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.