Penggunaan schoology untuk memerihalkan isu dalam pendidikan moral menerusi kelas berbalik (flipped classroom)

Vasanthan Gurusamy

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	L Education (General)
Main Author :	Vasanthan Gurusamy
Additional Authors :	Shasitharan Raman Kutty Noor Banu Mahadir Naidu Chander Vengadasalam
Title :	Penggunaan schoology untuk memerihalkan isu dalam pendidikan moral menerusi kelas berbalik (flipped classroom)

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan
Year of Publication :	2019
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
PDF Full Text :	Login required to access this item.

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Penggunaan platform pembelajaran dalam proses pengajaran semakin meluas sejak kebelakangan ini. Dalam Pendidikan Moral, platform secara talian Schoology di dalam Kelas Berbalik (Flipped Classroom) telah menjadi wahana baharu di dalam Pendidikan Moral untuk mengembangkan pemikiran moral. Kajian kualitatif yang menggunakan reka bentuk kajian tindakan telah digunakan dalam kajian ini. Temu bual berfokus telah dilaksanakan terhadap 6 orang guru praperkhidmatan (GPP) opsyen Pendidikan Moral yang menggunakan platform Schoology. Dapatan kajian mengetengahkan GPP berupaya memerihalkan isu moral daripada tiga tema pembelajaran yang dibincangkan. Dapatan kajian juga mendapati GPPP berupaya mengembangkan elemen pemikiran moral setelah perbincangan dilaksanakan menerusi aktiviti seperti menonton video dan maklum balas yang diberikan di dalam platform secara talian Schoology (peringkat prapengajaran dan pasca pengajaran).

References

1. Warnick, B. R., & Silverman, S. K. (2011). A framework for professional ethics courses in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110398002

2. Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

3. Musgrave, P. W. (1978). The moral curriculum: A sociological analysis. London, UK: Methuen.

4. Cowell, B. (1995). Developing a basis for moral thinking. International Review of Education, 41(1–2), 33–45.

5. Veugelers, W., & Vedder, P. (2003). Values in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060032000097262

6. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

7. Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: Educational potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.553149

8. Biesta, G. J. J., & Miedema, S. (2002). Instruction or pedagogy? The need for a transformative conception of education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(2), 173– 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00062-2

9. Author, O., & Lewis, T. E. (2012). Teaching with Pensive Images: Rethinking Curiosity in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the. The Journal of Aesthetic Education Journal of Aesthetic Education, 46(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.5406/jaesteduc.46.1.0027

10. Giannakaki, M. S. S., & Batziakas, G. (2016). ‘This is a beautiful school.’ ‘This school is useless!!’ Explaining disengagement in a Greek vocational school through the examination of teacher ideologies. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 21(4), 409–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2016.1226585

11. Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. OECD Education and Skills (Vol. 2012). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264174559-en

12. Doerksen, R. (2016). Looking inward to 21 century pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 51(3), 1197. https://doi.org/10.7202/1039636ar

13. Smallhorn, M. (2017). The flipped classroom: A learning model to increase student engagement not academic achievement. Student Success, 8(2), 43–53.

14. Canţer, M. (2012). E-heutagogy for lifelong e-learning. Procedia Technology, 1, 129– 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.025

15. Hargrove, R. A., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2015). The impact of metacognitive instruction on creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 291–318.

16. Gibbs, J. C. (2010). Moral development & reality : beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman. Penguin academics. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233604

17. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 291–324.

18. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (2011). The Measurement of Moral Judgment. The measurement of moral judgment: Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03410130176050

19. Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Contributions to Human Development, 10, 174.

20. Abdul Rahman Md Aroff & Chang Lee Hoon. (1994). Pendidikan Moral. Selangor: Longman Malaysia.

21. Wilson, J. (1972). Practical methods of moral education. London, UK: Heinenmann.

22. Hine, G. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151–163.

23. Oja Lisa, S. N. S. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. Social research and educational studies series; 007. London, UK: Falmer Press.

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