Mengembangkan Potensi Pembelajaran Pelajar Melalui Pentaksiran Dinamik dalam Topik Elektrokimia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/pr2024.6.10Kata kunci:
Pentaksiran dinamik, zon perkembangan proksimal (ZPD), skor potensi pembelajaran (LPS), matrikulasi, elektrokimiaAbstrak
Kemajuan dalam bidang sains terutamanya kimia memainkan peranan penting dalam pembangunan sesebuah negara. Kimia yang merupakan salah satu daripada cabang sains asas telah memberi sumbangan yang signifikan kepada kehidupan manusia merentasi pelbagai bidang seperti pertanian, perubatan, kejuruteraan, industri tekstil, sumber tenaga dan sebagainya. Namun begitu subjek kimia sering dianggap sebagai satu subjek yang sukar dikuasai oleh kebanyakan pelajar kerana konsepnya yang bersifat abstrak seperti yang terdapat dalam topik elektrokimia. Pentaksiran dinamik merupakan satu pendekatan pentaksiran yang berpotensi digunakan untuk membantu pelajar menguasai konsep elektrokimia yang abstrak. Oleh kerana itu kajian ini dijalankan bertujuan untuk mengkaji impak pelaksanaan prosedur pentaksiran dinamik terhadap perkembangan potensi pembelajaran pelajar dalam topik elektrokimia. Sampel kajian terdiri daripada 10 orang pelajar yang sedang mengikuti pengajian peringkat matrikulasi. Prosedur pelaksanaan kajian ini dijalankan dalam lima fasa iaitu fasa ujian pra, fasa mediasi secara individu, fasa ujian pasca pertama, fasa
mediasi secara berkumpulan dan fasa ujian pasca kedua. Tiga set soalan digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk mengukur perkembangan potensi pembelajaran pelajar. Analisis deskriptif dan LPS digunakan untuk melihat perkembangan pembelajaran yang berlaku kepada pelajar. Kajian ini mendapati bahawa pentaksiran dinamik dapat membantu mengembangkan potensi pembelajaran pelajar dalam topik elektrokimia. Kajian ini juga membuktikan bahawa pentaksiran dinamik memberi gambaran yang lebih tepat tentang potensi pembelajaran individu.
Rujukan
Abdul Rahim, F., Hood, P., & Coyle, D. (2009). ‘Becoming experts’: learning through mediation. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction, 6, 1-21.
Abdul Rahim, F. (2022). Integrated and collaborative assessment for empowering learning in postgraduate Educational Psychology courses. In M.Shahranee I.N., Shaik Abdullah, S., Ibrahim, A., M. Pudzi, F., Abdullah, R.H. & Azmi, F.A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Inspirational Scholar Symposium (ISS) 25-27th September 2022, 7th Inspirational Scholar Symposium, Malaysia. pp. 13–31. https://iss.tlgateway.edu.my/index.php/about/previous-conference
Abdul Rahim, F. (2024). Learning through ECAM model of mediation: Winning the hearts and minds of the 21st century learners. Sintok: UUMPress.
Alemi, M., Miri, M., & Mozafarnezhad, A. (2019). Investigating the effects of online concurrent group dynamic assessment on enhancing grammatical accuracy of EFL learners’. International Journal of Language Testing, 9(2), 1-15.
Al-Hinai, I. (2015). Teachers doing research with their own students: A blessing or a curse.Al-Mahrooqi, R. & Denman, C. (Eds). In English Education In Oman. (pp. 75-84), SPRINGER.
Agheshtesh, H. (2015). Dynamic assessment for better placement: Implications of Vygotsky’s ZAD and ZPD. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English, 4(5), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.7575.aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5p.
Barabadi, E., Khajavy, G. H. & Kamrood, A. M. (2018). Applying interventionist and interactionist approaches to dynamic assessment for L2 listening comprehension. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 681-700.
Birjandi, P. & Ebadi, S. (2012). Microgenesis in dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ socio-cognitive development via web 2.0. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 34-39.
Borg. S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43, 391-429.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Practitioner Research, 6, July 2024 pp: 179-
Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Pearson.
Ebadi, S., Karimi, E., & Vakili, S. (2023). An exploration into EFL learners’ perspectives on online computerized listening comprehension dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 13(5).http://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00221-9
Fahmi, Pratolo, B. W. & Zahruni, N. A. (2020). Dynamic assessment effect on speaking performance of Indonesia EFL learners. International of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 778-790. Doi:10.11591/ijere.9i3.20466.
Ghaemi, H. & Houshangi, M. (2021). Group dynamic assessment of the listening skill a ZPD-based study of Iranian TOEFL iBT Candidates. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 11(1).https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.2.6.2021.
Kamali, M., Abbasi, M. & Sadighi, F. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(1), 72-77.
Kamrood, A. M., Davaudi, M., Ghaniabadi, S. & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). Diagnosing L2 learners’ development through online computerized dynamic assessment, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 868-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9588221.2019.1645181.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
Lay, A., & Kamisah Osman. (2018). Developing century chemistry learning through designing digital games. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 4(1), 81-92.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. Guildford Press.
Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A. Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examination amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 301-325.
McGinn, M. K. (2018). Teaching and researching ethically: Guidance for instructor-researhers, educational developers and research ethics personal. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1). Practitioner Research, 6, July 2024 pp: 179-
McNeil, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A teacher educational study. Language Teaching Research, 1-21.
Nurdiyanti, D., Permanasari, A., Mulyani, S., & Hernani, H. (2019). Perceptions of prospective chemistry teachers about skills of writing argument-based teaching material on voltaic cell subject. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042038.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. United Kingdom: Springer.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.
Poehner, M., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337-357.
Prathana, S., & Jirada, W. (2018). The impact of dynamic assessment on tertiary EFL students’ speaking skills. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 145-155.
Rashidi, N., & Nejad, Z. B. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment of the EFL learners’ process writing development, SAGE Open, 1-14.
Roohani, A., Jam, B., Shahbaz, S. Y., & Domakani, M. R. (2018. The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 4(4), 59-70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.751
Sarani, A., & Izadi, M. (2016). Diagnosing L2 receptive vocabulary development using dynamic assessment: A microgenetic study. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), 161-189.
Shabani, K. Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248.
Tochahi, E. S., & Sangani, H. R. (2015). The impact of interactionist mediation phase of dynamic assessment as a testing to to deviate anxious learners towards facilitative anxiety. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 460-466. Practitioner Research, 6, July 2024 pp: 179-
Valdez, J. E., & Bungihan, M. E. (2019). Problem-based learning approach enhances the problem solving in chemistry of high school students. Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE), 9(3), 282-294. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.631
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Developmental of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2017). Assessing English reading comprehension by Chinese EFL learners in computerized dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 7(11). 1-15.
Youjun, T., & Xiaomei, M. (2022). An interventionist dynamic assessment approach to college English writing in China, Language Assessment Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/1543 4303.2022.2155165
