The Effect of Implementing Paikem Case-Based Learning And Cooperative Learning On Learning Competency And Quality

Abstract

Financial PKA (Praktek Kerja Akuntansi/ Accounting Work Practices) at State Polytechnic of Malang is expected to fulfill the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective aspects. Therefore, in the current learning, the researchers developed a new method namely PAIKEM through student-centered learning, case-based learning, and cooperative learning for learning competence and quality. This research aimed at developing and implementing PAIKEM method through student-centered learning, case-based learning, and cooperative learning so that the learning in the accounting department at State Polytechnic of Malang can generate high-quality human resources. The research method conducted was applied-quantitative research method and descriptive research with a classroom action research, primary data source, data processing using multiple linear regression using classical assumption test, t-test, F-test, and R square. The researchers identified the problems in the classroom, observing the field, then constructed a case plane for practicing solving a problem in real life, learning with a collaboration method. The emerged problems were analyzed and solved by the students with the ability based on the existing theory. The research finding were there was a significant effect of case-based learning, cooperative learning, and effective learning on learning competency and coefficient of determination as much as 0.621 and a significant effect of student-centered learning, cooperative learning, creative learning, and effective learning ton the learning quality with the coefficient of determination as much as 0.744.

Full text

86
The Effect of Implementing Paikem Case-Based Learning And
Cooperative Learning On Learning Competency And Quality
Abstract:
Financial PKA (Praktek Kerja Akuntansi/ Accounting Work Practices) at State Polytechnic of Malang is expected
to fulfill the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective aspects. Therefore, in the current learning, the researchers
developed a new method namely PAIKEM through student-centered learning, case-based learning, and
cooperative learning for learning competence and quality. This research aimed at developing and implementing
PAIKEM method through student-centered learning, case-based learning, and cooperative learning so that the
learning in the accounting department at State Polytechnic of Malang can generate high-quality human resources.
The research method conducted was applied-quantitative research method and descriptive research with a
classroom action research, primary data source, data processing using multiple linear regression using classical
assumption test, t-test, F-test, and R square. The researchers identified the problems in the classroom, observing
the field, then constructed a case plane for practicing solving a problem in real life, learning with a collaboration
method. The emerged problems were analyzed and solved by the students with the ability based on the existing
theory. The research finding were there was a significant effect of case-based learning, cooperative learning, and
effective learning on learning competency and coefficient of determination as much as 0.621 and a significant
effect of student-centered learning, cooperative learning, creative learning, and effective learning ton the learning
quality with the coefficient of determination as much as 0.744.
Keywords: Case-based learning, cooperative learning, competency, quality
DOI: 10.7176/JEP/10-13-10
Publication date:May 31
st
2019
INTRODUCTION
State Polytechnic of Malang is a higher education with a professional education background which prioritizes
its improvement on skill application or to prepare the students to be citizens with professional abilities which can
apply, develop, and disseminate their knowledge and technology as well as have an adequate skill. The accounting
study program is one of the departments at State Polytechnic of Malang which holds the responsibilities to generate
graduates who are ready to work, skillful in the accounting field, and able to compete in the global market
according to their vision and mission.
The assessment on the educational product quality is firstly observed from the development of basic attitudes
such as scientific academic critical behavior and the willingness to seek the truth continuously (Yumarma, 2006).
Therefore, the concept of education is not reduced on the tests which only measure the transfer of knowledge
(cognitive), but broader including the shaping of skills (psychomotor) and basic attitude or affective, such as
criticality, creativity, and openness on innovation and various discoveries. All of them are significantly required
so that students can survive and answer dynamic challenges. In this case, educators are demanded not only as
knowledge transferrer, but also beyond that which is as agents of enlightenment.
Helts 2003-2010 mandated by Directorate General of Higher Education in April 2003 gave trust, one of which
is the application of Student-Centered Learning (SCL) principles in the learning process. There are various learning
methods in Student-Centered Learning (SCL), among them are Case-based Learning, Cooperative Learning, and
Project-based Learning.
