PRACTICUM CONTENT TEACHER PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (APKG PRAKTIK) IN TECHNICAL VOCATION FIELD A Study on Development of Evaluation Tool for PPL Students Assigned To Teaching Practicum Content in Vocational Schools Dr Soeprijanto State University of Jakarta ABSTRACT This study aims at obtaining valid and reliable instruments for evaluating performance of teachers and PPL students in teaching practicum content subjects. The developed instruments covers four variables: (1) Planning of Practicum Content Teaching, (2) Preparation of Practicum Content Teaching, (3) Implementation of Practicum Content Teaching, and (4) Administration of Practicum Facilities. Tests on validity and reliability of instruments were performed in three stages: (1) Panel of experts, (2) varied sample test, and (3) population test. Population of the study consists of teachers and teacher candidates of technical vocational secondary schools (SMK) majoring in Civil, Electronics, Electrical, Mechanical and Automotive engineering. Samples were selected by means of multi-stage random sampling performed in the following stages: first the SMK sample was determined; then practicing teachers and/or teacher candidates the schools were randomly selected as samples (respondents). Calibration results show that there is significant difference in the performance of SMK 26 Jakarta teachers compared to that of the BLPT Surabaya teachers. This is signified by the value of t count (3.04) which is greater than that of the t table (2.02). Meanwhile, tests on SMK 26 Jakarta teachers signify significant difference between performance of teachers who are perceived by the headmaster as capable of teaching practicum content and that of those who are less capable. This is indicated by the t count of 3.05 t table of 2.09. The same condition applies to BLPT Surabaya teachers with t count of 4.224 t table of 2.09. Hence, the instrument is able to discriminate performance of teachers who are capable of teaching practicum content from that of teachers who are less capable. This implies empirical construct validity of the developed instruments.
Results of reliability tests on each instrument signify high reliability: (1) reliability of the Planning of Practicum Content Teaching instrument has α=0.946; the Preparation of Practicum Content Teaching instrument is of α=0.895, the Implementation of Practicum Content Teaching instrument is of α=0.925, and the Administration of Practicum Facilities instrument of α=0.938. to sum up, it can be concluded that the instruments can be used to measure performance of technical vocation teachers and/or teacher candidates.
A. INTRODUCTION Issue in supply of quality teacher particularly vocational school teachers is the problem related to availability of sufficient number of teachers who meet the professional requirements to teach practicum in existing educational institutions. Some novice teachers who are graduates of Teacher Education Institutions or LPTK are generally not yet ready to teach practicum in school laboratories (workshop installation). They would rather teach theoretical content. This indicates problems related to quality of pre-service teacher education as well as in-service teacher training. Pre-service teacher education on applying knowledge, attitude and skills with a view to developing professional teachers is carried out through Field Teaching Practice (PPL). As a forum for training LPTK students, PPL still experiences some problems, particularly in relation to its preparation and evaluation system. Major problem in its preparation stage is related to the question how much students have been provided with knowledge and skils that reflect current development in the school system such as instructional curriculum, materials, management and other things related to teacher responsibilities. Problem related to the evaluation system is, among others, limited availability of valid and reliable instruments for assessing teacher competency (APKG). Furthermore, existing APKG instrument that has been used for assessing PPL students has its limitations: (1) it can only assess general teaching competence of teachers and prospective teachers and (2) it cannot yet assess overall essential competence required of teachers (PGSM, 1997:p.45). Therefore, more specific instrument is required to obtain concrete and comprehensive description of teachers essential competence required of them. Availability of such instrument is expected to be able to, at least, overcome problems faced by PPL students in their field work. So far, the same instrument has been employed in assessing students performance in teaching practicum content in laboratories and theoretical content in the classroom. Similarly, SMK teacher candidates who are teaching practicum content has been assessed by means of the same instrument employed for assessing SLTP and SMU teacher candidates who are teaching theoretical content. It needs to be considered that teaching practicum content, particularly in the field of technical vocation, involved a specific teaching-learning process. Technical vocation specific pedagogy involves, among others, the teaching of skills practices in addition to theoretical content. In addition, teaching practicum content requires more specific focus related to planning, preparation and implementation of the work procedures. Thus, there is a need for an instrument that is relevant to the teaching of practicum content characteristics.
