“CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT”

“TEKNOLOGI INFORMASI DAN KOMUNIKASI”

TIKA FRIDAWATI
NIM : 3191131021

DOSEN PENGAMPU : M.Ridha S Damanik, M.Sc

JURUSAN PENDIDIKAN GEOGRAFI

FAKULTAS ILMU SOSIAL

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MEDAN

2019
 KATA PENGANTAR
Puji dan syukur saya panjatkan ke hadirat Tuhan Yang Maha Esa karena
berkat, rahmat dan kasih karunia-Nya lah penulis dapat menyelesaikan tugas
Critical Jurnal Report ini dengan tepat waktu. Saya juga berterima kasih kepada
dosen mata kuliah Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi (TIK).

Penulis sangat berharap penulisan Critical Jurnal Report ini dapat berguna
bagi banyak orang untuk menambah wawasan dan pengetahuan pembaca. Penulis
juga menyadari bahwa masih begitu banyak kekurangan-kekurangan dalam
penulisan Critical Jurnal Report ini, penulis berharap adanya kritik dan saran dari
pembaca terhadap makalah ini demi perbaikan di masa depan.

Semoga makalah ini berguna untuk banyak kalangan yang membacanya.

sebelumnya penulis mohon maaf jika ada kesalahan dalam penyusunan makalah
ini. Akhir kata saya ucapkan terima kasih banyak.

Medan, 19 Oktober 2019

Tika Fridawati
3191131021

2|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

 DAFTAR ISI

KATA PENGANTAR ........................................................................................................ 2

DAFTAR ISI....................................................................................................................... 3
BAB I .................................................................................................................................. 4
PENDAHULUAN .............................................................................................................. 4
BAB II................................................................................................................................. 5
PEMBAHASAN REVIEW JURNAL ................................................................................ 5
A. Latar Belakang ........................................................................................................ 5
B. Kajian Teori ............................................................................................................ 5
C. Metode .................................................................................................................... 5
BAB III ............................................................................................................................... 6
PEMBAHASAN ISI JURNAL ........................................................................................... 6
A. Ringkasan Review Jurnal ........................................................................................ 6
 Jurnal Utama ........................................................................................................... 6
B. Evaluasi Jurnal ...................................................................................................... 18
PENUTUP ........................................................................................................................ 19
A. Kesimpulan ........................................................................................................... 19
B. Saran ..................................................................................................................... 19
DAFTAR PUSTAKA ....................................................................................................... 20

3|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

 BAB I
PENDAHULUAN

A. Informasi Blibiografi
1. Jurnal Utama
a) Judul Jurnal : Process is king: Evaluating the
performance of technology
mediated learning in vocational
software training
b) Nama Jurnal : Journal of Information Technology
c) Download Jurnal : www.palgrave.com/journals
d) No. ISSN Print Jurnal :-
e) No. ISSN Online Jurnal : 233–253
f) Volume dan Halaman Jurnal : Vol. 3 No. 3 Halaman 1-21
g) Tahun Terbit Jurnal : 2018
h) Penulis Jurnal : Matthias So¨llner, Philipp Bitzer,
Andreas Janson, dan Jan Marco
Leimeister

4|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

 BAB II
PEMBAHASAN REVIEW JURNAL
A. Latar Belakang
Technology-mediated learning As already mentioned in the introduction,
technology-mediated learning (TML) offers variable learning scenarios for
training purposes. In a comprehensive sense, TML describes ‘‘environments in
which the learner’s interactions with learning materials (readings, assignments,
exercises, etc.), peers, and/or instructors are mediated through advanced
information technologies’’ [1]. In consequence, research often uses the term e-
learning as a synonym [2].

However, it should be noted that TML has many variations in practice and
often constitutes a combination of different learning modes and methods and can
therefore be considered a blended learning service.

B. Kajian Teori
Analogous to the established scale development and validity guidelines
[3], we conducted a three-step process to ensure the quality of our scales before
finally conducting our main study. We employed the plurality of methods, such as
a literature review (1) and a focus group workshop (1b), for the conceptual
development of our scales. Next, we completed a conceptual refinement, applying
the Q-sort method (2). We then carried out an empirical pre-study with 163
students (3). After the scale development procedures, we conducted our empirical
main study with 161 participants of vocational software trainings (4) to evaluate
our hypotheses. The research process is illustrated in Figure.

C. Metode
To achieve our goal, we combine qualitative and quantitative methods to
develop and evaluate a holistic model for assessing TML performance. In
particular, we consolidate the body of literature, followed by a focus group
workshop and a Q-sorting exercise with TML practitioners, and an empirical pre-
study to develop and initially test our research model.

5|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

 BAB III
PEMBAHASAN ISI JURNAL
A. Ringkasan Review Jurnal

 Jurnal Utama
1.1 Abstrak
Technology-mediatedlearning (TML) is a major trend in education, since
it allows to integrate the strengths of traditional- and IT-based learning activities.
However, TML providers still struggle in identifying areas for improvement in
their TML offerings. One reason for their struggles is inconsistencies in the
literature regarding drivers of TML performance. Prior research suggests that
these inconsistencies in TML literature might stem from neglecting the
importance of considering the process perspective in addition to the input and
outcome perspectives.

This gap needs to be addressed to better understand the different drivers of

the performance of TML scenarios. Filling this gap would further support TML
providers with more precise guidance on how to (re-)design their offerings toward
their customers’ needs. To achieve our goal, we combine qualitative and
quantitative methods to develop and evaluate a holistic model for assessing TML
performance. In particular, we consolidate the body of literature, followed by a
focus group workshop and a Q-sorting exercise with TML practitioners, and an
empirical pre-study to develop and initially test our research model. Afterward,
we collect data from 161 participants of TML vocational software trainings and
evaluate our holistic model for assessing TML performance. The results provide
empirical evidence for the importance of the TML process quality dimension as
suggested in prior literature and highlighted by our TML practitioners. Our main
theoretical as well as practical contribution is a holistic model that provides
comprehensive insights into which constructs and facets shape the performance of
TML in vocational software trainings.

1.2. Pendahuluan

n 2010, more than 70% of all German companies invested in vocational

training and 94% of all major companies (more than 1000 employees) invested in
according trainings [4]. This accounts for a market volume of more than 28bn
Euros. These numbers reflect not only the major economic importance of such
learning services, but also the need to constantly train employees in order to
remain competitive and avoid the loss of knowledge [4]. In this context,
technology has a major influence on all learning scenarios [5], therefore indicating
that technology-mediated learning (TML) is a major trend in education.

6|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

 TML offers the opportunity to integrate the strengths of synchronous (face-
to-face) and asynchronous (ITbased) learning activities [6]. Thus, the importance
of TML is about to further increase, since it empowers the design of innovative,
more individual, and resource-preserving ways of learning, for example, micro-
learning at the workplace or location-independent, cloud-based learning. Despite
their many advantages, such as improved economic feasibility [7] or improved
student achievements [8], TML poses several fundamental challenges related to
their variability, i.e., research struggles to fully understand the effects of
synchronous and asynchronous learning elements on TML outcomes due to the
complexity of TML.

