Pengetahuan Guru Bahasa Melayu tentang Isi Kandungan Mata Pelajaran dan Pedagoginya

Abd. Shukor Shaari dan Noran Fauziah Yaakub

Abstrak

Makalah ini melaporkan kajian mengenai pengetahuan guru Bahasa Melayu sekolah menengah tentang isi kandungan dan pengetahuan pedagoginya. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk (1) mengenal pasti tanggapan guru Bahasa Melayu terhadap pengetahuan isi kandungan bahasa Melayu dan pengetahuan mereka tentang pedagogi isi kandungan Bahasa Melayu mereka, dan (2) membandingkan pengetahuan guru-­guru ini mengikut kumpulan prestasi kerja, jantina, umur, kelayakan akademik dan pengalaman mengajar. Kajian korelasi ini menggunakan sebanyak 370 guru mata pelajaran Bahasa Melayu daripada 108 buah sekolah menengah di negeri Kedah. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan sebahagian besar responden mempunyai pengetahuan yang tinggi tetapi terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan dari segi keupayaan mengajar mengikut jantina, umur, kelayakan akademik, dan pengalaman mengajar.

Abstract

This article reports a study on the content knowledge and pedagogi­cal content knowledge among the Bahasa Melayu teachers in the secondary schools. The purpose of this study is to (1) identify the per­ception of the Bahasa Melayu teachers towards their content knowl­edge and pedagogical content knowledge and (2) compare this knowl­edge by work performance group, gender; age, academic qualifica­tions and work experience. Data was collected through survey using a questionnaire. This study employed stratified random sampling in­volving a total of 370 respondents from 108 public schools in Kedah. Statistical analyses used were descriptive and T test and ANOVA. The result revealed that most of the respondent perceived high knowledge in Bahasa Melayu but there are significant differences in their knowl­edge by gender, age, academic qualification and teaching experience. In conclusion, this study provide an insight into further understanding on the issues of Bahasa Melayu teachers after the implementation of English in the teaching of Science and Mathematics.

RUJUKAN

American Psychological Association, 1985. Standard for Educational and Psy­chological Testing. Washington: APA.

Amir bin Salleh Mohd. Salleh, 1993.lnservice Training Needs Assesment for Ma­ laysian Secondary School Teachers. University of Michigan: Disertasi Doktor Falsafah yang tidak diterbitkan.

Ball, D. L., dan McDiarmid, G. L., 1990. “The Subject-matter Preparation of Teach­ers”. dlm. W. R Houston, (ed.), Handbook of Research in Teacher Educa­tion, 38, 2-8.

Berliner, D. C., 1992. “The Nature of Expertise in Teaching”. dlm. E K. Oser, A. Dick, J-L Patry Eds.), Effective and Responsible Teaching. The New Synthe­sis (hlm. 227-248). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Doyle, M. L., 1992. Learning to Teach: Case Studies of Elementary Preservice Teachers Reflective Thinking About Early Field Experiences. Tesis Ed.D: University of Northern Colorado.

Doyle, M., 1997. “Beyond Life History as a Student: Preservice Teachers Beliefs About Teaching and Learning” dlm. College Student Journal, Dec. 97, 31(4), hlm. 519.

Druva, c., dan Anderson, RD., 1983. “Science Teacher Characteristics by Teacher Behavior and by Student Outcome: A Meta-Analysis of Research” dlm. Jour­nal of Research in Science Teaching. 20, hlm. 467-79.

Fullan, M. G., dan Stiegelbauer, S., 1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change. (2nd ed.) New York: Teacher College Press, ix, hlm. 401.

Goens, G. A, dan Clover, S.1. R, 1991. Mastering School Reform. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, xvi, hlm. 303.

Good, T. L., 1990. “Building the Knowledge Base for Teaching”. dlm. D. D. Dill (ed.), What Teachers Need to Know. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, hlm. 17-75.

Marketing Research, (Nov. 1972) dlm. Gilbert, AC., Jr., 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Construct” dlm. Journal of Mar­keting Research, Feb. 1979.

Hunter, J.E., dan Hunter, RE (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bul­letin, 96 (1), hlm. 72-97.

Louden, W., 1991. Understanding Teaching: Continuity and Change in Teacher’s Knowledge. London: Casell & New York: Teachers College Press, xvii, hlm.  206.

Peter, R, 1977. Education and Education of Teachers. London: Routledge dan Kegan Paul.

Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A, dan Teachout, M. S., 1994. Predicting Job Performance. Not Much More than G”, dlm. Journal of Applied Psy­chology, 79, hlm. 518-524.

Shulman, L. S., 1986a. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teach­ing”. dlm. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), hlm. 4-14.

Shulman, L. S., 1986b. “Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teach­ing: A Contemporary Perspective”. dlm. M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. hlm. 3-36. New York: Macmilan.

Shulman, L. S., 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Re­form”. dlm. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), hlm. 1-22.

Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., dan Richert, A. E., 1987. “150 Different Ways of Knowing: Representations of Knowledge in Teaching” dlm. F. Calderhead (ed.), Exploring Teacher Thinking. Sussex: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.

Winitzky, N., Stoddart, T., dan O’keefe, P., 1992. “Theme: Professional Develop­ment School”. dlm. Journal o/Teacher Education, 42 (1), hlm. 37-42.

(Teks Penuh)

Hantar Maklum Balas Anda