Search

All research projects need a forward path method for performing the investigation, making findings and reaching conclusions. In addition, project methodology must include methods that test the truth of the knowledge claimed to have been developed through the project. We address the specific issue of validation in thesis projects in systems engineering (SE) programs where the intended outcome is either an application of SE method or an investigation of a topic in SE. We present red-teaming (RTing) as a validation method for results of SE research. We discuss two case studies of thesis projects which used a RTing method to evaluate a proposed method for doing something. From this we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the RTing method in thesis projects and provide guidelines for use of RTing as a project outcomes evaluation method. We conclude RTing is a useful method to evaluate a thesis project which generates a design or a method because it uses a method not directly influenced by the student’s assumptions in the design of the project. The RTing method is constrained by the challenges of finding willing red-team (RT) members, project schedule, and the RT member’s knowledge of the subject.

performance and affective engagement with ST assessment is proposed as an approach to assess students' ST in both domains. The results can support course change decisions and guide learning experience development. Background: SE education aims to produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in SE and a strong appreciation of the practical value of ST, which addresses the cognitive and affective domains in education. Consequently, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of SE courses in developing students' ST in these domains, an area that studies do not consider. Intended Outcomes: An understanding of the ST ability of undergraduate students in an SE course in a domain specific engineering program in both the cognitive and affective domains. Application Design: A study evaluated the effectiveness of two SE classes in developing students' ST capacity using a combined cognitive and affective assessment tool developed and validated in previous studies. ST assessment is determined by combining ST performance and affective engagement. To observe the transformation of students' ST capacity, a longitudinal design collected data at two times in each of two offerings of an SE course offered by the same university in two locations--Australia and Singapore. Findings: The course developed students in most dimensions of cognitive ST, but did not appear to improve students' affective engagement with ST.

Perkembangan ekonomi di Indonesia dimulai dari masa penjajahan Belanda sampai Jepang. Banyak sekali kesulitan dan penderitaan rakyat pada saat itu,belum lagi mereka harus menuruti kemauan para penjajah. Disini perkembangan ekonomi sangat sulit,karena mereka menguasai semua yang ada. Sampai akhirnya masyarakat mendirikan koperasi kredit dengan tujuan membantu rakyatnya yang terjerat hutang dengan rentenir. Dengan demikian, masyarakat mengenal koperasi serta fungsinya dari koperasi tersebut. Cita-cita Koperasi memang sesuai dengan susunan kehidupan rakyat Indonesia. Meski selalu mendapat rintangan, namun Koperasi tetap berkembang. Seiring dengan perkembangan masyarakat, berkembang pula perundang-undangan yang digunakan. Perkembangan dan perubahan perundang-undangan tersebut dimaksudkan agar dapat selalu mengikuti perkembangan jaman. Perkembangan koperasi masih menghadapi masalah-masalah baik di bidang kelembagaan maupun di bidang usaha koperasi itu sendiri. Masalah-masalah tersebut dapat bersumber dari dalam koperasi sendiri maupun dari luar. Masalah kelembagaan koperasi juga dapat dikelompokkan dalam masalah intern maupun masalah ekstern. Masalah intern mencakup masalah keanggotaan, kepengurusan, pengawas, manajer, dan karyawan koperasi. Sedangkan masalah ekstern mencakup hubungan koperasi dengan bank, dengan usaha-usaha lain, dan juga dengan instansi pemerintah. Keywords: Perkembangan Ekonomi, Koperasi, Indonesia

Sejarah membuktikan bahwa Hukum Perdata yang saat ini berlaku di Indonesia, tidak lepas dari Sejarah Hukum Perdata Eropa. Bermula di benua Eropa, terutama di Eropa Kontinental berlaku Hukum Perdata Ramawi, disamping adanya Hukum tertulis dan Hukum kebiasaan setempat. Diterimanya Hukum Perdata Romawi pada waktu itu sebagai hukum asli dari negara-negara di Eropa, oleh karena keadaan hukum di Eropa kacau-balau, dimana tiap-tiap daerah selain mempunyai peraturan-peraturan sendiri, juga peraturan setiap daerah itu berbeda-beda. Oleh karena adanya perbedaan ini jelas bahwa tidak ada suatu kepastian hukum. Akibat ketidak puasan, sehingga orang mencari jalan kearah adanya kepastian hukum, kesatuan hukum dan keseragaman hukum. Pada tahun 18o4 atas prakarsa Napoleon terhimpunlah Hukum Perdata dalam satu kumpulan peraturan yang bemama "Code Civil des Francais" yang juga dapat disebut "Code Napoleon", karena Code Civil des Francais ini adalah merupakan sebagian dari Code Napoleon. Sebagai petunjuk penyusunan Code Civil ini dipergunakan karangan dari beberapa ahli hukum antara lain Dumoulin, Domat dan Pothies, disamping itu juga dipergunakan Hukum Bumi Putra Lama, Hukum Jemonia dan Hukum Cononiek. Kata Kunci : Sejarah Hukum Perdata Dagang