Identified abroad range of indicators within consisten teffects in their

extensive literature review, in addition to similar results in prior literature reviews
on TML [5]. This is especially challenging for providersof respective vocational
trainings using TML for their offerings, since they lackreliable approache stoe
valuate the performanceof their offerings and to derivere spective improvements.
Guptaand Bostrom (2009) highlight that one probable reason for these
inconsistencies is the fact that many studies use input–outcome research designs
that ignore critical aspects of the learning process. This criticism especially refers
to research designs that merely consider the impact of learning methods on
learning outcomes without considering psychological processes and factors of the
learning process dimension [9]. Therefore, a holistic evaluation of TML
performance is essential, taking into account not only selected elements and their
effects on the TML outcomes, but also the learning process in TML, thatis, the
learning process of alearner that participates in TML scenarios.

Consequently, there is a research gap in terms of a comprehensive

explanation of causal relationships within TML scenarios to ensure a correct
performance evaluation, allowing to derive general, transfer ableadvice for the
design of TML scenarios [9]. Hence, the aim of our study is to develop a
comprehensive approach for investigating the performance of TML, especially
considering the effects of input-, process-, and outcome-related constructs. In
particular, we aim to answer the following research questions: 1. Which constructs
and facets should be included in a comprehensive model for evaluating the
performance of TML? 2. What impacts do constructs related to TML inputs and
the TML process have on each other and on constructs resembling TML
outcomes?

Our synthesis of the existing literature combined with the expertise of 12

experts from providers of vocational software trainings resulted in two input-, one
process-, and two outcome-related constructs that should be included in a holistic
evaluation approach concerning TML performance. The main contribution of our

7|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

study is the development and evaluation of a holistic model for assessing the
performance of TML that accounts for the fact that input-, process-, and

outcome-relatedconstructsshouldbeconsidered.Inaddition, we take a deeper

look into the most important facets shaping the input- and process-related
constructs by conducting a rigorous scale development process with experts
working for vocational training providers. Furthermore, we examine the interplay
of the different constructs of the model, allowing deeper insight into the structural
relationships relevant in the context of evaluating the performance of TML.

Following the terminology of Gregor (2006), we provide a theory of

explanation and prediction for TML performance that explicitly considers input-,
process-, and outcome-related constructs, as well as the facets shaping them. To
achieve our desired research objective, the remainder of this paper is structured as
follows: First, we present related work regarding research on TML. Based on
these foundations, we develop our research model and derive our hypotheses.
After explaining our research method, which encompasses a literature review, a
focus group workshop, a Q-sort application, and the partial least squares (PLS)
approach applied in our pre- and main study, we present our results and discuss
their implications for theory and practice. The paper closes with the limitations of
our study and areas for future research.

Theoretical background

Technology-mediated learning

As already mentioned in the introduction, technology-mediated learning

(TML) offers variable learning scenarios for training purposes. In a
comprehensive sense, TML describes ‘‘environments in which the learner’s
interactions with learning materials (readings, assignments, exercises, etc.), peers,
and/or instructors are mediated through advanced information technologies’’ [1]
In consequence, research often uses the term e-learning as a synonym[2].
However, it should be noted that TML has many variations in practice and often
constitutes a combination of different learning mode sand method sand can
therefore be considered a blended learning service. Such a blended approach
could be designed with the following elements according to: [2]

• Web- or computer-based approaches,

• Asynchronous or synchronous,

• Led by an instructor or self-paced,

• Individual- or team-based learning modes.

8|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

 This variety of possible combinations poses many challenges to TML
research. In consequence, empirical TML research has found mixed results
concerning the impact of TML that are related to the individual as well as the
team level [5] One possible explanation is the focus of TML studies on input–
outcome research designs that consider the above-listed elements of TML but
neglect, among other things, the learning process [1]. This is highlighted by our
review of TML research regarding insights into the specific TML dimensions and
their according findings (see Table 1, based on the findings of Bitzer and Janson,
2014). Considering previous studies, seminal research regarding TML has focuse
dont heeffects of the structural potential sofI Tsupported collaborative learning,
especially with the deployment of group support systems for the purpose of
learning [10].

Intheearly 2000s, research shifted to amore learning process-centeredview

(Alavi etal.,2002;AlaviandLeidner,2001a) that is supported by recent empirical
research regarding the influence of the learning process on learning outcomes.
However, untiltoday, research has not considere daninte grative TML assessment
to evaluate TML quality from a holistic perspective, including input-, process-,
and outcome-related constructs. Suchan approac his necessary fornumerous
reasons. First, the learning process is the core construct that acts as a mediator of
TML input dimensions and there for einfluences the outcomes of TML. Second,
without such a comprehensive assessment of the TML performance, neglecting,
for instance, the learning process quality might lead to inconclusive results [5].
Third, previous studies are limited to a certain technology or learning method and
their effects on training outcomes, which prevents to acquire insights transferable
to other TML scenarios. In sum, a comprehensive TML assessment has to be
applicable for a wide range of blended learning services to achieve comparable
TML performance assessments that are not limited to a particular context. To
achievesucha comprehensive TML assessment, it is necessary to beaware of the
different facets of the different constructs,which we will identify in the following
section.

9|CRITICAL JURNAL REPORT TIK

Identification of facets of core constructs in the context of TML

In addition to the theoretical background of TML, a deeper view into the

facets of the specific TML core constructs is needed to understand which facets
form constructs and to ensure a proper measurement of the constructs essential for
our study. In the field of TML, a varying amount of research has been conducted
concerning the various dimensions. Predisposition quality has been intensively
examined, and learner characteristics such as (meta-) cognition [11], motivation
[12], self-efficacy/ learning management [13], and technology readiness [14]
were shown to play an important role for the TML process and outcome [15]
Regarding the structural quality of TML, various aspects have been used to
describe the structural potential for the provision of TML. The IT system quality
of the training software and the applied e-learning tools determine the perceived
process quality and the corresponding outcome quality [16]. Further, the
information quality and the quality of the learning materials, respectively,
determine the out come quality [17].The trainer characteristics can be divided
into the following aspects. First, the didactical competence of the trainer can be
considered an important determinant for TML success [18].

Hypotheses development

For our overall research model, we will derive according to the hypotheses
in this section. The hypotheses of the model are on a construct level, concentrating
on the identified constructs and their interplay in a holistic TML evaluation
model. Following the foundations laid in the previous section, the individual
differences of learners influence the TML process through complex interaction of
the learner with the learning methods and structures [15]. For example, attitudes
toward [14] or their ability to organize their learning [13] are supposed to have an
impact on the TML process, since a higher predisposition quality ensures that
learners are more content in their TML processes.