With reference to the background discussed above, this study focuses on the following problem: How to develop valid instrument for assessing teacher competence (APKG-Praktik) to measure the performance of teachers and teaher candidates who are/will be teaching practicum content in technical vocation field? and How is a reliable APKG- Praktik for assessing performance of teachers who teach practicum content in technical vocation field? The first problem can be broken down into several problems as follows: (1) Does the developed APKG-Praktik have face-validity? (2) Does the developed APKG-Praktik have contentvalidity? (3) Do the developed items in the instrument build a construct of the indicators? (4) Is developed the APKG-Praktik able to discriminate practicum teachers who are described by the School Principal as having valid performance from those described by the School Principal as having invalid performance? B. THEORETICAL REVIEW 1. Performance of Practicum Content Teachers The word performance literally means working ability or capacity or demonstrated work achievements. In the last one, performance is the total work behaviour of a worker (Grifin,1992:173). According to Carroll (1977), performance is the results of produced efforts, while the level of performance is relatively measured against some standards called productivity standards. According to Alewine (in Timpe, 2000: 6-7), standards of performance can be developed for individuals with reference to their job descriptions. Tasks and responsibilities of workers in their respective positions can be described and standardized and be used as guidelines for observing their behaviors with a view to determine the level of demonstrated performance. When teacher is concerned, teacher performance is nothing other than teacher ability to demonstrate or carry out teacher tasks. Teacher has the task or responsibility to educate, teach and train. To educate means to further develop student understanding of knowledge and technology and to train means developing skills within students (Usman, 2001:6-7). Reddy (1998:122) asserts that teacher performance emphasizes more on Dunkin and Biddle s concept in which process variable is more important than the outcome variable.
Holding on Dunkin and Biddle s concept, process variable refers to teacher behaviors in teaching and/or training, from planning, preparing and implementing teaching in the classroom. Thus, it can be concluded that the performance of practicum content teachers is basically the total behaviors of teachers in performing its task to teach practicum content from the stage of planning to preparation, implementation, and administration of practicum facilities. 2. Assessment of Teacher Performance There are five events that are usually evaluated throughout a teacher s career; they are: (1) when one enters teacher education, (2) on training, (3) the most fundamental assessment that is, when one is teaching, (4) assessment by identifying points in the diagram that is marked by students learning experience, and (5) measuring outcome that include knowledge, competence and attitude of students following learning (Reddy, 998:224-225). Alkin (1992:1345) suggests that there are three variables that often set as target in evaluating or assessing teachers. They are teacher effectiveness, teacher performance, and teacher competency. Teacher effectiveness refers to the effect of teacher performance on students. Teacher ability to assist students in achieving the expected learning outcome is called teacher effectiveness. The extent of teacher effectiveness in performing his/her task as an educator and teacher depends on two things. Firstly, it depends on what the teacher is able to do on teaching, which is called teacher performance. Secondly, it depends on what the teacher knows and master, which is called teacher competency. Alkin (1992:986) also asserts that assessment of teacher performance can be performed through several ways, among others: classroom observation, teacher-evaluation based assessment, measurement of student learning achievement or the number of students that the teacher considers have successfully accomplished a course. The above discussion leads us to conclude that, in nature, assessment of teacher performance is an effort to measure and conclude on what a teacher can do (behavior) throughout a teaching/learning process beginning from the planning stage to preparationand implementation of teaching to the administration of practicum facilities by means of one or more of the following three methods: observation, teacher-evaluation based assessment, and/or measurement of student learning achievement
C. INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND PROCEDURES 1. Development of Performance Assessment Instrument Development of Performance Assessment Instrument is for obtaining standardized instrument. That is, an instrument that is developed through empirical ways throughout several tests. According to Ebel, the form of standardized tests refers to those developed by experts, is scheduled for continuous try-out, analysis and revision, including the related manuals to test administrationand and scoring technique (Ebel & Prisbie, 1991:286). Thus, standardization process basically covers testing/try-outs, revision and setting up the related manuals to administration and scoring technique. Gronlund (1993:115) states that measurement of performance is effective when systematic approach is employed with regards to the following steps: (1) specify indicators of performance to be measured, (2) decide on the focus of assessment (procedure or outcome), (3) decide on the level of realism, (4) decide on the performance situation, and (5) decide on the method of investigation, recording and scoring. Such approach shall provide directions on how to develop the performance instrument. Lambert (1979:23) asserts that key elements of assessment of performance include: (1) job analysis, (2) job description, (3) selection of area of assessment, (4) determining standards of performance, (5) reviewing assessment of performance, (6) supervision and planning of treatment and training, and (7) re-reviewing assessment of performance that has been done. With reference to the above discussion, the setting up of this test on practicum content teacher performance shall be performed in the following stages: (1) establishing objectives, (2) performing job analysis, (3) determining focus of assessment, (4) identifying and setting up theoretical base with a view to determine specification and standards of performance, (5) deciding on performance situation, (6) deciding on the observation method and technique, (7) determining the scale and criterion of performance, (8) determining the proportion and developing items, 9) determining characteristics of item score, (10) performing try-outs to test validity and reliability of instrument, and (11) setting up manuals for test administration.
2. Test Objectives The general objectives of this APKG-Praktik development is to obtain an instrument that is valid and reliable by tests to be used as a tool in measuring the performance of Practicum Content teachers in technical vocation area. The specific objectives of this APKG-Praktik development is to: (1) formulate performance standards of Practicum Content teachers in technical vocation area, (2) obtain valid and reliable instrument to measure performance of Practicum Content teachers in technical vocation area, (3) obtain manuals for administering measurement of Practicum Content teachers performance, (4) obtain manuals for results of performance measurement of Practicum Content teachers in technical vocation area. Furthermore, development of the instrument is expected to serve as part of teacher performance evaluation tool kit for promotion purposes and deciding on the training needed to promote quality of teacher services. This instrument is also expected to be complementary to existing APKG set particularly as an evaluation tool in exams involving students who are undertaking PPL in Vocational schools and assigne to performing practicum content teaching in workshop or laboratory installations. 3. Job Description of Practicum Content Teachers Major task of a practicum content teacher includes planning, preparation and implementation of practicum, and administration of practicum facilities. The planning of practicum content teaching covers determining topic and formulating teaching objectives, analysis of work, determining outline of teaching, planning of work information, setting up design of classroom management and teaching evaluation. Teaching preparation includes preparing hand tools (measurement tools, engine/motor), power supply (electricity), software/practicum equipment (work plan, job-sheet, information sheet, assessment sheet, and operational sheet) and practicum materials in addition to ensuring safety in work. Implementation of teaching includes opening teaching session or teaching shop-talk, presentation or demonstration or application or execution of student practicum, closing teaching session or concluding shop-talk, and evaluation. Administration of practicum facilities and results includes: recording of practicum equipments in the log book, storing equipment, maintenance
of practicum machineries, recording of practicum materials in the log book, and entering data on results of practicum. 4. Focus of Assessment Assessment of practicum content teaching can be focussed on either the process or outcome. In this context, development of instrument for assessing performance of practicum content teachers is focussed on the process of teaching practicum content, from the stage of planning, preparation and implementation of teaching, to administration of the practicum facilities and outcome of teaching. 