Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 

 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Penggunaan Model Konstruktivisme Lima Fasa Needham Dalam Pembelajaran Sejarah

Subadrah Nair, and Malar a/p Muthiah, (2005) Penggunaan Model Konstruktivisme Lima Fasa Needham Dalam Pembelajaran Sejarah. Malaysian Journal of Educators and Education, 20 . pp. 21-41.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
231Kb

Official URL: http://www.usm.my/education/publication/JPPSubadrah%20(21-42)B.pdf

Affiliations

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pusat Pengajian Ilmu Pendidikan.
Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Taman Selasih

Abstract

This article is based on a quasi experimental research carried out among Form Four students using Needham's Five Phase Constructivist Model (1987) in teaching of History. This model consists of five phases namely: orientation, generating ideas (by relating to prior knowledge), restructuring the ideas, applying the ideas and reflection. Samples of this research were chosen from two schools (schools A and B) and the samples showed similarity in their academic achievement. Sample from school A formed the Experimental Group and were taught History for a period of six weeks using Needham's Five Phase Constructivist Model (1987) while the subjects from School B, formed as the Control Group were taught using the traditional method over the same period of time. The research reveals some interesting findings. First, achievement of the Experimental Group significantly enhanced after being taught using Needham's Five Phase Constructivist Model (1987) compared with the Control Group. Besides that, the students' interest towards History was also enhanced significantly after being taught using Needham's Five Phase Constructivist Model (1987).

Artikel ini berasaskan satu kajian kuasi eksperimen yang dijalankan ke atas pelajar Tingkatan Empat dengan menggunakan Model Konstruktivisme Lima Fasa Needham (1987) dalam pengajaran mata pelajaran Sejarah. Model ini mempunyai lima fasa, iaitu: orientasi, pencetusan idea, penstrukturan semula idea, aplikasi idea dan refleksi. Sampel kajian dipilih daripada dua buah sekolah (sekolah A dan B) dan kebolehan sampel adalah setara dari segi pencapaian akademik. Pelajar daripada sekolah A ialah Kumpulan Eksperimen dan telah diajar secara terancang selama enam minggu dengan menggunakan Model Konstruktivisme Lima Fasa Needham (1987) dan pelajar daripada sekolah B pula ialah Kumpulan Kawalan yang diajar dengan menggunakan pendekatan tradisional. Antara dapatan kajian yang menarik ialah pengajaran dengan menggunakan Model Konstruktivisme Lima Fasa Needham (1987) dapat meningkatkan pencapaian subjek secara signifikan dalam mata pelajaran Sejarah berbanding pencapaian subjek Kumpulan Kawalan. Selain itu, didapati minat subjek Kumpulan Eksperimen terhadap mata pelajaran Sejarah turut meningkat secara signifikan setelah diajar dengan menggunakan Model Konstruktivisme Lima Fasa Needham (1987).

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:Constructivust Model, Teaching, Schools, Malaysia
Subjects:L Education
ID Code:6564

Abdul Rahim Rashid. (1998). Ilmu Sejarah: Teori dan amalan dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sejarah. Kertas kerja yang dibentangkan dalam Simposium Sejarah, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 30–31 Oktober.

Abdul Shukor Abdullah. (1998). Sejarah dalam sistem pendidikan Malaysia. Kertas kerja yang dibentangkan dalam Simposium Sejarah, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 30–31 Oktober.

Aini Hassan. (1998). Pengajaran dan pembelajaran sejarah di sekolah: Guru sebagai broker ilmu sejarah. Kertas kerja yang dibentangkan dalam Simposium Sejarah, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 30–31 Oktober.

. (1992). Mata pelajaran Sejarah KBSM – Apakah yang baru? Jurnal Pendidikan Guru, 8, 83–93.

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York:Grune & Stratton Inc.

Brunner, J. S. (1996). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Leadership, responsibility and reform in science education. Science Educator, 2,1–9.

Caprio, M. W. (1994). Easing into constructivism connecting meaningful learning with students' experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 210–212.

Curtis, K. D. B. (1998). A modified research approach teaching style in a high school chemistry classroom. Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University, Dissertation Abstract International, vol. 589-03A AA19727673.

Chang, M. Y. M. (1993). Role of explanations and student centered interaction in science learning: An applied constructivist approach to instructional design. Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University. Dissertation Abstract International, vol. 54-10 AA 19409038.