Furthermore, predisposition quality affects how learners in TML pay

attention to learning methods and structures, and how they process these in terms
of effectiveness [11]. For example, a high predisposition quality enables the
participants to persist at a difficult task, to fade out distractors, and thus likely has
a positive impact on the perceived quality of the TML process, since the
participants can focus on and follow the intended TML process more effectively.
Therefore, our first hypothesis is:

H1 Predisposition quality has a positive impact on the perceived

quality of the TML process. Furthermore, the perceived structural quality
provided by the TML provider determines the perceived quality of the TML
process. We refer to the effect of the quality of provided structures when designed
in accordance with the learning process and induced by the overall

10 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
epistemological perspective of TML [5]. An example is the case of TML that is
designed in accordance with a cooperative learning [19] (Leidner and Jarvenpaa,
1995) that should therefore engage collaborative learning processes among
learners. Consequently, high-quality collaborative learning structures for TML
ensure successful collaborative learning processes.

As a result, structural quality is supposed to positively influence the TML

process. Furthermore, insights from cognitive load theory suggest that people can
only process a certain amount of information at a time [20]. If a TML provider is
able to provide structures that are of high quality in terms of inducing lower
cognitive load, the participants will be less distracted and can thus focus on the
content and the learning process. At the same time, if the structures provided are
of poor quality, participants might, for example, wonder what they are currently
about to do or which learning goal they are supposed to reach. Thus, they are
distracted from acquiring knowledge, since the limited cognitive resources are
used by individual learners to comprehend the design of the learning material and
not the learning content itself. This distraction will then likely to result in a lower
TML process quality.

This leads to our second hypothesis: H2 Perceived structural quality has

a positive impact on the perceived quality of the TML process. Prior literature
has shown that the cognitive aspects of learners’ activities influence TML
outcomes directly through the formation of mental models [15]. When considering
predisposition factors such as attitudes toward IT, learners with a more positive
attitude might not be afraid of using IT in TML, which will result in higher levels
of satisfaction and perceived learning success [21]. Moreover, factors such as
cognition and motivation are known for their positive influence on learning
success [11]. In the same vein as hypothesized in H1, learners with, for example,
high motivational levels [22] and therefore a high predisposition quality are likely
to exhibit a more goal-directed behavior as well as a more effective cognitive
processing when participating in TML, thus resulting in higher satisfaction and
perceived learning success. Therefore, our next two hypotheses constitute:

H3 Predisposition quality has a positive impact on the perceived learning

success of the TML participants. H4 Predisposition quality has a positive
impact on the satisfaction of the TML participants.

Besides its already hypothesized positive impact on the TML process,

perceived structural quality is also supposed to directly influence the TML
outcomes, that is, learning success and satisfaction [23]. When the provided
structural components support the underlying epistemological perspective and are
of high quality, learning outcomes are influenced positively. This is, for example,
highlighted by the study by Gupta and Bostrom (2013), who investigated how

11 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
higher levels of enactive and vicarious learning relate to the satisfaction and
success of learning. Related to our context, high perceived structural quality
provided by the TML provider should have a positive impact on the TML
outcomes. For example, wellstructured learning materials will support the
participants in focusing on understanding there levant content of the training, thus
fostering the participants perceived learning success and satisfaction with the
training. Low perceived structural quality, e.g., a demotivated trainer or
unstructured learning materials, will hinder the participants in focusing their
attention on the content of the training, and thus limiting their perceived learning
success as well as their satisfaction with the training. As a result, we can derive
two further hypotheses. H5 Perceived structural quality has a positive impact
on the perceived learning success of the TML participants. H6 Perceived
structural quality has a positive impact on the satisfaction of the TML
participants.

Regarding the relationship between perceived TML process quality and

TML outcomes, the adaptation of the prepared structural elements, for example,
learning materials and the training concept, by the learner during the learning
process needs to be considered [5]. Therefore, recent research has started to
consider the learning process by means of analyzing the procedural factors of
TML, focusing on the interaction between learners and the structural potential of
IT-mediated learning [2]. In this context, the learning process is a complex
phenomenon including cognitive processes and interactions based on the
aforementioned learning methods, individual differences between the learners,
and other elements of the teaching/learning scenarios that influence TML
outcomes (Bostrom & others, 2009). Based on prior research highlighting the
importance of the learning process, we argue that a high-quality TML process is
likely to have several positive effects for TML participants.

Consider, for example, the typical case of a software training course that is
supplemented by means of a learning management system to structure the TML
process. If the quality of interaction and IT support with this learning management
system does not fit the expectations of the participants, for example when IT
support in the TML process is very low and the participants are over whelmed by
lot sofadditional learning material provided in the learning management system
which they perceived to only add little value, TML results may be endangered. As
a result, the participants might perceive TML as unsatisfactory, since they cannot
acknowledge how the technology adds value to the learning process. Also, the
participants might even ignore relevant learning materials provided in a low-
quality TML process, ultimately resulting in lower perceived learning success.
However, if we assume that the TML provider ensures a high-quality process
guiding the participants through the context, and helping them, for example, to
also apply and deepen their newly acquired knowledge, the participants are likely

12 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
to have a higher perceived learning success, and be more satisfied with the
training, e.g., since they recognize that the TML provider has put a lot of effort in
carefully designing the TML process to ensure a high-quality experience of the
participants. Thus, we derive the following two hypotheses:

H7 Perceived TML process quality has a positive impact on the

perceived learning success of the TML participants. H8 Perceived TML
process quality has a positive impact on the satisfaction of the TML
participants. Furthermore, we examine there lationship between perceived
learning success and satisfaction. In the literature, learning satisfaction is often
used as a proxy for learning [24], implying that learning success results in learner
satisfaction. In customer satisfaction theory, a comparable observation was made.
Here, the perceived performance of aproductin fluence show satisfied the
customeris with the product he or she bought [25]. When keeping in mind that the
learner sparticipate in TML to learn, for example, basics of enterprise resource
planning (ERP) and how to operate an ERP software, then their perception of how
well theyachieved this goal will influence how satisfied theyare with the training.
If they believe that they learned a lot, they will be satisfied with the TML, and at
the same time, they will not be satisfied if they have the feeling that they did not
learn anything new or useful. Thus, our last hypothesis is: H9 Perceived learning
success has a positive impact on the satisfaction of the TML participants. In
sum, we derived nine hypotheses (see Figure 1 for a graphical illustration of our
research model) that aim to identify causal relationships between the five
constructs necessary for a holistic evaluation of TML. To achieve this holistic
TML performance evaluation, we now identify the key facets of the previously
introduced TML dimensions with a rigorous scale development process in the
next section.

