LAPORAN PPL PRAKTIK PENGALAMAN LAPANGAN (PPL) UNIVERSITAS NEGERI YOGYAKARTA SEMESTER KHUSUS 02 JULI s/d 17 SEPTEMBER 2014 SMA NEGERI 1 MAGELANG Jl. Cepaka No. 01 Kota Magelang

Pendidikan ialah suatu proses belajar mengajar yang dapat menghasilkan suatu perubahan tingkah laku pada peserta didik. Dengan adanya pendidikan maka SDM (Sumber Daya Manusia) juga akan semakin meningkat, dengan melalui tingkatan pendidikan mulai dari tingkat dasar sampai ke tingkat yang atas yaitu Perguruan Tinggi (PT). Perguruan Tinggi sebagai lembaga yang mencetak mahasiswa untuk menjadi manusia yang memiliki ketangguhan dan keterampilan ( life skill ) dalam bidangnya khususnya dalam bidang akademik selalu dituntut untuk meningkatkan kualitas pembelajarannya yang akan berimbas pada kualitas lulusannya. Salah satu dari visi dan misi Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta adalah mengembangkan, menyiapkan serta menghasilkan guru/tenaga kependidikan lainnya yang memiliki nilai, sikap serta pengetahuan dan ketrampilan sebagai tenaga profesional kependidikan. Oleh karena itu, usaha peningkatan efisiensi dan kualitas penyelenggaraan proses pembelajaran terus dilakukan, termasuk dalam hal ini mata kuliah lapangan seperti Kuliah Kerja Nyata (KKN) dan Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL). Mata kuliah KKN-PPL merupakan mata kuliah yang wajib ditempuh dan wajib lulus bagi mahasiswa yang mengambil program kependidikan. Mata kuliah KKN-PPL mempunyai sasaran masyarakat di lingkungan sekolah baik dalam kegiatan yang terkait dengan pembelajaran maupun kegiatan yang mendukung berlangsungnya pembelajaran. KKN-PPL diharapkan dapat memberikan pengalaman belajar bagi mahasiswa, terutama dalam hal pengalaman mengajar, memperluas wawasan, pelatihan dan pengembangan kompetensi yang diperlukan dalam bidangnya, peningkatan keterampilan, kemandirian, tanggung jawab, dan kemampuan dalam memecahkan masala

Cost-effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) vs Moderate Intensity Steady-State (MISS) Training in UK Cardiac Rehabilitation

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate intensity steady-state (MISS) training in people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Design: Secondary cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective, assessor-blind, parallel group, multi-center RCT. Setting: Six outpatient National Health Service cardiac rehabilitation centers in England and Wales, UK. Participants: 382 participants with CAD (N=382). Interventions: Participants were randomized to twice-weekly usual care (n=195) or HIIT (n=187) for 8 weeks. Usual care was moderate intensity continuous exercise (60%-80% maximum capacity, MISS), while HIIT consisted of 10 × 1-minute intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1-minute periods of recovery. Main Outcome Measures: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the HIIT or MISS UK trial. Health related quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were estimated with health service resource use and intervention delivery costs. Cost-utility analysis measured the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping assessed the probability of HIIT being cost-effective according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold value (£20,000 per QALY). Missing data were imputed. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Assumptions were tested using univariate/1-way sensitivity analysis. Results: 124 (HIIT, n=59; MISS, n=65) participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 months. Mean combined health care use and delivery cost was £676 per participant for HIIT, and £653 for MISS. QALY changes were 0.003 and -0.013, respectively. For complete cases, the ICER was £1448 per QALY for HIIT compared with MISS. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability of HIIT being cost-effective was 96% (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95). Conclusion: For people with CAD attending CR, HIIT was cost-effective compared with MISS. These findings are important to policy makers, commissioners, and service providers across the health care sector

Cost-effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) vs Moderate Intensity Steady-State (MISS) Training in UK Cardiac Rehabilitation

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate intensity steady-state (MISS) training in people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Design: Secondary cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective, assessor-blind, parallel group, multi-center RCT. Setting: Six outpatient National Health Service cardiac rehabilitation centers in England and Wales, UK. Participants: 382 participants with CAD (N=382). Interventions: Participants were randomized to twice-weekly usual care (n=195) or HIIT (n=187) for 8 weeks. Usual care was moderate intensity continuous exercise (60%-80% maximum capacity, MISS), while HIIT consisted of 10 £ 1-minute intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1-minute periods of recovery. Main Outcome Measures: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the HIIT or MISS UK trial. Health related quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were estimated with health service resource use and intervention delivery costs. Cost-utility analysis measured the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping assessed the probability of HIIT being cost-effective according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold value (£20,000 per QALY). Missing data were imputed. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Assumptions were tested using univariate/1-way sensitivity analysis