FILSAFAT KONSTRUKTIVISME: IMPLEMENTASI PEER ASSESSMENT DIGITAL PADA MATA KULIAH MICROTEACHING UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN MENGAJAR MAHASISWA CALON GURU
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23887/karmapati.v11i3.55501Abstract
This study aimed to implement peer assessment in microteaching courses as an implementation of constructivism paradigm. Constructivism is a paradigm that supports the student-centered learning process (student center approach). Constructivism believes that the learning process is student-centered, then students are given the opportunity to discover and construct based on their knowledge which can cause students to better remember the material being studied. This research is a research and development (R&D). The R&D model used is the ADDIE model, there are: Analyze, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation. The implementation of peer assessment begins with the development of a web-based system, to accommodate student teaching practice videos in microteaching courses, then other students and supporting lecturers provide feedback through the web-based system. The results showed that the student response after implementing the peer assessment was 87.65 which was classified as very positive. However, in this article, it is only focused on the viewpoint of the philosophy of science where the implementation of peer assessment is one of the implementations of the constructivism paradigm, to create prospective teachers in 21st century learning.
References
L. Cohen, S. Abreu Faro, and R. Tate, “The Effects of Effects on Constructivism,” Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 347, pp. 87–120, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2019.09.006.
Q. Zhang and Q. Kou, “The Course Research for the Software Program Based on the Constructivism Teaching Theories,” Phys. Procedia, vol. 25, pp. 2294–2297, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.phpro.2012.03.386.
K. Alsharif, “How do Teachers Interpret the Term ‘Constructivism’ as a Teaching Approach in the Riyadh Primary Schools Context?,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 141, pp. 1009–1018, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.170.
K. Misiejuk and B. Wasson, “Backward evaluation in peer assessment: A scoping review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 175, no. July, p. 104319, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104319.
B. Divjak and M. Maretić, “Learning analytics for peer-assessment: (Dis)advantages, reliability and implementation,” J. Inf. Organ. Sci., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 21–34, 2017, doi: 10.31341/jios.41.1.2.
I. Fatimah, “The development of physics learning tools in vocational high school based constructivism approach using learning cycle 5E model,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1481, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012120.
Y. Mohd Yussof, A. Rasid Jamian, S. Roslan, Z. A. Z. Hamzah, and M. Kamarul Kabilan, “Enhancing Reading Comprehension through Cognitive and Graphic Strategies: A Constructivism Approach,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 64, pp. 151–160, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.018.
I. Büyükduman and S. Şirin, “Learning portfolio (LP) to enhance constructivism and student autonomy,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 3, pp. 55–61, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.012.
C. Hursen and G. Ertac, “K 12 Students’ Attitudes towards Using Constructivism in History Lessons,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 177, no. July 2014, pp. 475–480, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.400.
S. Janjai, “Improvement of the ability of the students in an education program to design the lesson plans by using an instruction model based on the theories of constructivism and metacognition,” Procedia Eng., vol. 32, pp. 1163–1168, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.02.072.
N. Papan and N. Sompong, “A Development of Training Model based on Constructivism Theory for Teachers under the Jurisdiction of the basic Education Commission,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 64, pp. 665–670, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.078.
J. S. Kane and E. E. Lawler, “Methods of peer assessment.,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 555–586, 1978, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555.
A. De Brún, L. Rogers, A. Drury, and B. Gilmore, “Evaluation of a formative peer assessment in research methods teaching using an online platform: A mixed methods pre-post study,” Nurse Educ. Today, vol. 108, no. July 2021, p. 105166, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105166.
T. Soffer, T. Kahan, and E. Livne, “E-assessment of online academic courses via students’ activities and perceptions,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 54, pp. 83–93, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.001.
D. Duchatelet and V. Donche, “Assessing student learning during simulations in education: Methodological opportunities and challenges when applying a longitudinal case study design,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 72, p. 101129, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101129.
E. Tarihoran, “Guru dalam pengajaran abad 21,” J. Kateketik dan Pastor., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 46–58, 2019, [Online]. Available: blob:http://e-journal.stp-ipi.ac.id/393f7271-9934-4891-ab16-b6f5cf42a9a7
A. Alp Christ, V. Capon-Sieber, U. Grob, and A. K. Praetorius, “Learning processes and their mediating role between teaching quality and student achievement: A systematic review,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 75, no. February, pp. 0–2, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101209.
S. R. Lambert, “Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18,” Comput. Educ., vol. 145, no. November 2018, p. 103693, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693.
B. Bygstad, E. Øvrelid, S. Ludvigsen, and M. Dæhlen, “From dual digitalization to digital learning space: Exploring the digital transformation of higher education,” Comput. Educ., vol. 182, no. August 2021, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104463.
F. Nasser-Abu Alhija, “Teaching in higher education: Good teaching through students’ lens,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 54, pp. 4–12, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.006.
G. Amirullah and R. Hardinata, “Pengembangan Mobile Learning Bagi Pembelajaran,” JKKP (Jurnal Kesejaht. Kel. dan Pendidikan), vol. 4, no. 02, pp. 97–101, 2017, doi: 10.21009/jkkp.042.07.
M. Molenda, “In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model,” Perform. Improv., vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 9–16, 2003, doi: 10.1002/pfi.
S. Bak, “THE EFFECT OF MICROTEACHING ON THE TEACHING SKILLS OF PRE- SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS,” pp. 789–801, 2014.
Z. Lv, N. Wang, X. Ma, Y. Sun, Y. Meng, and Y. Tian, “Evaluation Standards of Intelligent Technology based on Financial Alternative Data,” J. Innov. Knowl., vol. 7, no. 4, p. 100229, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100229.
A. T. Karçkay and Ş. Sanli, “The effect of micro teaching application on the preservice teachers’teacher competency levels,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 844–847, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.151.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
KARMAPATI is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