Currently, the learning process which is commonly practiced is in the form of lecturing. This method of learning
pattern in which a passive lecturer and passive students have low learning effectiveness. Therefore, current learning
method cannot sharpen the students’ analysis ability and awareness of problems, train problem solving and ability
to evaluate a problem holistically. Hence, a new method namely case-based learning PAIKEM is developed.
The following is the score of Financial PKA course before the PAIKEM method was applied.
Table 1. The percentage of students’ ability in Financial PKA course in 2018 (Total students: 400)
Final score
Financial PKA course
A 30%
B+
23%
B
10%
C+
20%
C
7%
D
10%
Indrayati*, Basuki Rachmat, Apit Miharso
Accounting Program, Politeknik Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
87
Based on Table 1, the traditional learning method in Financial PKA course contributes A score as much as 30%,
B+ score as much as 23%, B score as much as 10%, C+ score as much as 20%, C score as much as 7% and D score
as much as 10%. Therefore, according to HELTS, the new learning strategy which will be used for learning is
based on student-centered learning with the implementation of case-based learning and cooperative learning for
Financial PKA course to improve students’ competency.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The research on students’ active learning and cooperative learning have been conducted by Felder and Brant
(1996) who stated that this approach improves motivation for learning, knowledge memory, the depth of
understanding, and the appreciation on the taught subject. The research also shows that the cooperative learning
practice directs the students on achieving higher achievements, more efficient, and more effective process of
information exchange, improving productivity, a positive relationship among students, and fostering trustworthy
among friends, compared to competitive and/or individualistic learning experiences.
PAIKEM learning concept
PAIKEM is an abbreviation from Pembelajaran Aktif, Inovatif, Kreatif, Efektif, dan Menyenangkan which
means active, innovative, creative, effective and fun learning. Active is defined as in the learning process, teachers/
lecturers must create a specific condition so that the students ask questions actively, questioning, and express their
ideas.
According to Ahmadi (2011:30), PAIKEM is active, innovative, creative, effective and fun learning. According
to Syah and Kariadinata (2009:1), PAIKEM is the abbreviation of Pembelajaran Aktif, Inovatif, Kreatif, Efektif
dan Menyenangkan which means active, innovative, creative, effective and fun learning. Furthermore, PAIKEM
can be defined as an approach to teaching which is used along with a specific method and various teaching media
and environmental management in such a way that the learning process becomes active, innovative, creative,
effective and fun. The purpose of each of the words PAIKEM according to Suparlan et al. (2008:70) are as follows.
1. Active means in the learning process, the teacher/ lecturer must create a condition in such a way so that
the students actively ask questions, express ideas, and solving problems.
2. Innovative means teacher/ lecturer must create new learning condition and learning activities according
to the demands and educational development such as the use of project-based-learning, cooperative-
learning, and case-based-learning.
3. Creative means that teachers create diverse learning activities to fulfill various levels of students’ ability
or students’ creativities in problem-solving.
4. Effective means generating what needs to be mastered by the students after the learning process which
is achieving the predetermined objective/ competency.
5. Fun means that teacher/ lecturer must be able to create fun and not boring teaching and learning
conditions so that the students can obtain a sharp focus and the learning can be faster such as the
availability of teaching aids and handout in learning, as well as the use of multimedia and website.
According to Tarmizi (2009), PAIKEM is the abbreviation of active, creative, effective, and fun learning.
Active means in the learning process, the teacher/ lecturer must create the condition in such a way so that the
students can be active, ask questions, questioning, express ideas, and solve problems. Innovative learning can
adapt fun learning models such as project-based learning, cooperative learning, case-based learning, and the use
of multimedia and teaching aids.