1.3. Pembahasan

Our study shows that the often neglected TML process has a major influence
on both considered TML outcomes, in specific, satisfaction and perceived learning
success. As seen in our model analysis, perceived TML process quality as the key
construct of our research model is truly one of the major constructs when
considering the comprehensive performance assessment of TML. The complete
evaluated research model including the first-order and second-order constructs is
found in Figure 5. Below, we discuss the theoretical and practical contributions
our study results provide.

13 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
Theoretical implications

Our paper makes several contributions to the existing body of literature.

When answering our first research questions, we identified constructs and
categories to evaluate TML performance. We contribute to information systems
research in general as well as TML research in particular by providing a TML-
specific evaluation approach that covers the input, process, and outcome
perspectives necessary to evaluate TML holistically as requested by several
researchers[26]. By using the theoretical foundation provided by Gupta and
Bostrom (2009) that explicitly considers the TML process, we were able to
identify and adapt 19 facets for five identified constructs by means of a literature
review, a focus group workshop, the application of the Q-sort method, as well as
an empirical pre-study and main study. Thus, by conducting a rigorous scale
development approach with TML practitioners, we contribute to research by
providing a set of scales that is suitable for a wide range of TML assessments and
should engage the ongoing discussion about which learning methods or facets of
the learning process are key contributors to learning outcomes in various
application domains of TML.

By means of this study, we are the first to examine a holistic TML

performance model in the course of vocational training. Thereby, we enrich the
existing body of literature by adding and sharpening dimensions that have
previously been the focus of TML research. While research on the TML process
dimension in a university context has been conducted before [2], we enrich
existing findings in the literature using data from vocational training participants.
We examined the TML process dimension, identifying components and
corresponding items to examine the effects of structural quality characteristics and
learners’ predispositions via the TML process dimension. More precisely, we
were able to identify the most relevant facets of perceived TML process quality
such as the overall fit (factor weight = 0.420, p \ 0.001), transparency of the
learning process (factor weight = 0.307, p \ 0.001), the quality of exercises (factor
weight = 0.230, p \ 0.01), and company support (factor weight = 0.301, p\0.001).
In doing so, we successfully extended existing with TML-specific evaluation
approaches and thus offer insights into the critical drivers of TML quality, as
demanded by other researchers [27].

By means of these components, we enable TML researchers and

practitioners to identify more specific weaknesses within TML scenarios, which
go beyond classical, high-level dimensions of TML quality evaluation.
Additionally, our findings challenge the role of interactivity as a key facet of the
TML process [28], since our results show that interactivity (factor weight =
0.098, n.s.) is not a significant facet of perceived TML process quality. Rather, the
overall fit of the provided TML scenario should be especially considered when

14 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
designing the TML process. As pointed out by Yoo et al.(2002), it is not about
just introducing technology for the purpose of learning, which may only result in
overwhelmed learners, thus interfering with the learning process. Thus, our results
provide further evidence that providers of TML should concentrate to deliver
TML that is considered from an overall fit perspective. Therefore, our research
highlights the need to deliver a high-quality TML process that is well designed
and explicitly integrates technology with the learning process. In addition, we
observed high and significant impacts of both the quality of the learning material
(factorweight=0.789, p \ 0.001) and the trainer quality (factor weight = 0.467,
p\0.001) on the perceived structural quality of TML. They were of higher
relevance than components such asthelearning environment (factor weight =-
0.044, n.s.) and IT system quality (factor weight =-0.090, n.s.).

This seems surprising, since many studies have suggested a high impact of
IT system quality (Lin, 2007) and the learning environment[29]. Nevertheless, IT
system quality may be a minimum requirement nowadays, considered as
mandatory and which does not significantly influence the learning process.
Considering the facets included in predisposition quality, our results showed that
the perceived importance was the strongest facet of predisposition quality (factor
weight = 0.784, p\0.001), followed by the ability for selfregulated learning (factor
weight = 0.233, p \ 0.05). Surprisingly, intrinsic value (factor weight = 0.221,
n.s.), selfefficacy (factor weight = 0.196, n.s.), and technology readiness (factor
weight =-0.081, n.s.) have not proved to be significant in influencing
predisposition quality, although previous research has highlighted the role of both
facets for the predisposition quality of learners in TML [14].

The second research question dealt with the relationship of the various
constituting constructs of TML quality. We identified four dimensions resembled
by the five constructs (1) perceived structural quality, (2) predisposition quality,
(3) perceived TML process quality, (4) satisfaction, and (5) perceived learning
success. In our research model, we showed that perceived TML process quality
could help explain the inconclusive results observed in former research results
(Gupta and Bostrom, 2009). We were able to show that both perceived structural
quality (path coefficient = 0.596, p \ 0.001) and predisposition quality (path
coefficient = 0.279, p \ 0.001) have a significant influence on perceived TML
process quality. Furthermore, we observed that perceived TML process quality is
particularly important for determining the impact of perceived structural quality
on TML outcomes. We did not observe a direct effect of perceived structural
quality on perceived learning success (path coefficient =-0.043, n.s.), but observed
a significant and high total impact via perceived TML process quality (total effect
= 0.342, p\0.001). Despite the fact that the existence of an indirect effect is
especially important in this particular case, we observed significant indirect effects
for both independent variables on one of the

15 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 service outcomes (perceived structural quality on perceived learning
success, and predisposition quality on satisfaction). Combining these indirect
effects with the direct effects of TML process quality on learning success (0.646,
p\0.001) and satisfaction (0.433, p\0.001), the results of our study empirically
validate the central role of perceived TML process quality, as highlighted in
previous conceptual TML [5] as well as empirical research [30]. In sum, we
provided a comprehensive theoretical model that corresponds with Gregor’s
(2006) theory of explanation and prediction, since it explains and predicts factor
effects within TML.

We were able to answer our research questions by presenting a TML

evaluation approach based on a comprehensive model of five constructs, namely
perceived structural quality, predisposition quality, perceived TML process
quality, perceived learning success and satisfaction. We developed a holistic
model that considers the specific requirements of a holistic TML evaluation. In
addition, we were able to demonstrate relationships between the five constructs,
providing insights into causal effects of the various constructs and delivering
evidence of the importance of the TML processes. Furthermore, we provided a
deeper look into the single facets forming perceived structural quality,
predisposition quality and perceived TML process quality.

Practical implications

Furthermore, our results help TML providers and trainers to evaluate the
performance of TML more adequately, thereby considering comprehensive TML
quality-related components. The effects of various treatments and antecedents,
such as predisposition quality and perceived structural quality, can be observed
and taken into account for redesigning TML. Moreover, the simultaneous
evaluation of five related constructs empowers researchers and practitioners to
derive and survey multidimensional measures, supporting an efficient and
effective TML delivery. Furthermore, a continuous improvement process that
derives improvement measures for the quality of the TML process while taking
both perceived structural and predisposition quality into account is encouraged.
Considering our results, practitioners deploying vocational software trainings
should heavily concentrate on supporting the TML process. In this context,
scaffolds known from educational research serve as a design implication initially
supporting the learners in their learning [31], for example, by providing learning
paths, thus fostering TML quality by preventing learners from being
overwhelmed by large amounts of learning material and allowing them to focus
on the learning itself by means of initial support in the learning process.

