ANDRAGOGICALLY ORIENTED TEACHING METHODS AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL GRADUATE STUDENTS' TEACHING PRACTICE ACHIEVEMENT

Rismiyanto Rismiyanto; Fitri Budi Suryani

doi:10.34001/edulingua.v9i1.3405

ANDRAGOGICALLY ORIENTED TEACHING METHODS AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL GRADUATE STUDENTS' TEACHING PRACTICE ACHIEVEMENT

Rismiyanto Rismiyanto, Fitri Budi Suryani

Abstract

Different learner’s educational levels need different teaching method orientations. Adult and young learners are certainly treated by using different teaching method orientation. The independency of college students as adult learners in learning is still oftentimes found in low level. Both college students and lecturers still have big chance to be involved in a learning process which is not yet entirely supported by principles of independent learning.. This condition is quite contradicted with their status as adult learners who should have applied independent learning, and still experienced by the students at English Education Department of Muria Kudus University (EED MKU). The high independency of learning refers to the adult learners that should be involved in Andragogically oriented teaching methods (AOTM), while the low independency of learning refers to the young learners that should be involved in Pedagogically oriented teaching methods (POTM.) This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of implementing AOTM and POTM to the students graduating from vocational and non vocational high schools. This is a quantitative study with the population of 87 students joining Speaking for Instructional Purposes (SIP) classes at EED MKU. Teaching practice pre and post tests are used as the instrument of this study. The results indicate that AOTM and POTM give impact to improve the teaching practice achievement of the students both graduating from vocational and non-vocational high schools when comparing the scores of pre-tests and post-tests, but the AOTM and POTM implemented in SIP classes with students graduating from vocational schools and from non-vocational schools do not result in impact on their teaching practice. However, in a certainly different condition the implementation of AOTM and POTM might give more impact to the teaching practice achievement of the students graduating from vocational schools than those graduating from non-vocational schools

Keywords

Andragogically oriented teaching methods; teaching practice achievement; students graduating from vocational schools

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anderson, W. L., Mitchell, S. M., & Osgood, M. P. (2005). Comparison of Student Performance in Cooperative Learning and Traditional Lecture-Based Biochemistry Classes. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33(6), 387-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403306387

Buck, H. J. (1997). Maximizing Student Learning with the Use of Random Oral Questioning in the College Classroom. Florida Journal of Educational Research, 37(1). Retrieved from http://feraonline.org/fjer/archive/1997/1997_Buck.htm.

Choy, S. C., & Delahaye, B. (2002, March). Andragogy in Vocational Education and Training: Learners’ perspective. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the Australian VET Research Association (AVETRA), Melbourne, Australia.

Christian, A. C. (1983). A Comparative Study of the Andragogical-Pedagogical Orientation of Military and Civilian Personnel. Doctoral dissertation. Oklahoma State University. Retrieved from https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/20245/Thesis-1982D-C555c.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Conner, M. L. (2004). Andragogy and Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. H. (1985). Knowles or Lindeman: Would the Real Father of American Andragogy Please Stand Up?. Lifelong Learning, 9(3), 4-5.

Deveci, T. (2007). Androgogical and Pedagogical Orientations of Adult Learners Learning English as a Foreign Language. Journal of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 21(¾), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.10287

Deveci, T, & Tezcan, F (2017). Andragogical, Pedagogical and Lifelong Learning Orientations of Freshman Engineering Students in a Project-Based Course. Journal of Education for Life. 31(1), 65-88.

Finkelstein, N. D., & S. J. Pollock. (2005). Replicating and Understanding Successful Innovations: Implementing Tutorials in Introductory Physics. Physics Education Research, 1(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010101

Hanson, A. (2010). The search for a separate theory of adult learning: Does anyone really need andragogy?. In (Eds.) In R. Edwards, A. Hanson and P. Raggatt (Eds.), Boundaries of adult learning (pp 99-108). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harris, M. A., Peck, R. F., Colton, S., Morris, J., Neto, E. C., & Kallio, J. (2009). A Combination of Handheld Models and Computer Imaging Programs Helps Students Answer Oral Questions about Mole Cular Structure and Function: A Controlled Investigation of Student Learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-07-0039

Henry, G. W. (2009). An Historical Analysis of the Development of Thinking in the Principal Writings of Malcolm Knowles. (Doctoral Dissertation). School of Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology.

Killen, R. (1998). Effective Teaching Strategies (2nd ed.) Australia: Social Science Press.

Klappa, P. (2009). Promoting Active Learning through “Pub Quizzes”— a Case Study at the University of Kent. Bioscience Education, 14(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.14.c2

Knowles, M. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: from Pedagogy to Andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books.

Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. M. (2004). Just-in-Time Teaching in Biology: Creating an Active Learner Classroom Using the Internet. Cell Biology Education, 3(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-11-0022

Marsh, C. (2000). Handbook for Beginning Teachers (2nd ed). Australia: Pearson Education.

Nikolova, N. Malcheva, T. Z., Stefanova, E. and Boytchev, P. (2013). Is it too late to be child? Is it too early to be adult?. Andragogika, 1(4), 156-173.

Pavlova, I.V. & Sanger, P.A., (2016). Applying andragogy to promote active learning

in adult education in Russia. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy.6(4), 41-44.

Pelaez, N. J. (2002). Problem-Based Writing with Peer Review Improves Academic Performance in Physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(3), 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00041.2001

Peterson, C. & Ray, M. (2013). Andragogy and Metagogy: The Evolution of Neologisms. Journal of Adult Education,42(2), 82-85.

Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., & Shuster, C. B. (2007). Assessment of the Effects of Student Response Systems on Student Learning and Attitudes over a Broad Range of Biology Courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190

Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5%3C566::AID-SCE2%3E3.0.CO;2-U

Rokhayani, Atik. 2015. Rencana Program Kegiatan Pembelajaran Semester (RPKPS) Speaking for Instructional Purposes. Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Muria Kudus

Rukmini, D. (2009). Model Written Texts in the Recommended Senior High School English Textbooks. TEFLIN Journal, 20(2), 180-193.

Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A Time for Telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16(4), 475-522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4

Sealana, R. K. (2014). Examining the Efficacy of Adult Learning of Government-Mandated Content Using Andragogical Delivery Methods versus Traditional Pedagogical Delivery Methods. San Fransisco: University of San Francisco.

Setianingrum, D., & Saleh, M. (2016). Classroom Interaction Patterns in Higher Education. English Education Journal, 6(2), 10-16.

Sharma, M., Johnston, I. D., Johnston, H., Varvell, K., Robertson, G., Hopkins, A., Stewart, C., Cooper, I., & Thornton, R. (2010). Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study. Physics Education Research, 6(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020119

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., &Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101

Yarden, H., Marbach-ad, G., & Gershoni, J. M. (2004). Using the Concept Map Technique in Teaching Introductory Cell Biology to College Freshmen. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 30(1), 3-13.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34001/edulingua.v9i1.3405