PAIKEM method is one of the ideal learning models. PAIKEM method helps students obtain their ideas in
learning through the approach of the surrounding environment. The positive impact of implementing PAIKEM
model is that the students can be encouraged in terms of their curiosity in their surroundings. If we reflect on the
four pillars of education, they are learning to how, learning to be, learning to do, and learning to live together.
To create an effective learning situation, Combs (1976) asserts that three characteristics are required, namely:
1. Conducive atmosphere to explore the meaning of learning. The students must feel safe and accepted.
They want to understand the risks and benefits of obtaining knowledge and new understanding. The
class must be conducive for involvement, interaction, and socialization with an approach similar to the
business world.
2. Students must be given opportunities to find new information and experience. These opportunities are
given not only in the form of information but also encouragement for students to find information.

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
88
3. New understanding must be obtained by the students through the personal discovery process. The
method used must be personal and according to their personality and the student’s learning style.
Case-based learning
Several aspects differentiating cooperative-based learning and traditional learning are described by Thomas,
Mergendoller, & Michaelson (1999) as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The Difference between Case-based Learning and Traditional Learning
EDUCATIONAL ASPECT TRADITIONAL EMPHASIS CASE EMPHASIS
Curriculum Focus
Content coverage
The depth of knowledge
Knowledge on Facts The mastery of concepts and
principles
Learning “building-block” skill in
isolation
The development of complex
problem
-
solving skill
Scope and Sequence Following the sequence of
curriculum strictly
Following the learning interest
Progressing from block to block or
unit to unit
Big units formed from the complex
cases and issues
Centered, discipline
-
base focus
Broadening, interdi
sciplinary focus
Role of teacher/ lecturer Lecturer and director of learning Learning source provider and
participant in learning activities
Expert
Supervisor/ partner
Measurement focus
Product
Process and product
Test score
Real achievement
Comparing with others Standard performance and progress
over time
Reproduction of Information
Understanding demonstration
Learning materials Text, lecture, and presentation Direct original sources: printed
materials,
interviews, documents, etc.
Activities and worksheet developed
by teachers
Data and materials developed by the
students
Technology usage
Supporter, peripheral
Primary, integral
Implemented by the teacher
Directed by students
Aimed at broadening teacher’s
presentation
Usability for expanding student
presentations or strengthening
student abilities
Class context
Students work independently
Students work in groups
Students compete with each other
Stu
dents collaborate one and another
Students receive information from
the teacher
Students construct, contribute, and
synthesis the information
Role of students Carry out teacher's orders Conducting learning activities
directed by themselves
Reminder and repeater of facts Reviewers, integrators, and
presenters of ideas
Students receive and complete short
report assignment
Students receive assignments and
work independently in an abundant
time
Short-term goals Knowledge on facts, terms, and
content
Understanding and application of
complex ideas and processes
Long-term goals The breadth of knowledge of the
graduates who are successful in the
learning achievement standard test
In knowledge, Graduates who have
character and are skilled at
developing themselves,
independently, and learning
throughout their lives.

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
89
RESEARCH METHOD
Research design: Classroom action research
One of the popular definitions of classroom action research by Lewin’s model is interpreted by Kemmis
and Carr (2005). Both authors state that classroom action research is a reflective form of research performed by
the researcher in society and aim at improving their work, understanding the work and situation, as well as this
work, is conducted, including in the field of education. (Kemmis & Carr, 2005). Classroom action research is
described as a dynamic process in which the four aspects are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting must be
understood as non-static stages, auto-completed, but more of moments in the spiral form related to planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting.
Figure 1. the Action Research Spiral by Kemmis & Taggart (1988)
Classroom action research according to Moleong, 2006 is as follow:
1. Identifying a problem, which is identifying the occurring problems in the classroom.
2. Discussing a problem, discussing the problem with the team to find a solution.
3. Reviewing a problem, reviewing the problems by seeking alternative problem-solving.
4. Redefinition of a problem, redefining the occurring problem to find the solution through problem-
solving.