16 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 Also, our results show that TML providers should aim at aligning their
offerings and the needs of the participants to ensure a high fit. Thus, TML
providers should consider how they integrate TML in the learning process of
individuals by tailoring TML processes to the individual needs. Solutions that can
be considered are, for example, the design of adaptive learning paths for better
matching the expectations of learners in TML, thus ensuring a high-quality TML
process.

1.4. Kesimpulan

In this paper, we aimed to broaden the body of knowledge in the context of

TML performance. For this purpose, we developed a model for the holistice
valuation of TML scenarios with a special focus on vocational software trainings.
Based on the literature, we derived components for the evaluation of TML
performance, thereby, respectively, identifying and confirming the existence of
new components that have not been considered thus far in the empirical literature,
mainly for the TML process dimension. In this dimension, we could add to the
body of literature by identifying components such as transparency of the training
process, quality of exercises, fit, and company support, apart from interactivity,
whichiswidely known as a driver of TML process quality. Thus, for the first time,
the foundation for comprehensive TML performance evaluation has been built,
including extensive information on TML process quality. Additionally, we
showed a relationship between the five TML performance-related constructs,
providing arguments that a TML performance evaluation should follow a holistic
approach, accounting for the importance of the TML input, process, and outcome
perspectives. With the consideration of the TML process quality dimension, a
comprehensive evaluation of TML quality is feasible and possesses the potential
to adjust existing shortcomings regarding the examination and evaluation of TML
scenarios.

17 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 B. Evaluasi Jurnal
Kelebihan Jurnal :
1. Gaya Penulisan
Gaya penulisan atau tata bahasa yang terdapat pada jurnal Process is king:
Evaluating the performance of technology mediated learning in vocational
software training yang ditulis oleh Matthias So¨llner, Philipp Bitzer,
Andreas Janson, dan Jan Marco Leimeister ini cukup mudah untuk
dimengerti dan dipahami sehingga dapat memudahkan pembaca mengerti
bagaimana penelitian tersebut dilaksanakan dan apa hasil yang diperoleh
serta tujuan yang ingin dicapai dari hasil penelitian tersebut.
2. Judul
Judul penelitian cukup jelas, rinci, dan akurat. Judul pada jurnal ini
menggambarkan apa yang akan diteliti sehingga dilihat dari segi judul saja
kita mudah untuk memahaminya.
3. Abstrak
Abstrak pada jurnal yang saya review ini mampu menggambarkan atau
merangkum secara jelas mengenai tujuan penelitian, metode/teknik
penelitian, dan hasil penelitian yang didapatkan serta kesimpulan dari
kegiatan hasil penelitian tersebut. Para penulis jurnal langsung turun
kelapangan untuk mengobservasi tentang Process is king: Evaluating the
performance of technology mediated learning in vocational software
training.
Kelemahan Jurnal :
1. Terdapat kesalahan dalam penulisan kata, angka, tanda baca, dan
penggunaan kata.
2. Terdapat kata-kata yang sedikit sulit untuk dimengerti maksudnya.

18 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 PENUTUP
A. Kesimpulan
The research presented in this article was partly developed in the research
projects kuLtig (Grant No. 01BEX05A13) and StaySmart (Grant No.
02L12A170) both funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research. This research article builds on papers that have been presented at the
European Conference on Information Systems 2013 in Utrecht, Netherlands, at
the International Conference on Information Systems 2013 in Milan, Italy, and at
the European Conference on Information Systems 2014 in Tel Aviv, Israel. We
would like to thank the reviewers and attendees for their valuable feedback that
helped us to improve our research and to write this paper. We would also like to
thank the senior editor and the reviewers of this paper for their valuable and
constructive feedback.

B. Saran
Penulis berharap semoga makalah Critical Jurnal Report ini dapat berguna
bagi penulis sendiri dan bagi pembaca untuk menambah pengetahuan dan
wawasan kita semua. Akhir kata saya ucapkan sekian dan terima kasih banyak.

19 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 DAFTAR PUSTAKA
[1] M. Alavi and D. E. Leidner, “Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues,” MIS
Q., pp. 107–136, 2001.
[2] S. Gupta and R. Bostrom, “Research note�An investigation of the
appropriation of technology-mediated training methods incorporating
enactive and collaborative learning,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 454–
469, 2013.
[3] D. W. Straub, “Validating instruments in MIS research,” MIS Q., pp. 147–
169, 1989.
[4] M. Vollmar, “Berufliche Weiterbildung in Unternehmen 2010. Methodik
und erste Ergebnisse,” Wirtschaft und Stat. H, vol. 4, pp. 276–287, 2013.
[5] R. P. Bostrom and others, “Technology-mediated learning: A
comprehensive theoretical model,” J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 10, no. 9, p. 1,
2009.
[6] D. R. Garrison and H. Kanuka, “Blended learning: Uncovering its
transformative potential in higher education,” internet High. Educ., vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 95–105, 2004.
[7] R. Wegener, P. Menschner, and J. M. Leimeister, “Design and evaluation
of a didactical service blueprinting method for large scale lectures,” 2012.
[8] F. Alonso, D. Manrique, L. Mart\’\inez, and J. M. Viñes, “How blended
learning reduces underachievement in higher education: An experience in
teaching computer sciences,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 471–
478, 2010.
[9] M. Alavi and D. E. Leidner, “Research commentary: Technology-mediated
learning�A call for greater depth and breadth of research,” Inf. Syst. Res.,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2001.
[10] M. Alavi, “Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical
evaluation,” MIS Q., pp. 159–174, 1994.
[11] P. R. Pintrich and E. V De Groot, “Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance.,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol.
82, no. 1, p. 33, 1990.
[12] M. S. Cole, H. S. Feild, and S. G. Harris, “Student learning motivation and
psychological hardiness: Interactive effects on students’ reactions to a
management class,” Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 64–85,
2004.
[13] J. A. Colquitt, J. A. LePine, and R. A. Noe, “Toward an integrative theory
of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of
research.,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 85, no. 5, p. 678, 2000.
[14] B. Van Der Rhee, R. Verma, G. R. Plaschka, and J. R. Kickul,
“Technology readiness, learning goals, and eLearning: Searching for
synergy,” Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 127–149, 2007.
[15] S. Gupta, R. P. Bostrom, and M. Huber, “End-user training methods: what
we know, need to know,” ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv. Inf.
Syst., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 9–39, 2010.
[16] W. H. Delone and E. R. McLean, “The DeLone and McLean model of
information systems success: a ten-year update,” J. Manag. Inf. Syst., vol.
19, no. 4, pp. 9–30, 2003.

