from marynabadenhorst.global2.vic.edu.au

Luthans, Fred; Avolio, Bruce J.; Avey, James B.; Norman, Steven M. (2006). “Positive Psychological

Capital: Measurment and Relationship with Performance and Satisfaction”. Gallup Leadership

Institute- University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Central Washington UniversityMesa State College.

Posnick, Sherry (2010). Meet generation Z. Publication Volume 14 Issue 5 - February 2010. Retrieved

May 25, 2011 from http://www.cta.org/Professional-Development/Publications/Educator-Feb-

10/Meet-Generation-Z.aspx

Tjakraatmadja, Jann Hidajat and Febriansyah, Hary. (2007). The Influence Differences of National

Admission Test (SPMB) Psychological Capital and Learning Environment Toward The

Academic Achievement Index (GPA) Of Engineering and Management ITB Students.

Proceeding of The 24th Pan Pacific Conference. New Zealand.

Tjakraatmadja. J. H., A. F . Hendarman., H. Febriansyah. (2008). Relationship among Employees

“Psychological Capital”, Employees Performance and Company Leaders‟ Servant Leadership,

25th Pan Pacific Conference, 2nd June, Costarica

Wulansari, FDV. (2009). Attracting „Generation Y‟ Graduates:Identification Of Important

Organizational Attributes Which Affects Workplace Preference. Unpublished master’s thesis.

School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Prof. Dr. Jann Hidajat Tjakraatmadja, MSIE. is Head of Center of Knowledge for Business

Competitiveness, School of Business and Management, Institute Technology of Bandung. He is an

active reseacher and lecturer in people and knowledge management area.

Achmad Fajar Hendarman, M.Sc. is a tutor at School of Business and Management, Institute

Technology of Bandung. He got bachelor degree form Industrial Engineering, Industrial Technology

Faculty, Institute Technology of Bandung in 2005 and master degree from Magister Science of

Management, School of Business and Management, Institute Technology of Bandung in 2008. He

now also become a young researcher for center of Knowledge for Business Competitiveness SBM-

ITB.

psychological capital based learning system and learning environment design of sbm-itb

Documents