5. Selecting a method, conducting learning method selection to find the appropriate way method.
6. Implementing a change, implementing a change of the old method to the new one.
In the management of Financial PKA learning, assessment or evaluation on students are also conducted by the
lecturer using the method suggested by Michaelson (1998) which is classifying the assessment criteria into three
performance areas, namely: 1) individual performance, 2) group performance and 3) performance of individual
contribution to group (measured using peer-evaluation sheet).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The research results of implementing modified learning model in Financial PKA course is the production of
PAIKEM new learning method development through case-based learning and competency, the learning quality of
Financial PKA course, lesson study (RPS), and the construction of Financial PKA course syllabus, GBPP, SAP,
teaching materials using power point and animation.
REVISED PPLAN
REFLECT
ACT & OBSERVE
PLAN
REFLECT
ACT & OBSERVE

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
90
Table 3. The percentage of assessment results on the ranking of students participating in Financial PKA
course
Score
Financial PKA Course
A
80%
B+
10%
B
5%
C+
5%
C
-
D
-
Students who obtained A score are 85 %, B+ score of 10 %, B score of 5 %, and C+ score of 5%. Meanwhile, the
students’ response to the new learning model in Financial PKA course namely case-based learning was 95 %
agreed on the implementation of PAIKEM learning model since this learning made the students active, innovative,
effective, and fun, more competent, understand the Financial PKA course well in the knowledge and skills, while
the other 5% perceived that they preferred the traditional learning method which was lecture method.
This method implemented a new learning method on Financial PKA course through case-based learning and
the utilization of teaching materials, exercises, multimedia teaching aids, and the distribution of cases or
assignment to complete the questions on the application of financial accounting in the company.
The questions were based on the previously taught theory and concepts or according to the competency-based
curriculum (KKNI), teaching materials made by the lecturer. The completion of cases regarding the application of
accounting questions will be significantly helpful for companies in making a financial report, calculation of the
cost of production and cost of goods sold, income statement, PKA Finance with the PAIKEM method are easier
to understand and solve problems in the real world. Learning becomes easier and not boring, the students
understand more about theory, and then solve problems in the real world so that cognitive, psychomotor and
affective aspects can be achieved.
The statistical test results showed that the effects of case-based PAIKEM method on learning competency are as
follows.
1.
Validity and reliability tests. Validity test showed that if the coefficient of correlation between the score of
an indicator is higher than 0.3, then the instrument is stated as valid, while the reliability test showed that if
the Cronbach’s alpha shows a higher number than 0.6, then the instrument is stated as reliable.
Table 4. The validity test of questionnaire on Variable X
Item r Significance Description
X1 0.805 0.000 Valid
X2 0.798 0.000 Valid
X3 0.806 0.000 Valid
X4 0.828 0.000 Valid
X5 0.842 0.000 Valid
X6 0.828 0.000 Valid
X7 0.768 0.000 Valid
.
Table 5. The validity test of questionnaire on Variable Y
Item r Significance Description
Y1 0.873 0.000 Valid
Y2 0.864 0.000 Valid
Y3 0.843 0.000 Valid
Y4 0.890 0.000 Valid

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
91
Table 6. The Reliability Test of Variables
Variable
item
Alpha
Coefficient
Description
X 7 0.912 Reliable
Y
4
0.889
Reliable
2.
Classical assumption test on the effect of X on Y shows that the normality test using Kolmogorov-
Smirnov showed normal data, no multicollinearity, no heteroskedasticity, and no autocorrelation.
3.
Multiple Regression Analysis
The multiple linear analysis results are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. The Summary of Multiple Linear Regression Test
Variable B T
count
Significant Description
Constant
0.698
TCL (X1)
-
0.034
-
0.441
0.659
Not Significant
SAL (X2)
0.089
1.308
0.193
Not Significant
CBL (X3)
0.273
4.504
0.000
Significant
Coop_L (X4)
0.187
2.923
0.004
Significant
Cre
-
L (X5)
0.083
1.270
0.206
Not Significant
Ef
-
L (X6)
0.182
2.585
0.011
Significant
Fun
-
L (X7)
0.040
0.744
0.458
Not Significant
α
= 0.050
Coefficient of Determination (R
2
)
= 0.621
F
-
count
= 40.176
F
-
table (F
7,172,0.05
)
= 2.063
F significance
= 0.000
t
-
table (t
172,0.05
)
= 1.974
Based on Table 4.8, the regression model obtained is as follow.
