Student Mental Effort on Integrated Science Curriculum Content Analysis and Pedagogy
Abstract
This study aims to determine the profile and outlook of prospective elementary school teachers on mental effort on Integrated Science curriculum materials integrated content and pedagogy as well as to know the pattern of integrated IPA curriculum analysis integrated content and pedagogy. The subjects of the research are prospective teachers of elementary school one of the universities in the city of Bogor semester 5 class of 2016/2017 as many as 31 students. The data needed to answer the problem of qualitative data. The data were collected with several techniques such as observation and questionnaires. The main questions asked in this study are the questions asked to prospective elementary school teachers. Principal questions asked to prospective teachers of elementary school, the question to reveal the mental business of prospective elementary school teachers in the curriculum analysis courses. Based on the results of research, applied lecture strategy resulted in low mental effort. In the curriculum analysis lectures found increased mental effort caused by material complexity.
Keywords: mental effort, integrated science, integrated content and pedagogy lectures, curriculum analysis
References
Arikunto, S. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian, Satuan Pendekatan dan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Bravo, et.al. 2014. Possibilities and Limits of Integrating Science and Diversity Education in Preservice Elementary Teacher Preparation. J Sci Teacher Educ. 25:601–619.
Fogarty, R. 1991. How to integrate the curricula. Illionis: Skylight Publishing. Inc.
Gerde, Wasik and Schachter. 2013. Using the Scientific Method to Guide Learning: An Integrated Approach to Early Childhood Curriculum. Early Childhood Educ J. 41:315–323.
Hacieminoglu. 2014. How In-service Science Teachers Integrate History and Nature of Science in Elementary Science Courses. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 14(1), 353-372.
Hindriana, A. F. & Rahmat, A. 2014. “Beban Kognitif Mahasiswa Dalam Pembelajaran Fungsi Terintegrasi Struktur Tumbuhan Berbasis Dimensi Belajar”. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan.
Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?. Educ Psychol Rev. 23:1–19.
Mayer, R, E. Heiser, J. & Lonn, S. 2001. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less under-standing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, p. 187-198
Nilsson and Loughran. 2012. Exploring the Development of Pre-Service Science Elementary Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. J Sci Teacher Educ. 23:699–721.
Ong and Tasir. 2015. Self-instructional module based on cognitive load theory: a study on information retention among trainee teachers. Education Tech Research Dev. 63:499–515.
Plass, Jan L., Moreno, R., dan Brunken, R. 2010. Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge: University
Press.Kalyuga, S. 2011 Informing: A cognitive load perspective. The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 4(1)
Sandholtz and Ringstaff. 2014. Inspiring Instructional Change in Elementary School Science: The Relationship Between Enhanced Self-efficacy and Teacher Practices. J Sci Teacher Educ. 25:729–751.
Sweller, John and Chandler, Paul. 1994. “Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn” Cognition and Instruction. 12 (3), 185-223.
Sweller. J. 2005. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R.E, Mayer (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, McGlasson and Bradbury. 2015. Integrating Service-Learning Pedagogy for Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Science Identity Development. J Sci Teacher Educ. 26:319–340
Yung and Paas. 2015. Effects of Cueing by a Pedagogical Agent in an Instructional Animation: A Cognitive Load Approach. Educational Technology & Society. 18 (3), 153–160
DOI: 10.33751/jhss.v1i1.375
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