5. Specification and Standards of Performance With reference to the literature review, operational definition of variables to measure is as follows: performance of practicum content teachers in technical vocation field is the total behaviors of the teacher in teaching practicum content that demonstrates the level of effectiveness in employing work procedures from the stage of planning, preparation and implementation of teaching, to administration of practicum facilities in technical vocation that includes: civil, electronic, electrical, mechanical and automotive engineering. Based on the above definition, APKG-Praktik is developed in four sets of instruments. They are: 5.1. APKG-P01 on Planning of Practicum Content Teaching Its dimensions are as follows: (1) Selecting topic and determining objectives, (2) Analysing skills and Organising teaching materials, (3) Selecting and deciding on pictures, equipments and materials, (4) Setting up teaching scenario and strategies, (5) Establishing work safety, (6) Design of classroom management, and (7) Design of evaluation of process and teaching/learning outcome. 5.2. APKG-P02 on Preparation of Practicum Content Teaching Its dimensions include: (1) Preparation of equipment and machineries, (2) Preparation of materials, (3) Supporting preparation for practicum, (4) Work safety preparation 5.3. APKG-P03 on Implementation of Practicum Content Teaching Its dimensions are as follows: 1) Opening teaching session, (2) Presentation, (3) Imitation or execution of practicum by students, (4)
Closing of teaching session, and (5) Evalaution of practicum teaching activities. 5.4. APKG-P04 on Administration of Practicum Facilities Its dimensions cover: (1) Administration of equipment/machineries, (2) Administration of materials, (3) Administration of practicum teaching documents, (4) Administration of practicum teaching outcome. The above dimensions are then developed into instrument specification. 6. Selection of Work Situation As the title suggests, performance test requires students to demonstrate their skills in conditions resembling actual work situations (Leighbody & Kidd, 1968:12). Performance test can be classified into the following situations: (1) Written test; (2) Identification Test; (3) Structured Test; (4) Simulation; and (5) Work Sample. 7. Observation Method and Technique Method employed in this performance test is systematic observation by marking responses (cheklist) against available descriptors. Each item has five descriptors which are actually performance standards of the respective item. 8. Instrument Items Intrument item is designed for each indicator. Dimension is described as indicator. Each indicator is developed into performance standard and, then, into instrument item. Thus, the number of instrument items is equivalent the number of existing indicators; that is, 26 items in APKG- P01, 15 items in APKG-P02, 19 items in APKG-P03 9. Scoring Scale Assessment scale is established for assigning marks to individuals. This is done with reference to manuals on individual s mastery on intended criterion to be measured. Weight of scale is set out by means of different techniques based on certain assumptions. Instrument is developed by directly assigning weight within an interval scale.
The scale used in this instrument is a 5-option branch scale. Options are given based on the number of descriptors or performance standards emerging at the time of observation. When 1 descriptor appears, it means the choice is on option 1; similarly, when 5 descriptors appear, this means the choice is on option 5. 10. Scoring The assignment of score on APKG-Praktik items is for obtaining objectivity in summarising teacher behaviors at the time of practicum teaching. This score is then used as the basis for rationale decision making on the level of teacher s performance. The score is determined based on teacher s level of achievement of the performance standards in organising practicum teaching. There are three levels of scoring that are developed in this instrument. They are: (1) item score, (2) dimension score, and (3) score by instrument. Each instrument item has assessment interval between 1 and 5 except for items that are impossible for teachers to perform due to certain conditions. Table 1. Weighting of Each Practicum Teaching Performance Instrument No Instrument Inst. Code Weight Notes 1. Planning of Practicum Teaching 2. Preparation of Practicum Teaching 3. Implementation of Practicum Teaching APKG-P01 35% APKG-P02 25 % APKG-P03 40% TOTAL 100% Therefore, the formula for calculating the final results is as follows: Total Score (NA) = 0,35 (Si 01) + 0,25 (Si 02) + 0,40 (Si 03)
11. Data Analysis Analysis of data of the instrument try-out has been performed to find out validity and reliability quality of instrument dimensions and descriptors a. Analysis of Validity Validity test was performed in two stages; i.e. tests of content and construct validity. Test on content validity includes test on face validity, which was performed for expert judgement through a panel. Assessment by panelists was aimed at identifying theoretical validity of instruments being developed. There were three main issues assessed by the panelists. They are: (1) compliance of variables dimension, (2) compliance of indicators with dimensions, and (3) compliance of descriptors which are performance standards with indicators being developed. Strategies employed in testing construct validity consist of two: (1) trying out with different population and (2) analysis of factors. b. Analysis of Reliability For reliability analysis purposes, test on stability (test-retest) and internal consistency has been performed. Alpha coefficient was calculated to determine reliability index. According to Fernandes, reliability coefficient is accepted to determine validity of instrument which is supported by an alpha coefficient of 0.50. D. ADMINISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS 1. Place and Time of Event This study was carried out in DKI Jakarta province and Surabaya City District in 2005. 2. Execution Execution of the study is organized into three stages. The first is development of specification and items of the instruments. Second is tryout for theoretical validation through a panel (expert judgement). Third is
