Session 2 (3 periods)

Opening (15 minutes)

  1. The teacher opens with a greeting and prayer. A student leads a group prayer.
  2. The teacher checks attendance. Students report their presence.
  3. The teacher explains why today’s lesson matters. Students may ask questions if anything is unclear.
  4. The teacher states the learning objectives. Students may ask questions if objectives are unclear.
  5. The teacher connects the lesson to daily life.
  6. The teacher explains how assessment will work.

Main activities (60 minutes)

  1. Students who worked in expert groups return to their home groups to create a scientific poster.
  2. The teacher explains that each group will make a scientific poster showing Subak system management, temperature effects, methane emissions, and rice yield based on the experiment.
  3. Posters should include experimental data analysis, findings, and recommendations relevant to sustainable agriculture.

1. Learning stimulus (10 minutes)

The teacher motivates students to focus on the topic, spark curiosity, connect to experiment results, and stress urgency by reading and analyzing sample data from the Session 1 simulation, following the student worksheet (LKS).

Consider the following Subak simulation data table:

No. Water Height (cm) Soil Temperature (°C) Methane Emissions (ppm) Rice Production (kg/m²)
1 1 28 310 1.4
2 3 30 250 1.9
3 5 33 220 2.3
4 7 36 240 1.7

Discuss with your group and answer the following questions based on the data above:

PDF WORD

2. Poster preparation (50 minutes)

  1. Steps for preparing the poster:
    1. Poster description:
      • Title: Use a title relevant to the experiment and findings.
      • Introduction: Brief explanation of the Subak system and intermittent irrigation (macak-macak).
      • Experimental methods: Steps carried out (e.g., measuring temperature, water volume, methane emissions, and rice yield).
      • Results and discussion: Present data with graphs, tables, or diagrams showing effects of temperature, methane emissions, and yield.
      • Conclusion: Draw conclusions and offer recommendations about paddy water management in the Subak system and effects on sustainable agriculture.
    2. Making the poster:
      • Students use large paper or cardboard as the poster medium.
      • Students use markers, colored pencils, and drawings for illustrations that support the theme.
      • Each expert group adds visual elements such as graphs, field images, and diagrams to make the poster more engaging and informative.
    3. Collaboration in the group:
      • Each home-group member contributes information learned in the expert group and weaves it into the poster.
      • The home group works together to produce a coherent, well-organized poster, sharing roles by expertise (for example, science experts focus on temperature and methane, social studies on ecological impacts, mathematics on data processing, etc.).
      • Groups display the finished posters in the assigned area.

3. Closing (20 minutes)

  • Class discussion: Each group briefly presents its poster to the class.
  • The teacher and students summarize the lesson together.
  • Post-test
  • Reflection: On a sticky note, students draw and write a short sentence about how they feel. The teacher groups the responses and comments on what was achieved and plans for improvement next time.
  • The teacher closes with a farewell.

Stage II assessment

a. Rubric for individual students in home groups producing the poster (F-R; P-R; S-R)

Aspect Description Score 1 (Inadequate) Score 2 (Adequate) Score 3 (Good) Score 4 (Very good)
Collaboration How well students work together on the poster. Do they share tasks and ideas? Does not contribute to discussion or task division. Contributes to some parts but not fully engaged. Contributes well to discussion and task division. Very active in discussion and offers constructive ideas throughout.
Communication Ability to share ideas clearly and effectively with the group. Cannot communicate ideas clearly. Communication is unclear; student struggles to express views. Communicates ideas clearly enough, though sometimes incomplete. Communicates ideas very clearly and moves the group discussion forward.
Creativity How much creativity students show in the poster—in design, visuals, and how information is presented. No creative or innovative ideas in the poster. Some creativity in design or ideas. Good creativity with engaging ideas and solid design. Highly creative, unique ideas, and strong, informative design.
Critical thinking Ability to analyze and evaluate experimental data for the poster and draw logical conclusions or solutions. Cannot analyze data well or draw correct conclusions. Analyzes data somewhat; conclusions lack depth. Analyzes data well; conclusions are relevant with minor gaps. Analyzes data in depth; conclusions are highly relevant and accurate.

b. Rubric for poster product and presentation (F-R; P-R; S-R)

Aspect Description Score 1 (Inadequate) Score 2 (Adequate) Score 3 (Good) Score 4 (Very good)
Collaboration How well each member collaborates in preparing and presenting the poster. No contribution or only one member contributes. Some members contribute; others are less involved. All members contribute well to preparation and presentation. All members collaborate actively and effectively throughout.
Communication How clearly the group presents information and ideas during the presentation. Presentation is unclear; message does not reach the audience. Presentation is fairly clear but some parts are hard to follow. Presentation is clear, flows well, and is easy to follow. Presentation is very clear, structured, and engaging for the audience.
Creativity How creative the poster is in design and visual communication. Not creative; design is very plain with little supporting visual support. Slight creativity; poster is not very engaging or informative. Creative design that supports the information well. Highly creative, engaging design that presents information in an innovative, clear way.
Critical thinking Ability to analyze data and draw conclusions from the experiment and connect concepts learned. Poster lacks adequate data analysis or clear conclusions. Some analysis; conclusions lack depth. Good analysis and relevant conclusions. Deep analysis and conclusions strongly aligned with the experiment and concepts studied.
Alignment with learning content How well the poster matches what was learned and integrates relevant aspects (temperature, methane, water management, yield). Poster misses important aspects of the experiment and content. Covers most aspects but some key information is missing. Covers all important aspects and aligns with the learning content. Very complete poster with clear links between data and learning concepts.
Audience engagement How well the group engages the audience through Q&A or discussion. Does not engage the audience at all. Engages the audience only once or twice. Engages the audience in Q&A or discussion well. Highly active, productive audience engagement.

Pre-test questions

PDF WORD

Post-test questions

PDF WORD