Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah

Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah

The purpose of this research is to determine teaching styles among teachers teaching at level 1 and level 2 in a primary school. This research uses the questionnaire method given to 30 teachers of Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Ampang Muda. The questionnaire s adopted from Grasha Teaching Style. The data c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ahmad Nasri, Nayan
Format: Thesis
Language:eng
eng
Published: 2011
Subjects:
LB1025-1050.75 Teaching (Principles and practice)
LB1501 Primary Education
Online Access:https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/1/s803208.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/7/s803208.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-uum-etd.3991
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection UUM ETD
language eng
eng
advisor Mohd Ghazali, Mohd Izam
topic LB1025-1050.75 Teaching (Principles and practice)
LB1501 Primary Education
spellingShingle LB1025-1050.75 Teaching (Principles and practice)
LB1501 Primary Education
Ahmad Nasri, Nayan
Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah
description The purpose of this research is to determine teaching styles among teachers teaching at level 1 and level 2 in a primary school. This research uses the questionnaire method given to 30 teachers of Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Ampang Muda. The questionnaire s adopted from Grasha Teaching Style. The data collected was analyzed using SPSS Software (Statistical Packages for Social Science) version 16.0 for Windows using descriptive and inferential statistics. The result of the research shows that were used more often that the others. They are the formal authority style, the expert style and the delegating style. t-Test analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the teachers‟ teaching style based on class level, options, subject and experiences. As a conclusion, teachers in the primary school use all five teaching styles which have been adapted to the learning styles of their pupils.
format Thesis
qualification_name masters
qualification_level Master's degree
author Ahmad Nasri, Nayan
author_facet Ahmad Nasri, Nayan
author_sort Ahmad Nasri, Nayan
title Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah
title_short Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah
title_full Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah
title_fullStr Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah
title_full_unstemmed Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah
title_sort perbandingan gaya pengajaran guru tahap satu dan guru tahap dua sekolah rendah
granting_institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)
publishDate 2011
url https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/1/s803208.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/7/s803208.pdf
_version_ 1747827662657683456
spelling my-uum-etd.39912022-04-11T01:07:33Z Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Tahap Satu dan Guru Tahap Dua Sekolah Rendah 2011 Ahmad Nasri, Nayan Mohd Ghazali, Mohd Izam College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) College of Arts and Sciences LB1025-1050.75 Teaching (Principles and practice) LB1501 Primary Education The purpose of this research is to determine teaching styles among teachers teaching at level 1 and level 2 in a primary school. This research uses the questionnaire method given to 30 teachers of Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Ampang Muda. The questionnaire s adopted from Grasha Teaching Style. The data collected was analyzed using SPSS Software (Statistical Packages for Social Science) version 16.0 for Windows using descriptive and inferential statistics. The result of the research shows that were used more often that the others. They are the formal authority style, the expert style and the delegating style. t-Test analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the teachers‟ teaching style based on class level, options, subject and experiences. As a conclusion, teachers in the primary school use all five teaching styles which have been adapted to the learning styles of their pupils. 2011 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/1/s803208.pdf text eng public https://etd.uum.edu.my/3991/7/s803208.pdf text eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Alias Baba. (1999). Statistik penyelidikan dalam pendidikan dan sains sosial. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Chapman, J.A., Hughes, P. & Williamson, J. (2001). Teachers‟ perception of classroom competenciec over a decade of change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 29(2): 171-184. Clive A.J. Dimmock, Allan Walker (2000), Future school administration: Western and Asian perspectives. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chong Lih Shun (2008), Pelaksanaan pengajaran berasaskan konstruktivisme oleh guru pelatih sains dan matematik atas semasa latihan mengajar, Tesis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Felder, R.M. & Henriques, E.R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and Second language education. Foreign Language Annals 28(1): 21-31. Grasha, A.F. (1994). A Matters of style: The teacher as a expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator and Delegator. College Teaching 48(1): 21-31. Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with styles: A practical guide to enhance learning by understanding learning and teaching styles. NewYork: Alliance Publisher. Grasha, A.F. & Hicks, N.Y. (2000). Intergrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching 48(1): 2-15. Juliawati Ibrahim. (2006). Gaya pengajaran guru bahasa daerah Hulu Langat: Satu Kajian tinjauan. Kertas Projek Sarjana Pendidikan. Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Jidarulaila binti Salleh (2006) Hubungan gaya pengajaran guru dengan pencapaian akademik pelajar bagi matapelajaran perdagangan di Sekolah Menengah Teknik Datuk Seri Mohd Zin, Alor Gajah Melaka, Tesis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Kramlinger, T. and Huberty, T. Behaviourism Versus Humanism, Training and Development Journal , December (1990), 41-45. Kerlinger, F.N. (1973), Foundation of behavioural research. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Krejcie, R.V and Morgan D.W. Determining sampel size for research education and psychological measurement, (1970), 30, 607-610. Lim Tzyy Chyun (2007), Hubungan antara pendekatan pengajaran guru dengan pendekatan pembelajaran pelajar matapelajaran kimia tingkatan empat, Tesis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Mohd. Majid Konting. (2004). Kaedah penyelidikan pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka. Mok Soo Sang (2001), Psikologi pendidikan untuk kursus diploma perguruan. Kuala Lumpur: Kumpulan Budiman. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1994). Teaching physical education (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.Physical Education Resources: http://physicaleducationresources.com/teaching stylesmosstonpe.aspx. Noriah Mohd. Ishak, Nor Sakinah Mohamad, Muhammad Hussin, Amla Mohd. Salleh & Nor Kefli Md.Sulong. (1999). Gaya Pertautan, gaya pengajaran dan komitmen terhadap profession perguruan dalam kalangan guru pelatih UKM. Laporan Akhir Projek G/4/99. Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Ramlah Jantan (2006), Hubungan antara gaya pengajaran guru dan gaya pembelajaran murid dengan pencapaian matematik murid-murid sekolah rendah, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Skudai. Roslind Anak Mawing. (2003). Hubungan antara gaya pengajaran guru dengan sikap Pelajar terhadap Bahasa Melayu. Kertas Projek Sarjana Pendidikan, Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Rosni Zamuddin Shah Sidek (2006), Amalan pengajaran guru-guru teknikal di Sekolah Menengah Teknik Perdagangan, Johor Bahru mengikut aras kognitif Bloom, UTM. Ruslin Amir (2008). Stail berfikir, stail pengajaran pensyarah dan stail pembelajaran pelajar. Tesis Doktor Falsafah. Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Sturt, G, (2000), Teaching Styles (online). Diperoleh dari WWW:http://psychology.colchsfc.ac.uk/gary.htm. 30 Julai 2000. Teacher Communication Styles Models (2000), Center for Teaching Excellence, St.Edwards University. Diperoleh dari WWW: http://www.stedwards.edu/cte/communicationstyles. htm. 30 Julai 2000. Tyson, L.L. (1998). Teaching styles as evidenced in early elementary student teachers‟ behavior and reflection. Ed.D. University of Kentucky. UMI No. 9922642. Vicky, T.A.L. (2005). Hubungan antara gaya pengajaran guru dengan pencapaian pelajar dalam mata pelajaran Matematik Tambahan. Kertas Projek Sarjana Pendidikan. Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. London: Allyn & Bacon. Wee Eng Hoe (2009). Siri Pendidikan Guru: Pendidikan Jasmani dan Pendidikan Kesihatan. Karisman Publications Sdn Bhd. Shah Alam. Wan Mohd. Zahid. (1996). Dasar pendidikan kebangsaan: Ke arah pemantapan dan pelaksanaan dasar pendidikan negara selaras dengan tuntutan Wawasan 2020. Prosiding Pendidikan Negara Abad ke-21, hlm. 10-23. Bangi: Penerbitan Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Zamri Mahamod.(2009). Perbandingan Gaya Pengajaran Guru Bahasa Melayu dan Guru Bahasa Inggeris. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia 34(167–92). Zamani b Ibrahim (2007), Hubungan antara gaya pengajaran guru dengan sikap pelajar terhadap bahasa arab. UKM. Zahorik, J.A.(1990). Stability and flexibility in teaching. Teacher and Teaching Education,6(1): 69-80.

Similar Items