Y = 0.698 – 0.034 X1 + 0.089 X2 + 0.273 X3 + 0.187 X4 + 0.083 X5 + 0.182 X6
+ 0.040 X7+ e
i
F-test (Simultaneous test / joint influence)
Based on Table 7, the score of F
count
is higher than F
table
(40.176>2.063) and has a smaller significance
value than α (0.000<0.050), so that H
0
is rejected. It means that simultaneously, the independent variables
namely X1 (TCL), X2 (SAL), X3(PBL), X4(Coop_L), X5(Cre-L), X6(Ef-L), and X7 (Fun-L) has a significant
effect on Y1 variable (Competency).
T-test (Partial test/ each influence)
Based on Table 7, the results are as follows:
a. X1 (TCL) variable has a negative and not significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from
the t-test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
(0.441<1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.659>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The negative coefficient showed that
the increase in X1 variable decreased Y1 variable but not significantly.
b. X2(SAL) variable has a positive and not significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from the
t-test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
(1.308< 1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.193>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The negative coefficient showed that
the increase in X2 variable could increase Y1 variable but not significantly.
c. X3(CBL) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from the t-
test statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(4.504 > 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.000
<0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that the
increase in X3 variable could increase Y1 variable significantly.
d. X4(Coop_L) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from the
t-test statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(2.923 > 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.004

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
92
<0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that the
increase in X4 variable could increase Y1 variable significantly.
e. X5(Cre-L) variable has a positive and not significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from
the t-test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
(1.270 < 1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.206
>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The positive coefficient showed that the
increase in X5 variable could increase Y1 variable but not significantly.
f. X6(Ef-L) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from the t-
test statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(2.585> 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.011<0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that
the increase in X6 variable could increase Y1 variable significantly.
g. X7(Fun-L) variable has a positive and not significant effect on Y1 variable (Competency). Observed from
the t-test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
(0.744< 1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.458>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The positive coefficient showed that
the increase in X7 variable could increase Y1 variable but not significantly.
Coefficient of Determination (R
2
)
The amount of contribution from the independent variables simultaneously on dependent variables is
based on the calculation results in Table 4.5 with the coefficient of determination (R Square) of 0.621. the results
explained that the contribution of independent variables namely (X1 (TCL), X2 (SAL), X3(CBL), X4(Coop_L),
X5(Cre-L), X6(Ef-L), and X7 (Fun-L)) involved in the regression equation on Y1 variable (Competency) was
62.1%, while another 37.9% was contributed by other variables uninvolved in this equation.
The classical assumption on the effect of X on Y2 (quality) showed that normal data did not show the
presence of multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, and autocorrelation.
Multiple Regression Analysis
The regression results of X influence on Y2 is shown in Table 4.6 as the following.
Table 8. Summary of Multiple Linear Regression Testing
Variable B T
count
Significant Description
Constant
0.615
TCL (X1)
-
0.102
-
1.706
0.090
Not Significant
SAL (X2)
0.262
4.987
0.000
Significant
CBL (X3)
0.076
1.608
0.110
Not Significant
Coop_L (X4)
0.106
2.150
0.033
Significant
Cre
-
L (X5)
0.164
3.244
0.001
Significant
Ef
-
L (X6)
0.274
5.037
0.000
Significant
Fun
-
L (X7)
0.063
1.508
0.133
Not Significant
α
= 0.050
Coefficient of
Determination (R
2
)
= 0.744
F
-
count
= 71.299
F
-
table (F
7,172,0.05
)
= 2.063
F
significance
= 0.000
t
-
table (t
172,0.05
)
= 1.974
Based on Table 8, the regression model obtained is as follow.