20 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
[17] S. Petter, W. DeLone, and E. McLean, “Measuring information systems
success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships,” Eur. J. Inf.
Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 236–263, 2008.
[18] J. Ben Arbaugh, “How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student
satisfaction and learning in web-based courses,” Bus. Commun. Q., vol. 64,
no. 4, pp. 42–54, 2001.
[19] D. E. Leidner and S. L. Jarvenpaa, “The use of information technology to
enhance management school education: A theoretical view,” MIS Q., pp.
265–291, 1995.
[20] J. Sweller and P. Chandler, “Evidence for cognitive load theory,” Cogn.
Instr., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 351–362, 1991.
[21] G. Piccoli, R. Ahmad, and B. Ives, “Web-based virtual learning
environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of
effectiveness in basic IT skills training,” MIS Q., pp. 401–426, 2001.
[22] E. A. Linnenbrink and P. R. Pintrich, “Motivation as an enabler for
academic success,” School Psych. Rev., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 313–327, 2002.
[23] D. Kirkpatrick and J. Kirkpatrick, Transferring learning to behavior: Using
the four levels to improve performance. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005.
[24] P.-C. Sun, R. J. Tsai, G. Finger, Y.-Y. Chen, and D. Yeh, “What drives a
successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors
influencing learner satisfaction,” Comput. Educ., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1183–
1202, 2008.
[25] D. K. Tse and P. C. Wilton, “Models of consumer satisfaction formation:
An extension,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 204–212, 1988.
[26] T. P. Van Dyke, L. A. Kappelman, and V. R. Prybutok, “Measuring
information systems service quality: concerns on the use of the
SERVQUAL questionnaire,” MIS Q., pp. 195–208, 1997.
[27] P. Sultan and H. Yin Wong, “Service quality in higher education--a review
and research agenda,” Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 259–272,
2010.
[28] P. Bitzer and A. Janson, “Towards a Holistic Understanding of Technology
Mediated Learning Services--A State-of-the-Art Analysis,” in Bitzer, P. &
Janson, A.(2014): Towards a Holistic Understanding of Technology-
Mediated Learning Services-A State-of-the-Art Analysis. In: European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Tel Aviv, Israel, 2014.
[29] R. Ladhari, “A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research,” Int. J.
Qual. Serv. Sci., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 172–198, 2009.
[30] A. Janson, M. Söllner, and J. M. Leimeister, “Individual appropriation of
learning management systems�antecedents and consequences,” AIS Trans.
Human-Computer Interact., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 173–201, 2017.
[31] W. W. Chin, J. B. Thatcher, and R. T. Wright, “Assessing common method
bias: problems with the ULMC technique,” Mis Q., pp. 1003–1019, 2012.

21 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
22 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 “10 KONSEP DASAR GEOGRAFI”
“PENGANTAR GEOGRAFI”

TIKA FRIDAWATI
NIM : 3191131021

JURUSAN PENDIDIKAN GEOGRAFI

FAKULTAS ILMU SOSIAL
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MEDAN
2019

23 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 KATA PENGANTAR
Puji dan syukur saya panjatkan ke hadirat Tuhan Yang Maha Esa karena
berkat, rahmat dan kasih karunia-Nya lah penulis dapat menyelesaikan tugas
Makalah ini dengan tepat waktu. Saya juga berterima kasih kepada dosen mata
kuliah Pengantar Geografi.

Penulis sangat berharap penulisan Makalah ini dapat berguna bagi banyak
orang untuk menambah wawasan dan pengetahuan pembaca. Penulis juga
menyadari bahwa masih begitu banyak kekurangan-kekurangan dalam penulisan
Makalah ini, penulis berharap adanya kritik dan saran dari pembaca terhadap
makalah ini demi perbaikan di masa depan.

Semoga makalah ini berguna untuk banyak kalangan yang membacanya.

sebelumnya penulis mohon maaf jika ada kesalahan dalam penyusunan makalah
ini. Akhir kata saya ucapkan terima kasih banyak.

Medan, 14 Oktober 2019

Tika Fridawati
3191131021

24 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 DAFTAR ISI

KATA PENGANTAR ...................................................................................................... 24

DAFTAR ISI..................................................................................................................... 25
BAB I ................................................................................................................................ 26
PENDAHULUAN ............................................................................................................ 26
BAB II............................................................................................................................... 27
PEMBAHASAN MATERI ............................................................................................... 27
BAB III ............................................................................................................................. 34
PENUTUP ........................................................................................................................ 34
DAFTAR PUSTAKA ....................................................................................................... 35

25 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 BAB I
PENDAHULUAN
A. Latar Belakang
Semakin hari bumi tempat manusia berdiri semakin tua, karena itu
diperlukan kesadaran dari diri kita untuk dapat menjaga bumi ini dengan
baik dan benar. Jika kita tidak mempunyai kesadaran akan hal ini maka
bisa dipastikan kalau bumi ini semakin lama akan semakin buruk. Hal-hal
buruk itu akan menimpa diri kita dan membuat banyak kerugian.
Hal terbaik yang bisa kita lakukan saat ini adalah mencegah hal-hal
buruk itu terjadi. Karenanya diperlukan kerjasama dari semua pihak. Salah
satu cara yang bisa kita lakukan untuk mengurangi dampak kehancuran
bumi ini adalah dengan bagaimana kita harus mengetahui tentang dasar-
dasar bumi, berhubungan dalam hal ini maka kita harus mempelajari
tentang bumi kita, serta ilmu-ilmu yang terdapat didalamnya, yaitu ilmu
geografi.

B. Rumusan Masalah
a) Apakah pengertian dari geografi?
b) Apa saja ruang lingkup geografi?
c) Objek studi dan konsep dasar geografi?

C. Tujuan
a) Menjelaskan pengertian geografi
b) Menjelaskan ruang lingkup geografi dan konsep dasar geografi

26 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 BAB II
PEMBAHASAN MATERI

1. Pengertian Geografi
Istilah geografi pertama kali diperkenalkan oleh Erastothenes
pada abad ke-1. Menurutnya, geografi berasal dari kata geographica
yang berarti penulisan atau penggambaran mengenai bumi.
Berdasarkan pendapat tersebut, para ahli geografi sependapat
menganggap Erastothenes sebagai peletak dasar pengetahuan
geografi.
Awal abad ke-2, mucul tokoh terbaru yaitu Claudius ptolomaeus
mengatakan bahwa geografi adalah suatu penyajian melalui peta dari
sebagian dan seluruh permukaan bumi. Jadi, Claudius ptolomaeus
mementingakn peta untuk memberikan informasi tentang permukaan
bumi secara umum.
Setiap manusia mempunyai pendapat masing-masing dalam
berbagai hal dalam kehidupannya. Demikian pula dalam halnya
pengertian geografi. Berikut adalah definisi geografi dari beberapa
tokoh:
a) Geografi adalah ilmu kausal yang mempelajarigejala-gejala
dimuka bumi beserta permasalahannya melalui pendekatan
geogradis, okologi, dan pendekatan terhadap manusia untuk
program pembangunan jangka panjang, proses pembangunan, dan
dan menunjang pembangunan [1]
b) “Geografi adalah interaksi antar ruang” [2]
c) Objek study geografi adalah kelomppok manusia dan
organisasinya di muka bumi. [3]
d) “Geografi selalu ingin menjelaskan gejala-gejala dari segi
hubungan keruangan” [4]
e) “Geografi bisa diungkapkan sebagai induk dari segala ilmu
pengetahuan”. Alasannya, banyak bidang ilmu pengetahuan selalu
dimulai dari keadaan muka bumi untuk beralih pada studinya
masing-masing. [5]

