.png)
.png)
What dominates most? The opinion of preservice biology teachers about factors associated with motivation to conduct innovative learning
Abstract
This article discusses the views of preservice biology teachers regarding the factors that dominate their motivation for innovative learning. A total of 152 preservice biology teachers were involved in this study. A correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between curriculum design, school design, and class design with motivation to implement innovative learning. Data was collected using a questionnaire. The study results show that curriculum, school, and class design are collectively related to the motivation of preservice biology teachers to carry out innovative learning. Based on further analysis, the curriculum design factors significantly contributed to this relationship, while school and classroom design did not contribute significantly to this relationship. These results show that good curriculum design will support implementing innovative learning in the classroom. We recommend some things related to curriculum, school, and class design, the essence of which is the need to seek advice from students and teachers when renovating or building a school. Technology integration is also an important thing to include in the design plan. The government and related parties can use the results of this study in designing their schools or classrooms.
Abstrak. Artikel ini membahas pandangan calon guru biologi mengenai faktor-faktor yang mendominasi motivasi mereka untuk pembelajaran inovatif. Sebanyak 152 calon guru biologi terlibat dalam penelitian ini. Data dikumpulkan menggunakan questionairre. Uji korelasi dilakukan untuk mengetahui hubungan antara curriculum design, school design, dan classroom design dengan motivasi untuk melaksanaan pembelajaran inovatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa desain kurikulum, sekolah, dan kelas secara kolektif berkaitan dengan motivasi guru biologi prajabatan untuk melaksanakan pembelajaran inovatif. Berdasarkan analisis lebih lanjut, faktor desain kurikulum berkontribusi signifikan terhadap hubungan ini, sementara desain sekolah dan kelas tidak berkontribusi signifikan terhadap hubungan ini. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa desain kurikulum yang baik akan menunjang implementasi pembelajaran inovatif di kelas. Kami merekomendasikan beberapa hal yang berkaitan dengan kurikulum, sekolah, dan desain kelas, yang intinya adalah perlunya meminta saran dari siswa dan guru ketika merenovasi atau membangun sekolah. Integrasi teknologi juga merupakan hal yang penting untuk dimasukkan dalam rencana desain. Pemerintah dan pihak terkait dapat menggunakan hasil penelitian ini dalam merancang sekolah atau ruang kelasnya.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Akomolafe, C. O., & Adesua, V. O. (2015). The classroom environment: A major motivating factor towards high academic performance of senior secondary school students in South West Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(34), 17–21. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086098
Amin, A. M., Corebima, A. D., Zubaidah, S., & Mahanal, S. (2020). The correlation between metacognitive skills and critical thinking skills at the implementation of four different learning strategies in animal physiology lectures. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 143–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.143
Arbogast, K. L., Kane, B. C. P., Kirwan, J. L., & Hertel, B. R. (2009). Vegetation and outdoor recess time at elementary schools: What are the connections? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 450–456. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.002
Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results ofaholistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.013
Baumeister, R. F. (1999). The self in social psychology. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology. Psychology Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & DeWall, C. N. (2011). Arguing, reasoning, and the interpersonal (cultural) functions of human consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 74. DOI: https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X10002785
Bizzarri, F., Giuliani, A., & Mocenni, C. (2023). Decision making in networks: A model of awareness raising. Information (Switzerland), 14(2), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020072
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Retrieved from https://dro.deakin.edu.au/articles/report/Research_into_the_connection_between_built_learning_spaces_and_student_outcomes/21003409
Cardellino, P., & Woolner, P. (2020). Designing for transformation–a case study of open learning spaces and educational change. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 28(3), 383–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2019.1649297
Cardno, C., Tolmie, E., & Howse, J. (2018). New spaces – new pedagogies: Implementing personalised learning in primary school innovative learning environments. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 33(1), 111–124. DOI: https://doi.org/doi:10.21307/jelpp-2017-010
Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 1120–1137. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3483
Cheng, L., & Xu, N. (2011). The complexity of Chinese pedagogic discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 606–614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.595430
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.sg/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EDZ5AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA295&dq=chin+1998+PLS&ots=47qB7ro0np&sig=rihQBibvT6S-Lsj1H9txe9dX6Zk#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chingos, M. M. (2013). Class size and student outcomes: Research and policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2), 411–438. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42001539
Cox, P., & Edwards, D. (2014). Restructuring teaching and learning in open-plan schools BT - Adapting to teaching and learning in open-plan schools (V. Prain, P. Cox, C. Deed, D. Edwards, C. Farrelly, M. Keeffe, V. Lovejoy, L. Mow, P. Sellings, B. Waldrip, & Z. Yager (eds.), (pp. 61–78). SensePublishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-824-4_4
Darling-hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-harvey, C., Barron, B., Flook, L., Cook-harvey, C., Darling-hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-harvey, C., & Barron, B. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Dauer, J., Mayes, R., Rittschof, K., & Gallant, B. (2021). Assessing quantitative modelling practices, metamodelling, and capability confidence of biology undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 43(10), 1685–1707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1928325
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education-A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8(1), 80–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
Deppeler, J., Corrigan, D., Macaulay, L., & Aikens, K. (2021). Innovation and risk in an innovative learning environment: A Private Public Partnership in Australia. European Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 602–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211030400
Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 citeria for school building adequacy. United States: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland Baltimore.
