The role of field study to improve the sport entrepreneurship's interest on physical education students

Billy Castyana, Dwi Gansar Santi Wijayanti, Tandiyo Rahayu, Endang Sri Hanani

Abstract


Basically entrepreneurship is how to form the mindset, attitude, and behavior of people to become an entrepreneur. In addition, giving soft-skill to the students is also one way to equip students so they can have the character as entrepreneur. Soft-skill can be obtained through learning that prioritizes the approach of field practice, so that students can have real work experience. Segers (2004) stated that one of the key characteristics of effective learning and assessment models is to focus on high skills or competencies relevant to their future work. The aim of this study is to find out the role of field study for improving sport entrepreneurship’s interest on physical education students. This quantitative study was conducted using a 5-point likert survey method consist of three dependent variables and one independent variable with 115 respondents from Physical Education students. The data showed that the value of R is 0.662, this indicates that there is a moderate or strong relationship between field study (X) on entrepreneurship interest (Y). R square value of 0.439 could be interpreted that the field study can affect entrepreneurial interest of 43.9% while the remaining 56.1% is explained by other variables not examined in this study. Through the result of this study, we could see that field study has role to enhance the entrepreneurship’s interest, though there are other factors affect, such as the curriculum and educators.


Keywords


Sport entrepreneurship, sport management, field study

Full Text:

PDF

References


Badan Pusat Statistik. (2016). Keadaan Ketenagakerjaan Agustus 2016. Berita Resmi Statistik No.

/11/Th. XIX, 07 November 2016. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.

Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1),

-111.

Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.),

Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 35-48). Londen, England: Kogan Page.

Dierick, S., & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: New forms of assessment lead to new assessment

criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(4), 307 329.

Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of

assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including the pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards (pp. 37-54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, Th., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-85.

Gulikers, J. T. M., Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Bastiaens, Th. J. (2008). The effect of practical experience

on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study appraoch, and learning outcome. Learning and Instruction, 18, 172-186.

Lestari, R. B. & Wijaya, T. (2012). Pengaruh Pendidikan Kewirausahaan terhadap Minat Berwirausaha

Mahasiswa di STIE MDP, STMIK MDP, dan STIE MUSI. Jurnal Ilmiah STIE MDP, 1(2), 112-119.

Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance

assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.

Millrood, R. (2001). Communicative language teaching.Modular course in EFL methodology. Tambov:

Tambov state university.

Segers, M. S. R. (2004). Assessment en leren als een twee-eenheid: Onderzoek naar de impact van assessment

op leren [Assessment and learning as twofoldness: Research on the impact of assessment on learning]. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 22(4), 188-220.

Tillema, H. H., Kessels, J. W. M., & Meijers, F. (2000). Competencies as building blocks for integrating

assessment with instruction in vocational education: A case from the Netherlands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 265-278.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15282/mohe.v8i2.282