Y = 0.615 – 0.102 X1 + 0.262 X2 + 0.076 X3 + 0.106 X4 + 0.164 X5 + 0.274 X6
+ 0.063 X7 + e
i
F-test (Simultaneous test / joint influence)
Based on Table 8, the score of F
count
is higher than F
table
(71.299> 2.063) and has a smaller significance
value than α (0.000 <0.050), so that H
0
was rejected. It means that simultaneously, the independent variables
namely X1 (TCL), X2 (SAL), X3(CBL), X4(Coop_L), X5(Cre-L), X6(Ef-L), and X7 (Fun-L) have a significant
effect on Y2 variable (quality).
T-test (Partial Test/ each influence)
Based on Table 8, the results are as follows:

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
93
a. X1 (TCL) variable has a negative and not significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-
test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
1.706< 1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.090>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The negative coefficient showed that
the increase in X1 variable decreased Y2 variable but not significantly.
b. X2(SAL) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-test
statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(4.987 > 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.000<0.050).
This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that the increase in X2
variable could increase Y2 variable significantly.
c. X3(CBL) variable has a positive and not significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-
test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
(1.608 < 1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.110>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The positive coefficient showed that
the increase in X3 variable could increase Y2 variable but not significantly.
d. X4(Coop_L) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-
test statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(2.150> 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.033<0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that
the increase in X4 variable could increase Y2 variable significantly.
e. X5(Cre-L) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-test
statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(3.244 > 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.001<0.050).
This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that the increase in X5
variable could increase Y2 variable significantly.
f. X6(Ef-L) variable has a positive and significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-test
statistics with a higher |t
count
| than t
table
(5.037> 1.974) and smaller t significant value than
α
(0.000<0.050).
This test showed the decision that H
0
was rejected. The positive coefficient showed that the increase in X6
variable could increase Y2 variable significantly.
g. X7(Fun-L) variable has a positive and not significant effect on Y2 variable (Quality). Observed from the t-
test statistics with a smaller |t
count
| than t
table
(1.508< 1.974) and higher t significant value than
α
(0.133>0.050). This test showed the decision that H
0
was accepted. The positive coefficient showed that
the increase in X7 variable could increase Y2 variable but not significantly.
Coefficient of Determination (R
2
)
The amount of contribution from independent variables simultaneously on dependent variables based on
the calculation in Table 4.6 with the coefficient of determination (R-Square) is as much as 0.744. The results
describe the contribution from independent variables namely (X1 (TCL), X2 (SAL), X3(CBL), X4(Coop_L),
X5(Cre-L), X6(Ef-L), and X7 (Fun-L)) involved in the regression equation on Y2 variable (quality) is as much as
74.4%, while another 25.6% was contributed by other variables uninvolved in this equation.
Conclusion
Based on the research results, the conclusion was drawn as follows. First, case-based learning PAIKEM
learning method has been successfully applied in the vocational education namely State Polytechnique of Malang.
The constructed curriculum-based learning competence (KKNI) through lesson plan (RPP) and syllabus, lesson
plan in GBPP and SAP, teaching material and exercises in Financial PKA course, teaching aids using multimedia
in Financial PKA learning, new learning method namely case-based learning and cooperative learning, as well as
student-centered learning. The survey results showed that the students preferred taught using case-based learning
method and their scores were better than before the implementation.
