Tahap kesedaran Metakognitif guru Fizik Johor Bahru

Aliah Fatin Irwani Abdul Razak

Abstract

Kajian mengenai metakognisi banyak dilakukan dalam pendidikan memfokuskan kepada keadaan metakognisi pelajar berbanding guru. Trend ini dapat dilihat dalam kajian dalam dan luar negara. Kajian mengenai metakognisi guru adalah penting kerana guru merupakan tunjang utama pendidikan dan keadaan metakognisi guru mampu mempengaruhi pengajarannya. Oleh itu kajian ini dilakukan bagi mengenalpasti tahap kesedaran metakognitif guru di Johor Bahru. Selain itu, kajian juga mengenalpasti sekiranya terdapat perbezaan skor metakognisi guru merentas pengalaman mengajar serta jantina. Seramai 70 orang guru Fizik daerah Johor Bahru telah terlibat. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT) yang diedarkan secara dalam talian. Hasil kajian mendapati responden mempunyai skor kawalan metakognitif yang lebih tinggi (4.04) berbanding pengetahuan metakognitif (4.01). Didapati responden dengan pengalaman kurang 5 tahun memiliki nilai pangkat min lebih tinggi (min = 35.82) jika berbanding responden dengan pengalaman mengajar lebih 5 tahun (min = 35.38) namun perbezaan adalah tidak signifikan (U=478.5, p=.937). Manakala bagi jantina, secara purata, lelaki mendapat skor metakognitif yang lebih tinggi (min = 42.68) berbanding responden wanita (min = 32.82). Ujian statistik menunjukkan perbezaan yang signifikan antara jantina dan skor MAIT (U=348, p=.034). Secara keseluruhannya metakognisi guru berada di tahap yang baik. Kajian lanjut diperlukan untuk menyelidik dengan lebih terperinci keadaan metakognisi guru menggunakan pendekatan berbeza. Instrumen MAIT yang telah diterjemahkan dalam kajian ini sesuai digunakan untuk mengkaji keadaan metakognisi guru secara umum bagi sesebuah populasi. Kajian ini juga boleh diadaptasi menjadi rangkakerja awal memasukkan elemen metakognisi dalam pendidikan guru.

References

Abdellah, R. (2014). Metacognitive Awareness and its Relation to Academic Achievement and Teaching Performance of Pre-Service Female Teachers in Ajman University in UAE. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 560 – 567.

Balcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1309-1332.

Bambang, S. (2015). Science Education in Malaysia: Challenges in the 21st Century. A Paper Presented at 1st International Seminar on Science Education (ISSE) 2015 on 31 October 2015 at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Bunyamin, M. A. H. & Finley, F. (2016). STEM Education in Malaysia: Reviewing the Current Physics Curriculum. International Conference of Association for Science Teacher Education.

Cihanoglu, M. O. (2013). Metacognitive Awareness of Teacher Candidates. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences. 46 (2012) 4529-4533.

Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental And Instructional Analyses of Children’s Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.

Damar, S. Y., Ozdemir, O. F., & Unal, C. (2015). Pre-Service Physics Teachers’ Metacognitive Knowledge about Their Instructional Practices. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 1009-1026. Iser Publication.

Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive Load and Classroom Teaching: The Double-Edged Sword of Automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3).

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Gopinath, S. (2014). Metacognitive Awareness in Teaching and Teaching Competency: A Survey on Student Teachers at Secondary Level\N. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 4(4), 33–35.

Hartman, H. J. (Ed.) Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research, and Practice. Netherlands: Academic Publishers.149 -169. 2001.

Hidayah, I., & Zanaton, H. I., (2017) Strategi Metakognitif untuk Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi Dalam Proses Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran. Simposium Pendidikan Diperibadikan. Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Idris, N., Abdullah, N., & Sembak, S. (2019). Metacognition Awareness and Conceptual Understanding of Mathematical Problem Solving (23 - 40). Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 5(2), 23-40

In’am, A., Abdul Ghani, S., & Saad, N. S. (2012). Development of Mathematics Teaching and Learning Model Based on Metacognitivef (23 - 37). Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 2(1), 23-37.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013a). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025 (Pendidikan Prasekolah Hingga Lepas Menengah). Putrajaya: Kementrian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013b). Spesifikasi Kurikulum Fizik Tingkatan 5. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2015). Laporan TIMSS 2015-Trends In International Mathematics and Science Study. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature Review (pp. 1-41, Rep.). Pearson.

Lewis, Regina, "Predictors of U.S. Teachers Use of Metacognition in Mathematics Instruction" (2016). Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 2411.

Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward Teachers’ Adaptive Metacognition. Educational Psychologist. 40(4), 245-255.

Mai, M.Y. (2015). Science Teachers Self Perception about Metacognition. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1).

Memnun, D. S. & Akkaya, R. (2009). The Levels of Metacognitive Awareness of Primary Teacher Trainees. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 1919–1923

Mulendema, P., Ndhlovu, Z. & Mulenga, H. (2016). Perceptions and Attitudes of Student Teachers and Their Cognitive-Metacognitive Awareness in Mathematics in Colleges of Education in Zambia. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(27).

Peteranetz, M. S. Fostering Metacognition in the Middle School Classroom: An Exploration of Teachers’ Practices. Master Thesis. University Of Nebraska; 2014.

Razak, A. F. I. & Rahman, N. A. (2020). Triangulation of Stimulated Reflection and Interview in Assessing Physics Teacher’s Metacognitive Knowledge. Buletin Persatuan Pendidikan Sains dan Matematik Johor, 29(1).

Row, B. N., Subramaniam, S. & Sathasivam, R. V. (2016). When students say “I just couldn’t think”: Challenges in Teaching Skilful Thinking. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2).

Sabine, L. & Everitt, B. S. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using SPSS. CRC Press LLC. Wshington. 2004.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 460-475.

Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.

Sumintono, B. (2016). Science Education in Malaysia: Challenges in the 21st Century. In International Seminar on Science Education (ISSE).

Veenman, M. V. J. Metacognition in Science Education: Definitions, Constituents and Their Intricate Relation with Cognition. Springer Netherlands. In: Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (Ed). Metacognition in Science Education: Trends in Current Research. Springer Netherlands. 21-31; 2012.

Wilson, N. S. & Bai, H. (2010). The Relationships and Impact of Teachers’ Metacognitive Knowledge and Pedagogical Understandings of Metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3):269-288.

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (ed). Metacognition in Science Education: Trends in Current Research. Springer Netherlands. 2012.