Dewey, J. (1933/1938). How we think. (Revised and expanded edition.) Houghton: Mifflin.

Formwalt. (2002). Seven rules for effective history teaching or bringing life to the history class. Magazine of History, Bloomington, 17(1), 65–67.

Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., dan Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: Harper Collins College Publisher.

Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah Sejarah Tingkatan Empat. (1992 dan 2002). Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Jasbir Sarjit Singh. (1985). Pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sejarah di sekolah-sekolah Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publication.

King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126.

Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia. (2003). Laporan prestasi peperiksaan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Dicapai pada 25 November 2003 daripada http:// www.moe.gov.my/lp.htm.

Lieu, S. C. (1997). Teacher understanding of the nature of science and its impact on studenst learning about the nature of science in STS/constructivist classrooms. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa, Dissertation Abstract International, vol. 58-08 AAA 19805694.

Maharom Mahmood. (1998). Analisis kemahiran pemikiran Sejarah dalam bahan kurikulum peringkat menengah rendah. Tesis Sarjana Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya.

McBrien, J. L., dan Brandt, R. S. (1997). The language of learning: A guide to education terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mohd Asri Suratman. (2000). Sikap pelajar aliran teknik di Perak terhadap mata pelajaran Sejarah. Tesis Sarjana Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Needham, R. (1987). Teaching strategies for developing understanding in science. The University of Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education.

Niemi, R., dan Smith, J. (2001). Learning history in school: The impact of course work and instructional practices on achievement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42.

Nik Aziz Nik Pa. (1999). Pendekatan konstruktivisme radikal dalam pendidikan Matematik. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.

Nor Aini Aziz. (2002). Keberkesanan pengajaran pendekatan konstruktivisme dalam membina semula konsepsi pelajar tentang konsep-konsep fotosintesis dan makanan. Tesis Ph.D., Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.

Philips, J. A. (1997). Instructional practices and facilities in three selected faculties of the Universiti Malaya. Tesis Sarjana Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Piaget, J. (1970). Equilibration of cognitive structure. New York: Viking Press.

Poh, S. H. (1998). Pedagogi Sains 2: Strategi pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sains. Kuala Lumpur: Kumpulan Budiman Sdn. Bhd.

Puteh Mohamed. (1992). Beberapa pandangan ke arah meningkatkan keberkesanan pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sejarah menjelang abad ke-21. Dalam Aliran dan Amalan Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publication.

Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum. (2002). Huraian sukatan pelajaran Sejarah Tingkatan Empat KBSM. Kuala Lumpur: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Rohana Zubir. (1987). Aplikasi teknologi dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sejarah: Kesan dan masalahnya. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publication.

Rumelhart, D. E., dan Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three models of learning. Dalam Anderson, R.C., Spiro, R.J. dan Montague, W.E. (ed.). Semantic factors in cognition. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Satveer Kaur Bakhtavar Singh. (1998). Penggunaan media dalam pengajaran di kalangan guru Sejarah di sekolah menengah. Tesis Sarjana Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Saunders, W. L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136-141.

Shuki Osman, dan Mildred Nalliah. (2003). Pengantar kaedah dan mata pelajaran Ilmu Kemanusiaan. Pulau Pinang: Pusat Pengajian Ilmu Kemanusiaan, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Stanbridge, B. (1990). A constructivist model of learning used in the teaching of junior science. Australian Science Teacher Journal, 36(4), 20–28.

Susan Hanley. (tiada tahun). (Tajuk artikel tidak dinyatakan). Dicapai daripada http://www.towson.edu/csme/mcpp/Essay/Constructivism.txt.

Sushkin, N. (1999). (Tajuk artikel tidak dinyatakan). Dicapai daripada http:/carbon.cudenver.edu/mryder/ite-data/constructivism.html.

Trowbridge, J. E., dan Wandersee, J. H. (1994). Identifying critical junctures in learning a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 459–473.

Van Drie, dan Van Boxtel. (2003). Developing conceptual understanding through talk and mapping. Teaching History, 27–31.

Voss, J. V. (1998). Issues in the learning of History. Issues in Education, 4(2),16. Retrieved March 2, 2000 from Academic Search Elite database.

Wilson, S. (2001). Research on history teaching. Dalam V. Richarson (ed.). Handbook research on teaching (ed. ke-4). Washington, D.C.: American Education Research Association, 527–544.

Repository Staff Only: item control page