Tinjauan tahap kesediaan guru terhadap pemikiran komputasional dalam pengajaran STEM di Sekolah Rendah Daerah Port Dickson

Kugeneswaran Tamilmany

QR Code Link :
Type :	thesis
Subject :	LB1501 Primary Education
Main Author :	Kugeneswaran Tamilmany
Title :	Tinjauan tahap kesediaan guru terhadap pemikiran komputasional dalam pengajaran STEM di Sekolah Rendah Daerah Port Dickson

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Pembangunan Manusia
Year of Publication :	2022
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
PDF Guest :	Click to view PDF file

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengenal pasti tahap kefahaman serta pengamalan guruguru sekolah rendah daerah Port Dickson mengenai kemahiran pemikiran komputasional dalam pengajaran mata pelajaran STEM. Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan menggunakan kaedah borang soal selidik. Instrumen kajian ini dibahagikan kepada tiga bahagian iaitu demografi guru, tahap kefahaman . Kajian ini melibatkan 118 orang guru dari Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan, Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina dan Sekolah Rendah Jenis kebangsaan Tamil dari daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan dipilih sebagai sampel kajian. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan analisis deskriptif dan inferens dengan menggunakan perisian SPSS IBM Version 25.0. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan kefahaman guru dalam pemikiran komputasional berada pada tahap yang tinggi iaitu Min (min=4.08, sp=0.62). Tahap kepuasan kerja guru juga berada pada tahap yang tinggi iaitu Min (min=4.06, sp=0.81). Dapatan kajian menunjukkan terdapat hubungan korelasi yang kuat dan signifikan antara kefahaman guru matapelajaran STEM dan tahap pengamalan ciri-ciri pemikiran komputasional iaitu nilai r=0.610 dengan nilai p=0.000 dimana p

References

Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology and Society, 19(3), 47–57.

Azniah, I., Maizatul Hayati, M., Noor Azida, S., & Nor Zuhaidah, M. (2016). Capability of Primary School Pupils in Learning and Exploring Visual Programing Language = Keupayaan murid sekolah rendah mempelajari dan menerokai bahasa pengaturcaraan visual. Journal of ICT in Education (JICTIE), 3(1), 89–97

Davis, E.A. and Krajcik, J.S. (2005), “Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning”,Source:EducationalResearcher,Vol.34No.3,pp.3-14.

Davis, E.A., Janssen, F.J.J.M. and Van Driel, J.H. (2016), “Teachers and science curriculum materials: whereweareand where we need to go ”,Studiesin Science Education,Vo l.7267No.2,pp.1-34.

Drake, C. and Sherin, M.G. (2006), “Practicing change: curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the contextof mathematics reform”,CurriculumInquiry,Vol.36No.2,pp.154-187.

Engle, R.A. (2006), “Framing interactions to foster generative learning: a situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom”, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 15 No.4,pp.451-498.

Ericson, B., Armoni, M., Gal-Ezer, J., Seehorn, D., Stephenson, C. and Trees, F. (2008), “Ensuring exemplary teaching in an essential discipline: addressing the crisis in computer science teacher certi.cation”, Final Report of the CSTA Teacher Certi.cationTaskForce,ACM,NewYork,NY.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2017). Panduan pelaksanaan STEM dalam PdP. Putrajaya. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2018). Laporan Tahunan 2017, Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025. Putrajaya.

Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583.

Marzano, R., Brandt, R., Hughes, C., Jones, B., Presselsen, B., Rankin, S., & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimension sof thinking:Aframe work for curriculum and instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pattamaporn Pimthong & Williams, J. (2018). Pre Service Teachers’ Understanding of STEM Education. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences

Sanford, J. F., & Naidu, J. T. (2016). Computational thinking concepts for grade school. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(1), 23-32.

Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Computational Thinking in High School Science Classrooms – Exploring the Science Framework and NGSS. Summer 2014

Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 162, 104083.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083

Ummi Hani Mohd Asarani1* dan Siti Fatimah Mohd Yassin2Pengintegrasian Pemikiran Komputasional Dalam Aktiviti Pengaturcaraan dan robotik. eISSN: 2682-8464 Vol. 2 No. 2 [June 2020]

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3): 33. DOI: 10. 1145/1118178. 1118215.

Yadav, A., Ninger Zhou, N., & Mayfield, C. (2011). Introducing Computational Thinking in Education Courses. Purdue University.

Yadav, A., Hai, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms.TechTrends, 60, 565-568.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page