data collection for empirical tests of instruments construct validity and reliability. The schedule of calllibration tests is as follows: (1) the first callibration stage was in September 2003 in Jakarta; (2) the second calibration took place in SMK 26, Jakarta and BLPT Surabaya in March 2004 through instrument try-out with different samples; (3) the third event was test on construct validity with factorial analysis which was carried out in SMKs in DKI Jakarta area during March to June 2004. 3. Population and Samples Population of the study covered practicing teachers and prospective technical vocational SMK teachers. Samples of the study were selected by means of multi-stage random sampling. Firstly, sample schools were assigned then teacher respondents were selected randomly from these sample schools. Population of the study consists of practicum content teachers/instructors and teacher candidates of technical vocational schools in DKI Jakarta and Surabaya Municipality. Samples were selected in random. The details are as follows: the first stage involved 10 panelists; second stage recruited 80 practicum content teachers/instructors; and, third stage recruited 230 respondents who were practicum content teachers/teacher candidates. 4. Assessment APKG-Praktik instruments were developed to measure 4 stages in the process of practicum teaching. They include planning, preparation and implementation of the practicum content teaching and administration of practicum facilities. One instrument was developed for each of the stages. Thus, in total, there are five sets of assessment instrument. Five performance standards were developed for each item of the instruments. Assessment is performed by marking a check list of performance standards of each respective indicator of instrument items and summing up the obtained marks. The highest score for each indicator/test uten us 5 and the lowest is 1. For indicators that cannot be marked due to the characteristics of practicum activities, a 0 (zero) mark/point is assigned. 5. Standardizing Instruments Standardization of APKG-Praktik was performed to ensure that use of these instruments in other times can be done with the same materials and procedures. Standardization covers content and administration of instruments.
Content of instruments consists of (1) formulation of items, (2) formulation of performance standards, (3) directions for using the instruments, (4) technical evidence of quality of instrument scale based on calibration tests. Administration of instruments include (1) test administering procedures, (2) scoring of results of tests, and (3) interpretation of test results and how to use it. Results of this instrument standardization is made into a complete set of practicum content teacher performance assessment instrument called APKG-PRAKTIK. E. RESULTS OF TESTS OF INSTRUMENTS/FINDINGS? Calllibration of instruments was aimed at empirically testing the validity and reliability of the developed instruments. According to Popham, empirical test of construct validity can be performed through three strategies. They are: (1) Intervention Study, trying to demonstrate test taker s different responses against measurement after some kinds of treatment, (2) Different Population Study, attempts at demonstrating that scores of individuals representing different populations are different at the time of measurement, and (3) Interrelated Measurement Study, is about positive or negative correlation between scores obtained from measurement activities and those obtained from other measurement activities (Popham: 1981:114). In line with problems outlined in Chapter I, this study did not perform tests under intervention study nor the corelational study. The test in this study was performed with different population groups. Reliability index is computed by means of the Alpa Cronbach formula. Both tests were analysed by means of Statistical Program Social Seciance (SPSS V, 10.0 for Windows). 1. Tests on Different Populations The process of instrument testing performed on different population was aimed at identifying capacity of the developed instrument (APKG-Praktik) in discriminating teacher performance considered by School Principals as high (capable) and low (incapable) in performance. Sample of teachers selected from each participating schools consisted of 40 people. Samples were selected through multi-stage random sampling.g Analysis of discriminating test was performed by means of 2-tail t-test or Paired-Samples Test. Table 20 presents results of the t-test within and between BLPT Surabaya and SMK 26 Jakarta teacher groups.