Fisher, K. (2001). Schooling issues digest building better outcomes : The impact of school infrastructure on student outcomes and behaviour. Canberra: Australian Dept. of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/2001/index.htm.
Frelin, A., & Grannäs, J. (2021). Designing and building robust innovative learning environments. Buildings, 11(8), 345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080345
Galian, C. V. A., & de Carvalho, M. B. (2021). Between curricula reforms and pedagogical practices: Ursula Hoadley and the “pedagogy in poverty.” Educacao e Pesquisa, 47(e202147002002), 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202147002002
Ghaziani, R. (2020). Primary school design: Co-creation with children. Archnet-IJAR, 15(2), 285–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-07-2020-0132
Gislason, N. (2018). 12 the whole school: Planning and evaluating innovative middle and secondary schools, (pp. 187–201), Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004379664_012
Harrison, T., Burn, E., & Moller, F. (2020). Teaching character; cultivating virtue perception and virtue reasoning through the curriculum. Educational Review, 72(5), 617–634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1538937
Hernawati, D., Amin, M., Irawati, M., Indriwati, S., & Aziz, M. (2018). Integration of project activity to enhance the scientific process skill and self-efficacy in zoology of vertebrate teaching and learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2475–2485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89940
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0
Ibrohim, I., Purwaningsih, E., Munzil, M., Hidayanto, E., Sudrajat, A. K., Saefi, M., & Hassan, Z. bin. (2022). Possible links between Indonesian science teacher’s TPACK perception and demographic factors: Self-reported survey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(9), em2146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12282
Ilma, S., Al-Muhdhar, M. H. I., Rohman, F., & Sari, M. S. (2022). Promoting students’ metacognitive awareness and cognitive learning outcomes in science education. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(1), 20–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i1.22083
Júnior, N. E. S., & Borges, L. F. F. (2021). Curriculum policies for vocational education and teaching work. Educacao e Pesquisa, 47(e222664), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202147222664
Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. L., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A.-M. (2018). Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 301–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9254-9
Keiny, S., & Gorodetsky, M. (1996). Curriculum development in science, technology and society (STS) as a means of teachers' conceptual change. Educational Action Research, 4(2), 185-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079960040203
Lievore, I., & Triventi, M. (2023). Do teacher and classroom characteristics affect the way in which girls and boys are graded? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 44(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942
Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1), 139–156. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0239
Melo, M. J. C. de, Almeida, L. A. A. de, & Leite, C. (2022). Currículos de formação de professores: o poder de agência em questão. Educacao e Pesquisa, 48(e247432), 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202248247432por
Mitarlis, M., Ibnu, S., Rahayu, S., & Sutrisno. (2020). The effectiveness of new inquiry-based learning (NIBL) for improving multiple higher-order thinking skills (M-HOTS) of Prospective chemistry teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1309–1325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1309
Montiel, I., Mayoral, A. M., Navarro Pedreño, J., & Maiques, S. (2019). Acoustic comfort in learning spaces: Moving towards sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 11(13), 3573. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11133573
Mulcahy, D., Cleveland, B., & Aberton, H. (2015). Learning spaces and pedagogic change: envisioned, enacted and experienced. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 23(4), 575–595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2015.1055128
Nahum, T. L, Ben‐Chaim, D., Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O., & Zoller, U. (2010). Does STES‐oriented science education promote 10th‐grade students’ decision‐making capability? International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1315–1336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903042533
Nasution, N. E. A., Al Muhdhar, M. H. I., Sari, M. S., & Balqis. (2023). Relationship between critical and creative thinking skills and learning achievement in biology with reference to educational level and gender. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(1), 66–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.005
Niemi, K., Minkkinen, J., & Poikkeus, A. M. (2024). Opening up learning environments: liking school among students in reformed learning spaces. Educational Review, 76(5), 1191-1208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2098927
OCED. (2015). Schooling redesigned. In OECD Publishing. OECD. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en
OECD. (2021). Curriculum (re)design: A series of thematic reports from the OECD Education 2030 project. Overview Brochure (Vol. 3). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/curriculum-analysis/
Page, A., Anderson, J., & Charteris, J. (2023). Teachers working with students with high and very high needs and their perceptions of Innovative Learning Environments. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(3), 895-911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2177614