Kalau kita perhatikan beberapa definisi / pengertian dan sejarah

perkembangan dari geografi tersebut, ternyata pengertian geografi
selalu mengalami perkembanagan. Namun kalau kita kaji lebih jauh,
diantara pandangan para ahli tersebut tampak ada kesamaan titik
pandang yang meliputi :

27 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
  Bumi sebagai tempat tinggal
 Hubungan manusia dengan linkungannya
 Dimensi ruang dan dimensi historis
 Pendekatannya, spasial (keruangan), ekologi (lingkungan), dan
regional (kewilayahan)

2. Pengertian Dan Batasan Geografi

Perkataan geografi berasal dari bahasa Yunani : “geo” berarti
bumi dan “ grafhein” berarti tulisan. Jadi secara harfiah, geografi
berarti tulisan tentang bumi. Karena itu, geografi sering juga disebut
ilmu bumi. Akan tetapi yang dipelajari dalam ilmu geografi bukan
hanya mengenai lpermukaan bumi saja, melainkan juga berbagai hal
yang ada di permukaan bumi, diluar bumi, bahkan benda-benda
diruang angkasa. Geografi dapat didefinisikan sebagai ilmu yang
mempelajari / mengkaji bumidan segala sesuatu yang ada di atasnya,
seperti penduduk, fauna, flora, iklim, udara dan segala interaksinya.

3. Ruang lingkup geografi

Secara garis besar, seluruh objek kajian geografi dapat dibedakan
atas dua aspek utama, yaitu aspek fisik dan aspek sosial. Aspek fisik
meliputi aspek kimiawi, biologis, astronomis, dan sebagainya,
sedangkan aspek social meliputi aspek antropologis, politis, ekonomis
dan sebagainya.
Jika bumi dipandang dari segi teori lingkungan hidup, permukaan
bumi dapat dikelompokkan menjadi tiga lingkungan sebagai berikut :
 Lingkungan fisikal atau abiotik adalah segala sesuatu disekitar
manusia yang berupa makhluk tak hidup, misalnya tanah, udara, air
dan sinar matahari.
 Lingkungan biologis atau biotic adalah segala sesuatu disekitar
manusia yang berupa makhluk hidup, seperti binatang, tumbuhan,
termasuk didalamnya adalah manusia.

28 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
  Linkungkan sosial adalah segala sesuatu disekitar manusia yang
berwujud tindakan atau aktivitas manusia baik dalam hubungannya
dengan lingkungan alam maupun hubungan antar manusia.

4. Ilmu Penunjang Geografi

Sebagai ilmu pengetahuan, geografi memerlukan bantuan dari ilmu
pengetahuan lainnya, seperti berikut ini. [6]
a) Antropologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang kebudayaan.
b) Biologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang makhluk hidup.
c) Demografi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang kependudukan.
d) Ekonomi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang usaha-usaha
manusia dalam memenuhi kebutuhan hidupnya.
e) Ekologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari hubungan timbal balik
antara makhluk hidup dengan lingkungannya.
f) Geologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari struktur batuan pada lapisan
kulit bumi (litosfer) dengan segala gejalanya.
g) Geomorfologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari relief permukaan
bumi. h. Hidrologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang air, baik
perairan darat maupun yang ada di samudera.
h) Klimatologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang iklim.
i) Meteorologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang cuaca.
j) Oseanografi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang laut dengan
segala gejalanya, misalnya salinitas, relief dasar laut, kedalaman,
arus, flora dan faunanya.
k) Sosiologi, yaitu ilmu yang mempelajari tentang kemasyarakatan.

5. Objek Studi Geografi

Geografi adalah ilmu tentang lokasi serta persamaandan perbedaan
(variasi) keruangan atas fenomena fisik dan manusia persamaan dan
perbedaan (variasi) keruangan atas fenomena fisik dan manusia di atas
permukaan bumi. Kata geografi berasal dari Bahasa Yunani yaitu ‘ge’
(“bumi”) dan ‘graphein’ (“menulis” atau “menjelaskan”).

29 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 Geografi lebih dari sekedar kartografi studi tentang peta. Geografi
tidak hanya menjawab apa dan dimana di atas muka bumi, tetapi juga
mengapa disitu dan ditempat lainnya, kadang di artikan dengan “lokasi
pada ruang”. Geografi mempelajari hal ini, baik yang disebabkan oleh
alam dan manusia. Juga mempelajari akibat yang disebabkan dari
perbedaan yang terjadi itu.

Objek studi geografi dapat dikelompokkan menjadi dua, yaitu objek

material dan objek formal.
1. Objek Material
Objek material geografi adalah sasaran atau isi kajian geografi.
Objek material yang umum dan luas adalah geosfer (lapisan bumi )
yang meliputi:

 Litosfer (lapisan keras), merupakan lapisan luar dari bumi kita.

Lapisan ini disebut kerak bumi dalam ilmu geologo.
 Atmosfer (lapisan udara), terutama adalah lapisan atmosfer bawah
yang dikenal sebagai troposfer.
 Hidrosfer (lapisan air), bai yang berupa lautan, danau, sungai dan
air tanah.
 Biosfer (lapisan tempat hidup), yang terdiri atas hewan, tumbuhan,
dan manusia sebagai suatu komunitas bukan individu.
 Pedosfer (lapisan tanah), merupakan lapisan batuan yang telah
mengalami pelapukan.

Jadi secara nyata objek material geografi meliputi gejala-gejala

yang terdapat dan terjadi dimuka bumi, seperti aspek batuan, tanah,
gempa bumi, cuaca, iklim, gunung api, udara, air, serta flora dan
fauna yang terkait dengan kehidupan manusia.