Table 2. Different Population Test Population/Sample Degree of Freedom (df) t count t value t table (0.05) Conclusion SMK 26 Jakarta BLPT Surabaya SMK 26 A SMK 26 B 39 3.04 2.02 t count > t table Ho ditolak dan Ha diterima 19 3.05 2.09 t count > t table H 0 rejected and H a accepted BLPT A - BLPT B 19 4.224 2.09 t count > t table H 0 rejected and H a accepted The first computation was as presented in Table 20, i.e. t count value is 3.04. This is smaller than that of the t table which is 2.02. Thus, it can be concluded that there is significant difference between performance of BLPT Surabaya practicum content teachers and that of SMK 26 Jakarta group. The second computation was performed within SMK 26 Jakarta teachers group. Results show that the t count value is greater (3.05) than the t table value (2.09) at 0.05 degree of significance. This only means that H 0 is rejected and H a is accepted. In other words, there is significant difference between the group of SMK teachers who are considered high in their practicum teaching performance and those considered as low. The third computation was performed within the BPLT Surabaya group of teachers/instructors. The results show that the t count value is greater (4.224) than the t table value (2.09) at 0.05 degree of significance. This only means that H 0 is rejected and H a is accepted. In other words, significant difference exists between teachers/instructors who are
considered high in their practicum teaching performance and those considered as low. Results of the second and third computation are evidence of capability of the developed APKG-Praktik instruments to discriminate performance in different populations. It can be concluded that the instruments possess empirical construct validity. F. DISCUSSION 1. APKG Praktik Validity Results of each stage in the instrument testing show that the APKG- Praktik instruments developed in this study has high validity. Test was performed on the SMK 26 Jakarta (STM Pembangunan) group of teachers. Prior to the test, the teachers were already assigned by the researcher and school principal into group of incompetent teachers this group includes those who seldom complete the job sheet and do not perform proper preparation who are labeled, and group of competent teachers that consists of teachers who usually meet all requirement in their teaching practicum content sessions: from planning to evaluation stage. Results of the test indicate that the APKG-Praktik instruments developed in this study is able to discriminate performance of teachers in the two groups. This is supported by results of tests in different site i.e. the BLPT Surabaya which is similar. The APKG-Praktik instruments developed in this study is capable of discriminating performance of teachers assumed to be incapable in teaching practicum content from those who are capable. To sum up, it is evidenced that, with reference to Popham theory, the instruments has empirical construct validity. 2. Reliability of Instruments Tests on instrument reliability were performed by computing its Alpha Coefficient. The results indicate that each factor formed for all instruments has a value greater that 0.5 (α > 0.5). Similar condition applies to the reliability of all factors of each instrument. Even, the α value for each instrument is greater than 0.88. This means that the instruments are of high reliability and proper for use. G. CONCLUSION With reference to the discussion of findings of the study, the following can be concluded: 1. Validity of Instruments
Tests on validity of instruments were performed through several stages with the following results: a. Results of test by panelists (expert judgment) indicate that there is compliance between variables and dimension, dimension and indicators against descriptors (standards of performance) in all sets of instruments that consist of: Planning of Practicum Teaching Instrument, Preparation of Practicum Teaching Instrument, Implementation of Practicum Teaching Instrument, and Administration of Practicum Teaching Facilities Instrument. b. Tests on different population show that the instruments are capable in discriminating performance of low-performance teachers from those of high-performance. It can then be concluded that the developed APKG-Praktik instruments have empirical construct validity. Based on the above calibration stages, it can be concluded that the APKG-Praktik instruments have construct validity to measure performance of practicum content teachers in technical vocational schools (SMK). 