Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303663073
READS
14
2 authors, including:
Udan Kusmawan
Universitas Terbuka
14 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Background
Envisaging 21st century skills appeals for 21st century schooling provisions
(Saveedra & Opfer, 2012). In order to be flourished in the digital economy
era, students need digital age aptitudes either. It is then eminent for
educational stakeholders to make parallel differences such that fit to the
mission of society, primarily in preparing students by all teachers for the
world beyond classroom (Metiri Group, 2011). This implies educational
system must recognize and integrate 21st century skills within the context of
rigorous academic benchmarking in conjunction with acquiring intellectual
capital of citizens as the driving force of 21st century.
Having realized that marvels: What are then the 21st century skills look
alike? The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2013) enumerates three main
types of them, namely learning skills, literacy skills and life skills. The 21st
century dawned as an instigation of digital age, a time of exceptional
progress in technology and its successive information outbreak (Beers,
2012). Never before have the tools for information access and management
made such an impact on the way of how we live, work and interact.
Inevitably, exemplary science education might put forward a rich context to
develop some 21st century skills, for instance in critical thinking, problem
solving, and information literacy aspects. In a more identifiable stance, The
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (AT21CS, 2014) simplified
the 21st century skills into four broad categories, they are: (i) Ways of
thinking - covering creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, decision
making and learning; (ii) Ways of working - involving communication and
collaboration; (iii) Tools for working - encompassing information and
communication technology and information literacy; and (iv) Skills for
living in this universe - consisting of citizenships, life and career and
personal and social responsibility.
Having reflected 21st century skills perpectives elaborated above, we come
to the crucial question. What would be the situation in the classroom led by
teachers so that we are indisputably on the right track to get ready students
for their turbulence future adequately? Joyful learning is obviously one of
the answers for those chalenges. In a more specific turn of phrase, this study
would elaborate and confirm on what factors influencing joyful learning
behold specially by Indonesian teachers in this framework.
Conceptual and Operational Framework
Several factors evidently contribute to student learning and one significant
factor that impacting learning is a correlation between teacher and student
in the classroom (Gill, 2010). Get reflection to when we were in school,
asked Meador (2010): who was your favorite teacher and who was teacher
you dreaded having? We all have had great teacher and remarkably most of
us have had teachers that were not effective too. Then, what quality does as
an effective teacher have that an ineffective teacher do not? It takes a
perfect blend of several qualities to create a truly effective teacher who can
have a listing impact on each student especially in terms of joyful learning
perceptions and practices.
Kindsvatter, Wilen and Ishler (1992) addressed seven assumptions and
beliefs prime to effective teaching and four of them were relevant to this
inquest, they were: (i) teaching is a complex behavior, (ii) teaching is a
learned behavior, (iii) student must be motivated and (iv) teaching in the
final analysis is personal invention. Correspondingly, Gurney (2007)
believes that teacher knowledge and responsibility for learning, classroom
activities that encourage learning, assessment activities that encourage
learning through experience, effective feedback that establishes the learning
process in the classroom and effective interaction between the teacher and
the students as well as stimulate learning through experience were five
fundamental factors for effective learning. In this study they all refer to
teacher with capacities to performing joyful learning in the classroom level.
Learning is considered as the acquisition of knowledge, habits, skills,
abilities and attitudes through interaction of the total individual and his/her
entire milieu. Learning is meaningful if it was structured in such a way as to
underline and call for understanding, insight, initiative and cooperation.
Learning is assisted by motives, regulation, readiness, and laws of exercise,
effect and belongingness. Learning is made feasible when teacher delivers
learner with proper stimuli and guide. Additionally, learning difficulties are
due to many factors within learners itself. Learning is effective when more
senses are utilized by the students and made functional and aided by
understanding derived from real experience (Mondal, 2014).
Furthermore, Meador (2010) examined ten qualities that virtually every
effective teacher will grasp. An effective teacher loves to teach,
demonstrates a caring attitude and can relate to students. An effective
teacher is willing to think out of the box, an excellent communicator,
proactive rather than reactive, and striving to be better. An effective teacher
also uses a variety of media in their lessons and challenges their students.
More importantly, an effective teacher comprehends the content that they
teach and understand how to explicate that content in a way that their
students easily to embrace it.
At this stage, it can generally be expressed that learning outcome through
teaching and learning process depending on learning course of actions
conducted by teacher in the classroom level. Learning process is actually
determined by learning approach applied by teacher. Learning approach
should at least be related to teacher and student traits as well as the learning
ambiance in their surrounding.
In a more precise gist, this inquest come to the general view that there are
several factors determine joyful learning. To certain extent, it can be
identified some of them, including stakeholders, regulation, facilities,
parents, students, curriculum, teachers, funding and employers perspectives.