30 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 2. Objek Formal
Objek formal adalah sudut pandang dan cara berpikir terhadap
suatu gejala di muka bumi, baik yang sifatnya fisik maupun sosial
yang di lihat dari sudut pandang keruangan. Dalam geografi selalu
ditanyakan mengenai dimana gejala itu terjadi dan mengapa gejala itu
terjadi ditempat tersebut. Disini ilmu geografi diharapkan mampu
menjawab berbagai pertanyaan sebagai berikut :

 Apa (what), berkaitan dengan struktur, pola, fungsi, dan proses

gejala atau kejadian dimuka bumi.
 Dimana (where), berkaitan dengan tempat atau letak suatu
objek geografi dipermukaan bumi.
 Berapa (how many/ much)berkaitan dengan hal-hal yang
menyatakan ukuran (jarak, luas, isi dan waktu)suatu objek
geografi dalam bentuk angka-angka).
 Mengapa (why), berkaitan dengan rangkaian waktu dan tempat
, latar belakang, atau interaksi suatu gejala dan peristiwa.
 Bagaimana (how), berkaitan dengan pejabaran suatu pola,
fungsi dan proses gejala dan peristiwa.
 Kapan (when), berkaitan dengan waktu kejadian yang
berlangsung , baik waktu yang lampau, sekarang, maupun yang
akan dating.
 Siapa (who), berkaitan dengan subjek atau pelaku dari suatu
kejadian atau peristiwa.

31 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 6. Konsep Dasar Geografi
Sebagai ilmu, geografi mempunyai konsep yang membedakannya dengan
ilmu lain. Yaitu :

1. Konsep Lokasi
Adalah konsep utama yang akan digunakan untuk mengetahui
fenomena geosfer. Konsep lokasi dibagi atas :
a) Lokasi Absolut, lokasi menurut letak lintang dan bujur bersifat tetap.
b) Lokasi Relatif, lokasi yang tergantung pengaruh daerah sekitarnya dan
sifatnya berubah.
2. Konsep Jarak
Yaitu panjang antara dua tempat. Terdiri antara atas :
a) Jarak Mutlak, satuan panjang yang diukur dengan kilometer.
b) Jarak Relatif, jarak tempuh yang menggunakan satuan waktu
3. Konsep Keterjangkauan
Menyangkut ketercapaian untuk menjangkau suatu tempat, sarana apa
yang digunakan, atau alat komunikasi apa yang digunakan dan sebagainya.
4. Konsep Pola
Gejala-gejala alam yang tersebar tidak merata pada permukaan bumi
membentuk aneka ragam pola yang digambarkan pada peta dalam
berbagai ragam skala. Contohnya : pola iklim dunia, pola persebaran
gunung-api, pola pengaliran sungai Jeneberang, pola okupasi manusia
(berladang, bertani, berdagang, industri), pola pemukiman, pola lalu-lintas,
dsb. Pola-pola dari berbagai ragam gejala tersebut dapat digolong-
golongkan dan dipelajari secara sistematis. Gabungan dari berbagai
macam pola di suatu tempat atau wilayah akan menentukan ciri-ciri
tertentu dan memberikan corak khas dari berbagai area. Keadaan areal
yang berbeda-beda tersebut menjadi perhatian para ahli geografi.
5. Konsep Morfologi
Menunjukkan bentuk muka bumi sebagai hasil tenaga endogen dan
eksogen yang membentuk dataran rendah, dataran tinggi dan pegunungan.

32 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 6. Konsep Aglomerasi
Pengelompokan fenomena di suatu kawasan dengan latar belakang
adanya unsur-unsur yang lebih memberi dampak positif.
7. Konsep Nilai Kegunaan
Manfaat yang diberikan oleh suatu wilayah di muka bumi pada
makhluk hidup, tidak akan sama pada semua orang.
8. Konsep Interaksi Interdependensi
Keterkaitan ruang antara satu dengan yang lain, misalnya interaksi
antara desa dengan kota.
9. Konsep Diferensiasi Area
Daerah-daerah yan terdapat di muka bumi berbeda satu sama lain.
Dapat dicermati dari corak yang dimiliki oleh suatu wilayah dengan
wilayah yang lainnya.
10.Konsep Keterkaitan keruangan / Ketersangkutpautan
(interelatedness)
Para ahli geografi percaya akan adanya kebersangkut-pautan di antara
tempat-tempat pada permukaan bumi dan gejala-gejala pada suatu area.
Istilah-istilah seperti interdependensi, interkoneksi, interaksi keruangan,
dan assosiasi areal menguraikan dan menjelaskan saling hubungan antar
tempat dan antar gejala pada permukaan bumi. [7]

33 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 BAB III
PENUTUP
A. Kesimpulan
Istilah geografi pertama kali diperkenalkan oleh Erastothenes pada
abad ke-1. Menurutnya, geografi berasal dari kata geographica yang
berarti penulisan atau penggambaran mengenai bumi. Berdasarkan
pendapat tersebut, para ahli geografi sependapat menganggap
Erastothenes sebagai peletak dasar pengetahuan geografi.
Perkataan geografi berasal dari bahasa Yunani : “geo” berarti bumi
dan “ grafhein” berarti tulisan. Jadi secara harfiah, geografi berarti tulisan
tentang bumi. Karena itu, geografi sering juga disebut ilmu bumi. Akan
tetapi yang dipelajari dalam ilmu geografi bukan hanya mengenai
lpermukaan bumi saja, melainkan juga berbagai hal yang ada di
permukaan bumi, diluar bumi, bahkan benda-benda diruang angkasa.
Geografi dapat didefinisikan sebagai ilmu yang mempelajari / mengkaji
bumidan segala sesuatu yang ada di atasnya, seperti penduduk, fauna,
flora, iklim, udara dan segala interaksinya.

B. Saran
Penulis berharap semoga makalah 10 Konsep Dasar Geografi ini
dapat berguna bagi penulis sendiri dan bagi pembaca untuk menambah
pengetahuan dan wawasan kita semua. Akhir kata saya ucapkan sekian dan
terima kasih banyak.

34 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K
 DAFTAR PUSTAKA
[1] R. Bintarto, “OF DEVELOPMENT.,” Indones. J. Geogr. J. Fac. Geogr. Gadjah Mada
Univ., vol. 12, no. 43, pp. 51–57, 1982.

[2] E. L. Ullman, “Geography as spatial interaction. Interregional Linkages,” Proc.

West. Comm. Reg. Econ. Anal. Berkeley, 1954.

[3] M. Le Lannou, Problèmes géographiques de la méditerranée euorpéene. Centre

de documentation universitaire, 1959.

[4] P. Claval, Essai sur l’évolution de la géographie humaine, vol. 191. Presses Univ.
Franche-Comté, 1976.

[5] P. E. James, “ON THE ORIGIN AND PERSISTENCE OF ERROR IN GEOGRAPHY 1,”
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 1967.

[6] L. Iskandar, “GEOGRAFI.” PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Jakarta, 2009.

[7] “Makalah_Konsep_Dasar_Geografi.” .

35 | C R I T I C A L J U R N A L R E P O R T T I K