2. Reliability of Instruments Tests on instrument reliability show that each of the instruments (APKG- P01, APKG-P02, APKG-P03, dan APKG-P04) has an α 0.50 index which indicates that each of them is of the same general factor and is a reliable instrument. 3. Administration and Implementation APKG-Praktik consists of 3 sets of instruments; they are: (1) APKG-Praktik on Planning of Practicum Content Teaching called APKG-P01. (2) APKG-Praktik on Preparation of Practicum Content Teaching called APKG-P02. (3) APKG-Praktik on Implementation of Practicum Content Teaching called APKG-P03. Each instrument has standards of performance as the predictors of the indicators. These standards of performance are presented in the Guideline to Instrument Use. Execution of tests is performed by means of observation and checklist and can be carried out by one or two examiners who refer to the same
assessment manuals. Procedures for administering the test or using the instruments should follow the set out sequence: from planning stage to preparation, implementation of teaching, and administration of practicum facilities. Scoring technique is outlined in separate manuals. Scores are basically determined based on the number of performance standards observed on each indicator. Standardization of instruments was performed by continuous revision and refinement of the standards of performance with reference to current development and followed up by tests on validity and reliability of instruments. H. IMPLICATIONS Implications of results of this development of performance assessment instrument for technical vocation practicum teachers are as follows: 1. Performance assessment instrument for practicum teachers of all technical vocational subjects, which has specific characteristics, can be developed using the approach underlying development of instruments in this study. 2. Measurement of competence in teaching practicum of PPL students of technical vocation that, so far, has been done by means of the APKG instrument that is general in nature and has not yet been tested for its validity and reliability can be performed by the instruments developed in this study, which validity and reliability is already tested. 3. More comprehensive report of PPL students learning achievement can be obtained since validity of their competency in teaching theoretical content (measured by APKG instrument) and in teaching practicum content (measured by APKG-Praktik instruments) can be measured more accurately. I. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that LPTK uses developed in this study to evaluate practicum content teaching competency of PPL students. 2. The PPL Unit of LPTK has the opportunity to develop further APKG Praktik instruments not only for technical vocation subjects but also for other vocational subjects.
3. In developing more specific instruments for example, for particular disciplines, it is necessary to pay attention to more specific characteristics of the disciplines in question. J. REFERENCES Alkin, C. M. (ed.) 1992. Encyclopedia of Educational Research Sixth Edition, New York: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International. Alewine, T. 2000. Performance: Serial on Human Resource Management (Kinerja: Seri Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia) (Ed.). In Time, A. D. Jakarta: PT. Elex Media Komputindo, Amien, M. 1988. Natural Science Laboratory Manual. (Buku Pedoman Laboratorium IPA). Jakarta: P2LPTK, Ditjen Dikti. Anderson, L. W. 1993. The Effective Teacher: Study Guide and Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Publising Company. Arikunto, S. 1988. Organization and Administration of Technical and Vocational Education. (Organisasi dan Administrasi Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan). Jakarta: P2LPTK, Ditjen Dikti, DEPDIKBUD Arnold, H.J. and D. C. Feldman. 1986. Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill. Saifudin, A. 1986. Reliability and Validity: Interpretation and Computation. (Reliabilitas dan Validitas: Interpretasi dan Komputasi). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Liberty. Brown, F. G. 1983. Principles of Educational and Psyhological Testing. 3 rd Ed. New York: Holt, Renchart and Winston. Borich, G. D. 1977. The Appraisal of Teaching, Concepts and Process. California: Addison-Wesley Publising Company Inc. Burnham, J. W., Ingrid Bradbury, and J. O Neill. 2000 Performance Management in Schools. London: Pearson Education. Buros Intitute. 2002. Standard for Teacher Competence in Educational Assesment of Student. Http://www.unl.e.du/buros/article
