The developing teaching practice model as an effort to improve the quality of mechanical engineering vocational school teachers

Authors

Theodorus Wiyanto, Fakultas Teknik Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
Muchlas Samani, Universitas Negeri Surabaya
S. Sugiyono, Fakultas Teknik Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Keywords

teaching practice models, improve the quality teacher trainees

Document Type

Article

Abstract

This research aims to develop teaching practice program model for mechanical engineering education teacher trainees of State University of Surabaya. This research applied research and development (R & D) design by Borg & Gall in ten steps which are classified into two stages: research and data collection and product development. The research and data collection were conducted by applying qualitative approach through observation, interview, documentation on seven State 'LPTK', education office, teacher profession association, teaching practice student, teaching practice supervising lecturer, headmaster, and teacher tutor. The data analysis in this stage was conducted based on the technique developed by Miles and Huberman. Data validity was tested with data triangulation using double sources as comparison. The product development stage included model pre-design making, introductory test, model revision, model test, model revision, field test, and final model revision. First stage model test was conducted in mechanical engineering department with three vocational schools. The second stage model test was conducted in mechanical engineering department with six vocational schools. The last is dissemination stage in the form of spreading the model yielded from the product development to professionals, authorities, and policy makers. The result at this research is a teaching practice model called "KPrIP2" which consists of four main product components. "K" means partnership between Mechanical Engineering Department of State University of Surabaya and the education office of province/ regency/city in continuous planning, action, and evaluation. "Pr" means pre-teaching practice in which the students do introductory activities in vocational schools to observe and coordinate with the school's department to determine who will be the teacher tutor and what material/subject to be used in the teaching practice II. "I" means that all pre-teaching practice activities, starting from classroom peer-teaching, laboratory peer-teaching, microteaching, and real teaching in vocational school, are conducted individually and independently. "P2" means that teaching service activities must be supervised by competent/professional advisors, i.e. who have the same pedagogical and major background with the students who do the teaching practice and play role as the supervising lecturer of teaching practice I which is continued to be the advisor in teaching practice II. Teaching practice model "KPrIP2" is claimed to be effective to reach the teaching practice objectives but inefficient in budgeting.

Page Range

349-363

Issue

3

Volume

7

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/jpv.v7i3.17923

Source

https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpv/article/view/17923

Recommended Citation

Wiyanto, T., Samani, M., & Sugiyono, S. (2017). The developing teaching practice model as an effort to improve the quality of mechanical engineering vocational school teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi, 7(3), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpv.v7i3.17923

References

Alcorn, N. (1999). To the fullest extent of his powers: ce beeby‟s life in education. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Anonymous. (2014, March 1). Saatnya revitalisasi pendidikan calon guru. Kompas.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman Publishing.

Department of National Education. Undang- Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional (2003).

Department of National Education. (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan nasional nomor 22 tahun 2006 tentang standar isi. Jakarta: Department of National Education.

Depdiknas. Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen (2005). Jakarta.

Dharma, S. (2009, October 27). Penguasaan materi pelajaran lemah. Kompas.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hammond, L. D., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world what teachers should learn to do and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing-Willey & Sons.

Jalal, F., & Bisri, M. (2001). Education reform in the context of regional autonomy: the case of Indonesia. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education and National Development Agency – Republic of Indonesia & World Bank.

Menteri Pendidikan Nasional. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 16 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Kualifikasi Akademik dan Kompetensi Guru (2007). Menteri Pendidikan Nasional. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia NOMOR 8 tahun 2009 tentang Program Pendidikan Profesi Guru Pra-jabatan (2009).

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1992). Analisis data kualitatif (Terjemahan Tjetjep Rohendi Rohidi). Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.

Presiden RI. Peraturan Pemerintah RI Nomor 74 Tahun 2008 tentang Guru (2008).

Rizali, A., Indra, D. S., & Dharma, S. (2009). Dari guru konvensional menuju guru profesional. Surabaya: PT. Grasindo.

Samani, M. (2012). Profesionaliassi pendidikan. Surabaya: Unesa University Press.

Samani, M. (2013, October 10). Pendidikan calon guru diperkuat. Kompas.

Sugiyono. (2012). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Suparlan. (2008). Menjadi guru efektif. Yogyakarta: Hikayat Publishing.