Second, the analysis results of the effect of X
i
variable on Y1 (Competency) showed simultaneously,
independent variables of X1 (TCL), X2 (SAL), X3(CBL), X4(Coop_L), X5(Cre-L), X6(Ef-L), and X7 (Fun-L)
has a significant effect on Y1 (Competency). Partially, independent variables of X3(CBL), X4(Coop_L), and X6
(Ef-L) has a significant effect on Y1 (Competency). Coefficient of determination as much as 0.621 (62.1%). The
analysis results of the effect of X
i
on Y2 (Quality) showed: Simultaneously, independent variables of X1 (TCL),
X2 (SAL), X3(CBL), X4(Coop_L), X5(Cre-L), X6(Ef-L), and X7 (Fun-L) has a significant effect on Y2 (Quality).
Partially, independent variables of X2 (SAL), X4(Coop_L), X5(Cre-L), and X6(Ef-L) has a significant effect on
Y2 (Quality). Coefficient of determination as much as 0.744 (74.4%).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors conveyed their sincere gratitude to the Director of State Polytechnic of Malang and the Ministry

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JEP
Vol.10, No.13, 2019
94
of Research, Technology, and Higher Education for the funding of this research.
REFERENCES
Anonymous, 2005,
Pembelajaran Aktif
, Buletin P & P, Electronic Version, April-June.
Baer, John. 2005.
Grouping and Achievement in Cooperative Learning
. College Teaching. Vol. 51 No. 4.
Chong, Vineent K. 1999.
Cooperative learning
:
The Role of Feedback and Use of Lecture Activities on Student’t
Academic Performance.
Cook, Ellen D. & Hazelwood, Anita C. 2002. An Active Learning Strategy for the Classroom ”Who Wants to Win
Some Mini Chips Ahoy?”
Journal of Accounting Education
, 20 pp. 297-306.
Depdiknas. n.d. Konsep Paikem. Retrieved from http://akhmadsudrajat.wordpress.com/Bahanajar/konsep-
pakem/feed, on November 23, 2007.
Dewajani, Sylvi. 2005. Belajar Mandiri Belajar Aktif Strategi Kognitif
. Presented Paper
.
Pelatihan Active
Learning held by PHK A3, Department of IESP, Universitas Diponegoro.
_____________, 2005.
Case-Based Learning
.
Presented Paper
.
Pelatihan Active Learning held by PHK A3,
Department of IESP, Universitas Diponegoro.
Dit. Teknik. 2010.
Pembelajaran Berbasis PAIKEM (CTL, Pembelajaran Terpadu, Pembelajaran Tematik)
.
Jakarta: Kemendiknas.
Dale, E. 1969.
Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching
(3rd edition)
. US: Holt, Tinehart and Winston.
Handoko, Ham. 2005.
Metode Kasus dalam Pengajaran (Manajemen
),
Presented Paper
.
Pelatihan Active
Learning held by PHK A3, Department of IESP, Universitas Diponegoro.
Jauhar, M. 2011.
Implementasi PAIKEM
. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka.
Kemmis, S. & Carr, W. 2005. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Bandung: Rosdakarya.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. 1999.
The Action Research Planner.
Victoria; Deakin University Press.
Moleong, L.J. 2006,
Penelitian Tindakan Kelas
. Bandung: Rosdakarya.
Moleong, L.J. 2016,
Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif
. Bandung: Penerbit PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., and Higgins, S. 2001. University Students’ Perception of Cooperative Learning:
Implications for Administrators and Instructors,
Journal of Experiential Education
, 24: 14-21.
Rohani, A. 2004,
Pengelolaan Pengajaran
. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Suparlan, 2009, Paikem.
Unpublished Dissertation.
Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Smith, B.L., & MacGregor, J. 1992,
Collaborative Learning; A Sourcebook for Higher Education.
University
Park, PA: National Center on Postsecundary Teaching, Learning and Assessment (NTCLA): 9-22.
Tim DBE2, 2007.
Pengenalan Pembelajaran Efektif Dalam Mata Pelajaran Pokok
, Jakarta: Accounting.
Kamdi, W, 2010, Project Based Learning,
Unpublished Thesis
. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Wiriatmadja, R. 2005,
Metode Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, Untuk Meningkatkan Kinerja Guru dan Dosen
.
Bandung: Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.