Pratama, A. T., Sudrajat, A. K., Anazifa, R. D., & Kurniawati, A. (2024). Factors that influence global literacy: what is the most dominant? International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(5), 2989–2995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i5.28903
Pykocz, D., & Benites, L. C. (2023). A construção discursiva da realidade na Base Nacional Comum Curricular. Educacao e Pesquisa, 49(e250430), 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202349250430por
Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 26–33. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1152568
Rolfe, A., Franz, J., & Bridge, A. (2022). The combined impact of school design and procurement on student wellbeing and educational outcomes. Facilities, 40(7–8), 533–550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2021-0071
Sari, M. S., Sunarmi, S., Sulasmi, E. S., Wicaksono, R. S., & Sudrajat, A. K. (2019). Information literacy skill: An alternative to support biology student’s learning outcomes. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 5(3), 451–458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i3.8768
Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? In National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC (pp. 1-26). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470979.pdf
Scott-Webber, L., Konyndyk, R., & Denison, M. (2019). POE: Understanding innovative learning places and their impact on student academic engagement—index 6–8 ‘Alpha’ survey developments. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(5), 31-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n5p31
Smedje, G., Norback, D., & Edling, C. (1997). Asthma among secondary schoolchildren in relation to the school environment. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 27(11), 1270–1278. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.1997.tb01171.x
Sommer, R., & Olsen, H. (1980). The soft classroom. Environment and Behavior, 12(1), 3–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916580121001
Sudrajat, A. K., Andriningrum, H., Supartinah, S., & Anggrella, D. P. (2023). Accelerating pre-service elementary school teacher students’ problem-solving skills through online case study discussion. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 34(4), 398–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2023.134749
Sudrajat, A. K., Ibrohim, & Susilo, H. (2024). Demographic factors affecting technological pedagogical content knowledge in Generation-Z preservice biology teachers. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(6), 3796–3805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i6.30355
Sudrajat, A. K., Susilo, H., & Rohman, F. (2020, April). Student perspective on the importance of developing critical thinking and collaboration skills for prospective teacher students. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2215, No. 1). AIP Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000558
Susilo, H., & Sudrajat, A. K. (2020, June). STEM learning and its barrier in schools: The case of biology teachers in Malang City. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1563, No. 1, p. 012042). IOP Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1563/1/012042
Tanner, C. K. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 381–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955809
Thuneberg, H., Salmi, H., Vainikainen, M., Hienonen, N., & Hautamäki, J. (2022). New curriculum towards Big ideas in science education. Teachers and Teaching, 28(4), 440–460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062739
Twining, P., Butler, D., Fisser, P., Leahy, M., Shelton, C., Forget, N., & Michel, D. (2021). Developing a quality curriculum in a technological era. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2285–2308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09857-3
Virtič, M. P. (2022). Teaching science & technology: components of scientific literacy and insight into the steps of research. International Journal of Science Education, 44(12), 1916–1931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2105414
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049004577
Wells, A., Jackson, M., & Benade, L. (2018). Modern learning environments: embodiment of a disjunctive encounter BT - Transforming education: Design & governance in global contexts (L. Benade & M. Jackson (eds.); pp. 3–17). Springer Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_1
Wheldall, K., & Lam, Y. Y. (1987). Rows versus tables. II. The effects of two classroom seating arrangements on classroom disruption rate, on‐task behaviour and teacher behaviour in three special school classes. Educational Psychology, 7(4), 303–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341870070405
Zanden, P. J. A. C. Van Der, Denessen, E., Cillessen, A. H. N., Meijer, P. C., Zanden, P. J. A. C. Van Der, Denessen, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2020). Fostering critical thinking skills in secondary education to prepare students for university : Teacher perceptions and practices. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 25(4), 394–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1846313
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20527/bino.v6i3.19379
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 138 timesPDF - 47 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 BIO-INOVED : Jurnal Biologi-Inovasi Pendidikan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
BIO-INOVED Journal has been Accredited:
|
BIO-INOVED Journal has been Indexed/Abstracted/Listed by:
|
Managed by: |
Collaborate with: |
Journal License: |