The purpose of this paper was to develop and validate a new theoretically based scale to measure students' learning of systems thinking in relation to the affective domain in the context of systems engineering education. Two variant questionnaires are reported here, one using only questions constructed using positive grammar and the other using a mix of positive and negative constructs, each applied to a different sample. The first group of 186 participants completed the positive version of the questionnaire, and, the second group of 163 completed the mixed version. Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was conducted to find the factors underlying each questionnaire. CFA was conducted to confirm the better questionnaire version and to confirm the factors which underlie both versions. The results indicate that a three factor, 16 item, scale with a mix of positive and negative wording is the better instrument with which to measure students' engagement with systems thinking. The results also indicate that the three factor, 16 item construct is a better representative of both versions of the questionnaire, whether the questionnaire has only positive questions or a mix of positive and negative questions.

Contribution: An evaluation of the effectiveness of systems engineering (SE) courses in developing students' systems thinking (ST) capacity in both the cognitive and affective domains. A combined cognitive ST performance and affective engagement with ST assessment is proposed as an approach to assess students' ST in both domains. The results can support course change decisions and guide learning experience development. Background: SE education aims to produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in SE and a strong appreciation of the practical value of ST, which addresses the cognitive and affective domains in education. Consequently, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of SE courses in developing students' ST in these domains, an area that studies do not consider. Intended Outcomes: An understanding of the ST ability of undergraduate students in an SE course in a domain specific engineering program in both the cognitive and affective domains. Application Design: A study evaluated the effectiveness of two SE classes in developing students' ST capacity using a combined cognitive and affective assessment tool developed and validated in previous studies. ST assessment is determined by combining ST performance and affective engagement. To observe the transformation of students' ST capacity, a longitudinal design collected data at two times in each of two offerings of an SE course offered by the same university in two locations--Australia and Singapore. Findings: The course developed students in most dimensions of cognitive ST, but did not appear to improve students' affective engagement with ST Refereed/Peer-reviewed

The purpose of this paper was to develop and validate a new theoretically based scale to measure students' learning of systems thinking in relation to the affective domain in the context of systems engineering education. Two variant questionnaires are reported here, one using only questions constructed using positive grammar and the other using a mix of positive and negative constructs, each applied to a different sample. The first group of 186 participants completed the positive version of the questionnaire, and, the second group of 163 completed the mixed version. Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was conducted to find the factors underlying each questionnaire. CFA was conducted to confirm the better questionnaire version and to confirm the factors which underlie both versions. The results indicate that a three factor, 16 item, scale with a mix of positive and negative wording is the better instrument with which to measure students' engagement with systems thinking. The results also indicate that the three factor, 16 item construct is a better representative of both versions of the questionnaire, whether the questionnaire has only positive questions or a mix of positive and negative questions. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Thesis (PhD(Systems Engineering))--University of South Australia, 2016. Includes bibliographical references (pages 216-231) This study contributes to systems thinking theory in SE education by: clarifying the ambiguities in systems thinking definitions; clarifying the role of systems thinking in systems engineering and how systems engineers apply systems thinking; and, clarifying the role of the affective domain in learning systems thinking in systems engineering education. This study contributes to systems methodology in SE education by providing a measurement tool to assess students’ performance in systems thinking (cognitive domain) and a measurement tool to assess students’ affective engagement with systems thinking (affective domain). The measurement tools can be applied by systems engineering educators to measure students’ systems thinking. This study also contributes to the practice of SE education by giving a set of recommendations for conducting a specific systems engineering course that considered students’ cognitive and affective development and experiential learning. These results can be utilised within learning experiences in relevant ways, and thus can support systems engineers’ workforce development. Further research is required to explore ways of teaching to support the development of the affective domain more effectively.

In this paper we address the challenges and importance of developing the students’ affectiveengagement with the cognitive content offered in systems engineering education. Systemsengineering is concerned with developing the most appropriate total system solution to address aneed. Systems engineering methods used to find this solution require applying a systemsperspective while making tradeoffs of the relative benefits of each set of possible approaches to aproblem. However, the practical application of systems engineering is to seek a comprehensivedesign solution that satisfies a range of constraints and provides an adequate solution that“satisfices” the stakeholders. Applying the systems engineering method in order to gain theadvantage of an optimal rather than adequate solution, demands that the systems engineerbelieves in the value of the methods, techniques, and perspectives of the systems engineeringmethod, even at times where the method may seem indirect or counterintuitive to performingengineering work. Therefore, systems engineering education must engage the students in boththe cognitive domain - developing ability to perform the techniques, and in the affective domain- transforming the student’s belief to recognize the positive value of the systems engineeringmethod. This paper discusses: 1) the current gap in addressing the affective domain in systemsengineering education, 2) the importance of closing that gap to enable the effectiveimplementation of systems engineering on the job, and 3) related issues and challenges.Following this discussion, the paper proposes a framework for assessing the development of thestudent’s affective engagement in systems engineering methods Refereed/Peer-reviewed