ANALISA ESENSIAL ALAT INSTRUKSI TURBIN GAS TERHADAP TARUNA AKADEMI TNI ANGKATAN LAUT KORP TEKNIK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59447/engment.v1i2.116Keywords:
Instructional tools, Gas turbine, Military education, Technical corps cadets, Simulator, learning effectiveness, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Mixed method, Technical competence, Indonesian NavyAbstract
This research aims to identify and analyze the essential instructional tools needed in gas turbine learning for cadets of the Naval Academy's engineering corps using a mixed-method approach with an explanatory sequential design involving 160 respondents, consisting of 120 engineering corps cadets, 15 instructors, and 25 field engineering officers. The research results identified 28 types of gas turbine instructional tools categorized into four groups, with simulators and software showing the highest level of importance (4.65/5.0), and there were significant differences in the perception of importance levels among the three groups of respondents (F(2,157) = 12.45, p < 0.001). The AHP analysis produced a priority framework in four levels, with Level 1 encompassing 5 essential instructional tools: gas turbine simulator (0.742), gas turbine cut-section model (0.698), control system trainer kit (0.681), interactive learning video (0.673), and troubleshooting simulator (0.667). Regression analysis showed that instructional tools significantly contribute to learning effectiveness (R² = 0.742), with the gas turbine simulator as the main predictor (β = 0.384), positively impacting the cognitive aspect with a 26.8% increase in concept understanding (effect size 1.24), the affective aspect with an increase in learning motivation and career interest from 67% to 84%, and the psychomotor aspect with a 33.7% increase in hands-on skills and a 28.5% reduction in troubleshooting time. The resulting priority framework provides strategic guidance for optimizing resources and gradually developing gas turbine learning capabilities in military educational institutions, despite facing major obstacles such as budget constraints, technology compatibility, lack of quality human resources, and limited laboratory infrastructure.
References
Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for specific purposes. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Boyce, M. P. (2012). Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (2018). Experience and Education in Military Technical Training. Journal of Military Education, 45(3), 123-145.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Kolb, D. A., & Kolb, A. Y. (2013). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0: A comprehensive guide to the theory, psychometrics, research on validity and educational applications. Experience Based Learning Systems.
Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5.
Prasetyo, A. (2020). Pengembangan kompetensi perwira teknik TNI Angkatan Laut dalam era transformasi teknologi maritim. Jurnal Pertahanan dan Keamanan Maritim, 12(2), 87-102.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D (2nd ed.). Alfabeta.
Saravanamuttoo, H. I. H., Rogers, G. F. C., Cohen, H., Straznicky, P. V., & Nix, A. C. (2017). Gas Turbine Theory (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