Variables
Dimensions
Joyful
learning
Y
Y1:Active
Y2:Creative
Y3:Effective
Y4:Enjoyable
Y5:Meaningful
School
governance
X2
Educator
X4
X21:Organization
X22:Guidance
X23:Supervision
X24:Staffing
X25:Admins
X41:Qualification
X42:Pedagogic
X43:Personality
X44:Social
X45:Professionalism
No
Variables
Dimensions
Notes
Curriculum
X1
X11:Content
X12:Outcome
X13:Support
X14:Implementation
X15 : Evaluation
Each
dimension
in each
variable is
measured
by asking
2-item to
respondents
Support
facilities
X3
X31 : Buildings
X32 : Equipment
X33 : IT tools
X34 : Finance
X35 : Personnel
Ten
questions
available
for each
variable
The
questions
are 50 in
total
Regional
Offices: 38
Respondents:
294 (26.25%)
Female:
84.01%
Male:
15.99%
Teaching at
Early
Childhood
32.31
Primary
School
62.58
High
School
5.10
School Status
School
21.42
Private
20.06
Others
58.50
Experience
(Year)
15
16 20
2.00 2.49
27.89
2.04
7.82
6 10
21 25
2.50 2.99
45.57
2.04
25.17
11 15
26++
3.00 3.49
17.34
5.40
54.76
3.50 3.99
11.90
4.00
0.34
GPA
Age
(Year)
Study Length
(Year)
< 25
14.62
26 30
29.93
31 35
23.80
36 40
8.84
41 45
11.90
46++
10.88
<4
11.22
75.51
8.50
++
3.06
0.60
1.02
The second effect is related to the result of the loading factors of the model.
It was quantitatively obvious that the most influential prime factor affecting
joyful learning is curriculum (H3=12.77; 0.32); and then orderly followed by
educator (H2=4.29; 0.30), school governance (H1=10.53; 0.28) and support
facilities (H4=13.22; 0.23). Besides, educator is orderly influenced by
Cut-off Value
0.08
< 0.05 or < 0.10
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.95
0.90
Results
0.031
0.051
0.990
0.980
1.000
0.990
1.000
Notes
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Back to the second effect, i.e., the loading factor results; it has been stated
previously the most influential factor affecting joyful learning is curriculum
(0.32). In addition, the most crucial attribute in this dimension is the content
of curriculum itself (0.81); and then orderly followed by administration
(0.49), staffing (0.30), guidance (0.29) and supervision (0.22). The second
influential factor affecting joyful learning is educator (0.30). Moreover, the
most important attribute in this dimension is pedagogic competencies of the
teachers (0.72); and then orderly followed by professioanlism (0.69),
personality (0.67), qualification (0.65) and social competencies (0.62). The
third influential factor affecting joyful learning is school governance (0.28).
Furthermore, the most vital attribute in this dimension is on organizational
structur in school level (0.71); and then orderly followed by administration
(0.49), staffing (0.30), guidance (0.29) and supervision (0.22).
This study using explanatory-design as one of approach in mixed-methods
procedure. This means that the study is implemented under quantitative
method first prior to qualitative series (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Having
finalized the quantitative analysis, we then follow through with qualitative
series. It basically aims at finding further explanation on the results formerly
obtained under quantitative approach.
From qualitative series, it was found that in general no significant difference
in terms of the final upshots in variable level. All variables and dimensions
examined quantitatively are in the same universe of discourse as it was
found in the qualitative routines. The difference, marginally, if any, only in
terms of the rank of variables involved. In quantitative procedure, the most
influential factor of joyful learning was curriculum; followed by educator.
In qualitative inquiry, it was found that the most influential factor to joyful
learning was actually educator. The most critical attribute in this dimension
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixedmethods Research. 2nd Ed. Los Angles, USA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Firdaus, M., & F.M. Afendi. (2008). Applied selected quantitative methods for
Business and Management (Aplikasi metode kuantitatif terpilih untuk
manajemen dan bisnis) Bisnis. Bogor, Indonesia: IPB PRESS.
Gill,
at
Gurney, P. (2007). Five factors for effective teaching. New Zealand Journal of
Teachers Work, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 89-98.
Ichwan., Puryati., & Sembiring, M. G. (2014). Determinants of active, creative,
effective and joyful learning behold by teachers. Paper, available at
http://repository.widyatama.ac.id/xmlui/handle/123456789/3339.
Kindsvatter, R., Wilen, W., & Ishler, M. (1992) Dynamics of effective teaching. 2nd
Ed. New York, USA: Longman.
Meador, D. (2010). Quality of an effective teacher ten qualities of an effective
teacher. Available at http://teaching.about.com/od/pd/a/Qualities-Of-AnEffective-Teacher.htm.
Metiri Group. (2011). Twenty-first century skills. Available at www.metiri.com.
Mondal, P. (2014). 16 most important principles of learning. Available at
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/learning/16-most-important-principles-oflearning/6056/
Saavedra, A. R., & V. D. Opver. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21stcentury teaching. Kappan October 2012. New Style of Instruction, RAND
Corp. (Santa Monica Ca).
Sembiring, M. G. (2008). The art of great teaching series: becoming a great
teacher (Menjadi guru sejati). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Galang Press.
Singarimbun, M., & S. Effendi. (1989). Survey research methods (Metode
penelitian survai). Editor. Jakarta, Indonesia: LP3ES.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). What are 21st century skills?
Available at http://www.thoughtfullearning.com/resources/what-are-the21st-century-skills.
Tjiptono, F., & Chandra, G. (2011). Service, quality & satisfaction. Yogyakarta,
Indonesia: Penerbit Andi.
Wijayanto, S. H. (2008). Structural equation modeling Lisrel 8.80. Yogyakarta,
Indonesia: Graha Ilmu Publishing House.