Measuring the Productivity of Face-to-Face Learning

Writer : Tundung Memolo

The government, in this case the Ministry of Education and Culture, allows face-to-face learning in the green zone and yellow zone with several conditions. Face-to-face learning is an option and not an obligation.

This policy actually answers the response of some people who want face to face. The government's consideration is the concern about lost generation and the threat of dropping out of school. At first glance, the reason for the government does not lie in the productivity of face-to-face learning.

On the other hand, KPAI regrets the face-to-face policy in the yellow zone. The reason is, there are still several positive cases of Covid 19 experienced by students and teachers. This face-to-face policy for 43% of students is considered too risky.

KPAI added that the SKB 4 Ministers should be evaluated again. This evaluation process needs to be conveyed to the public, because the findings of KPAI supervision in the field of 15 schools in the DKI Jakarta, Banten, and West Java areas that are ready are only 1 school.

In line with KPAI, the IDAI (Indonesian Pediatrician Association) recommends that schools reopen until at least December 2020. The main reason is the consideration of anticipating a second spike in cases. As quoted from Kompas (31/5), IDAI said that planning to open schools includes epidemic control, health service system readiness, and a health surveillance system to detect new cases and track epidemiology.

The dynamics of the pros and cons in a policy are normal. The wise thing, of course, is how we can see from all sides then reformulate it by accommodating both parties.

In general, there are many students who wish to go back to school. They want to meet and socialize with their peers. Some came to get pocket money. Even more extreme, because they are bored at home. They don't want to be confined in studying at home with a lot of assignments. Meanwhile, outdoor play space is limited.

Indeed, at school age, especially at the elementary level, they are still unable to imagine what COVID 19 will look like. Abstraction of children seems unable to penetrate many doctors' information about the dangers of COVID 19 when it hits the body. Children still think it's safe. News of the number of deaths and many OTGs (people without symptoms) has not been able to arouse his fear.

The children still saw the workers passing by. Markets, malls, mosques, and streets look crowded. This image that is seen makes the longing to meet his friends even higher. This of course makes studying at home even more boring, plus the teacher's creativity conveys virtually no filling.

In distance learning, indeed students can access material uploaded by the teacher. Various material links can also be obtained just by writing keywords. But there is something more they are looking for, which is an interaction. Interaction between himself and the teacher or between himself and his friends.

Students learn attitudes, communicate, collaborate, exchange ideas directly which this cannot be obtained in long distance pursuit. What should have been, in addition to the teacher teaching the material in virtual face-to-face, was the provision of another screen that students used to greet and chat with each other.

This heart instinct seems to be heard by the government to teach face-to-face with various requirements such as parental consent, MOU with public health center, the ability of schools to comply with health protocols, and so on.

Face-to-face learning is still considered effective learning. There the teacher and students meet at the appointed time and place. Is distance learning not a substitute for face to face? Of course you can, but there are sides that cannot be replaced, including patterns of direct interaction seeing behavior, character development of honesty and discipline, and communication and collaboration.

The effectiveness of this learning is what makes a productivity face-to-face. Therefore, if it is seen face-to-face with the opening of a school to be productive, then it should still be implemented.

This face-to-face productivity is expected that students can concentrate harder because there will be fewer distractions than studying at home. Better understandings, stories, and real-world examples are obtained from teachers and other students. Greater chance of completing assignments in classroom situations. Students feel more comfortable and learn more easily in familiar face-to-face situations. Access to more information and a richer understanding through the teacher and the body language and voices of other students. Students network with other students from various backgrounds.

I wish face-to-face was run. The learning scheme is not like the previous face-to-face learning. The arrangement of the table that is loose, the scheduling of not entering every day, the essential material that is delivered, the time is not long, learning is attempted outside the classroom, adequate air circulation when in class, and so on.

Conversely, if there is material that can be conveyed by distance learning, it can be implemented as well. It is this blended modeling that seems to be the right choice for teachers in implementing learning.

Finally, this face-to-face meeting, although it is still partial in nature, can be a breath of fresh air for the students even though it has an impact on some parents' anxiety.