FGD Kurikulum Part2 (11 Desember 2024)

Main ideas / lessons conveyed

1. Purpose of the event (FGD)

   • A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) for curriculum monitoring and evaluation of the Marine Environmental Science Study Program (Faculty of Science, ITERA).
   • Reviews the curriculum cycle 2020–2024 and supports revision and reaccreditation/accreditation readiness for future periods (notably 2025 planning mentioned).

2. Why curriculum is being revised

   • The program is relatively new and has completed one cycle, so major revision is needed.
   • Curriculum development must align with:
     • Market and user needs (work roles and competencies graduates should have)
     • National curriculum standards (including references such as KKNI and national higher-education standards)
     • Stakeholder input (academics, professional/community representatives, NGO practitioners)
     • Capacity constraints and matching (lecturer competence, facilities, and infrastructure)
   • A key theme is gap analysis between:
     • what market/users require
     • what academia can realistically provide (human resources and infrastructure)

3. Institutional/administrative context for accreditation

   • The discussion includes uncertainty and preparation related to accreditation bodies and structures (e.g., LAM formation mentioned).
   • Also noted is the possibility of accreditation through BAN-PT/e-accreditation up to a time limit.
   • Curriculum changes must be documented and aligned with accreditation assessment components.

4. Core curriculum content and structure (high-level)

   • Curriculum design uses curriculum outcome logic:
     • CPL (Program Learning Outcomes) → mapped into course-level outcomes such as CPMK and sub-CPL.
   • Curriculum components include:
     • Compulsory credits from national/ministry requirements (around 40 SKS mentioned)
     • Study program compulsory courses (around TPB 21 credits mentioned)
     • Electives and proposal/final assignment components (capstone/internship/research logic described)
   • MBKM integration (internship/volunteering/experiential learning):
     • Semester 6–7 may be allocated for MBKM activities.
     • If students do not take MBKM, they take bundled elective courses aligned with their chosen field.

5. Graduate profile and competence focus

   • Graduates are described as able to work in roles related to:
     • marine conservation and science-based analysis
     • marine technology and spatial planning
     • data interpretation/analysis
     • entrepreneurship in marine-related sectors (e.g., ecotourism, mariculture, seafood export-like examples)
     • supervision/management (policy evaluation/reporting and fisheries-related oversight)
     • community outreach/extension-type roles (requiring communication/social science skills alongside marine science)
   • Emphasis: graduates should not be “one-size-fits-all” experts in everything.
     • The curriculum should prioritize main competencies, while electives/supporting courses complement them.

6. Stakeholder perspective (NGO practitioner)

   • The NGO stakeholder (Blue Forest Foundation) highlights that graduates working in NGOs need:
     • ability to understand and apply global commitments, translating them into the local Indonesian context
       • examples: nature-based solutions, restoration targets, blue carbon, and national action plans
     • competence in project management and governance/monitoring/learning loops
     • collaboration capacity and adaptation to evolving stakeholder environments
     • evidence use: NGO work often depends on strong data and evidence generation
   • They also note that what is often weak is deep NGO-context project execution, including:
     • project management thinking
     • monitoring and evaluation skills
     • finance/logistics/resource management
     • advocacy and policy strengthening skills

7. Nomenclature (study program naming) concerns

   • Recurring issue: the study program name (e.g., Marine Environmental Science / Ilmu Kelautan vs marine science variants) is not among the most common options.
   • Potential effects include:
     • recognition
     • student perception and intake trends
     • administrative alignment with government systems and civil service categorization
   • Discussion also notes:
     • name changes may create risks for accreditation recognition/compatibility
     • possible standardization through professional forums

8. How “marine science” relates to “fisheries cluster”

   • The forum discusses whether marine science should be placed in the fisheries cluster.
   • The argument: marine science should support sustainable fisheries resource management.
   • Clustering differences should not remove marine science core content; overlap exists, but competence depth and application differ.

9. Pedagogy and implementation methods

   • Highlights the importance of competency-based education and appropriate learning methods.
   • Example given: PBL (Problem-Based Learning) and student-centered learning to build attitudes/skills through practice—not only lectures.
   • MBKM/internship/capstone are positioned as mechanisms to reinforce attitude, discipline, responsibility, and applied competence.

---

Methodology / process elements explicitly emphasized

A. Curriculum development / revision workflow (competency logic)

• Start from the graduate profile and market/user needs
  • Map who the graduates serve (academia, government, NGOs, consultants, entrepreneurs, educators, etc.)
• Align learning outcomes with national qualification frameworks
  • Ensure curriculum outcomes match KKNI / national higher-education standards as referenced in the discussion
• Build an outcome hierarchy
  • Translate CPL into:
    • course learning achievements (CPMK, sub-CPL/CPL mapping)
    • course competencies and content that are progressive and justified
• Ensure course sequencing and progressive achievement
  • Outcomes should increase in cognitive complexity (e.g., aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy levels mentioned)
  • Avoid jumping directly into application without the foundational understanding required
• Match curriculum with institutional capacity
  • Verify availability/feasibility of:
    • lecturers (including possible use of non-permanent/external lecturers where appropriate)
    • facilities and infrastructure
• Document and evidence everything for accreditation
  • Accreditation readiness requires that the documented curriculum logic matches delivered teaching and learning evidence

B. MBKM integration approach

• Reserve later semesters (notably Semester 6–7) for MBKM activities (internships, volunteering, field learning, etc.)
• If students do not take MBKM:
  • provide bundled elective courses aligned with the intended specialization and competency outcomes

C. Stakeholder-informed gap reduction

• Use stakeholder reviews to refine:
  • course relevance to real NGO/project needs
  • competencies that may be insufficiently covered (project management, M&E, advocacy/policy support, resource/finance management)
• Apply gap analysis to decide whether improvements should come from:
  • curriculum content changes
  • teaching method changes
  • adding electives / strengthening core courses
  • adjusting internship/fieldwork design

---

Speakers / sources featured (identified from subtitles)

1. Moderator / MC

• Mrs. Ika (MC / opening welcome referenced)

2. University leadership / formal speakers

• Prof. Ferdinand (resource person from IPB)
• Prof. Yulianda (chair/leader in opening remarks)
• Mr. Yusran Nurdin (Blue Forest Foundation chairman; stakeholder speaker)

3. Other named academic/professional participants

• Mr. Mizan (welcome/presenter in curriculum review context)
• Mr. Arhan (mentioned during introductions; participant/student)
• Dr. PR permanari SSI MSI (respected program coordinator mentioned in opening)
• Dr. man ald (mentioned alongside the program coordinator in opening)
• Prof. Dinan (speaks in review/presentation segment; later responds to questions)
• Mr. Asari / Muhammad asarira (appears as Muhammad Asarira, M.Si in subtitles; delivered curriculum presentation)
• Mr. Rizki Dimas (questioner)
• Pak Baik (questioner/presenter)
• Mr. Muhammad arajab (questioner/participant)
• Mr. Mu… “Arhan” (appears again in question segment)
• Mr. Mezan (spelled variably; appears as participant linked to curriculum cycle discussion)
• Mr. Muhammad (name appears in introductions and program presentation context)
• Prof. Ditrik (LAM head mentioned in administrative discussion)

4. Stakeholder institution

• Blue Forest Foundation (NGO) — representative: Mr. Yusran Nurdin

5. Other referenced bodies / organizations (not speakers)

• IPB (Institut Pertanian Bogor)
• KKNI
• BAN-PT
• LAM
• Kementerian (higher-education/national education frameworks mentioned)
• Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP) / KKP
• ASEAN / ADB (referenced in stakeholder narrative context, not as speakers)