Carroll, S. J. and H. L. Tosi. 1977. Organizational Behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press. Enci, L. and Weaver G. G. 1968. Teaching Occupational Skills. 2 nd Ed. New York: Pitman Publising Corporation. Colin, M. 2000. Handbook for Beginning Teacher. 2 nd Pearson Education Pty Limited. Ed. Australia: Timpe, A. D. (Ed.) 2000. Performance: Serial on Human Resource Management. (Kinerja: Seri Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia). Jakarta: PT. Elex Media Komputindo. Depnaker. 1991. Methodology of Work Training. (Metodologi Latihan Kerja). Jakarta. Ebel, R.L. and A. D. Frisbie. 1991. Essentials of Educational Measurement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Donelly, J. H. and J. L. Gibson and J. M. Ivanevich. 1984. Fundamentals of Management. 5 th Ed. Texas: Business Publications. -------------. 1995. Fundamentals of Management. 9 th Ed. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin Inc. Frank, L. and J. L. Farr. 1993. The Measurement of Work Performance. New York: Academic Press. Banks, F. 1994. Teaching Technology. London and New York: Routlege. Gable, R. K. 1986. Instrument Development in the Affective Domain. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. Gay, L. R. 1980. Educational Evaluation and Measurement. Columbus: Charles Publising Company. Valdez, G. 2002. Evaluation, Standards and Criteria for NCREL (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Http://www.ncrel.org/tandl/evall.html 8/23/02 Griffin, R. W. and G. Moorhead. 1992. Organizational Behavior. Boston: Houghton Miffin. Gronlund, N. E. 1993. How To Make Achievement Test and Assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Guilford. 1954. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Books Company Inc.
Umar, H. 2002. Evaluation of Company Performance. (Evaluasi Kinerja Perusahaan). Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Larson, M. E. 1972. Teaching Related Subjects in Trade and Industrial and Technical Education. Ohio: Charles E Merril Publishing Co. Leighbody, G. B. and D. M.Kidd. 1968. Methods of Teaching Shop and Technical Subjects. New York: Delmark Publisher. Naga, D. S. 1992. Theory of Score. (Teori Skor). Jakarta: Gunadarma Press. Nitko, A. J. 1983. Educational Test and Measurement an Intoductional New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Noer, M. 1989. Development of measurement tool: Materials of Basic Level Training in Research. (Pengembangan Alat Ukur, Materi Penataran Penelitian Tingkat dasar). Pusat Penelitian IKIP Surabaya. Popham, J. W. 1995. Classroom Assesment, What Teacher Need to Know. Boston: Allyn And Bacon. -------------. 1981. Modern Educational Measurement. Los Angeles: Prentice Hall, Inc. PPGSM. 1997. Handbook of Field Teaching Practice. (Buku Pegangan PPL) Jakarta: Ditjen Dikti. Reddy, R. S. 1996. Principles and Practices of Teacher Education. Delhi: Rajat Publications. Semiawan, C. R. 1998. Higher Education: Utmost Possible Life-long Improvement of Men s Capacity (Pendidikan Tinggi: Peningkatan Kemampuan Manusia Sepanjang Hayat Seoptimal Mungkin). Jakarta: Ditjen Dikti Depdikbud. Soeprijanto. 1999. Performance of Practicum Content Teachers in Electrical Technology (Performance Guru Praktik Teknologi Kelistrikan). Jakarta: Lemlit UNJ. Hadi, S. and T. N. Frans. 1992. Vocational Education Assessment System (Sistem Penilaian pendidikan Kejuruan). Bandung: P3GT Depdikbud. Strom, G. Managing The Occupational Education Laboratory. Michigan: Prakken Publications. Inc.
Supriadi, D. (Ed.). 2002. History of Technical and Vocational Education in Indonesia (Sejarah Pendidikan Teknik dan Kejuruan di Indonesia). Jakarta: Dikmenjur. Teaching in the Psychomotor Domain. http://webnz.com/wnp/online/introcer/chunk/ demon/ dm 1l.htm. Usman, M. U. 2001. Becoming A Professional Teacher (Menjadi Guru Profesional). Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Farizal, Y. 1985. Workshop Management (Manajemen Workshop). Padang: UPT Pusat Media Pendidikan. Yusof, M. 1977. Job Satisfaction among Teachers of Technical Secondary Schools (Kepuasan Kerja Dikalangan Guru Teknikal Di Sekolah Menengah Teknik). Thesis. Serawak: Fakulti Sains Kognitif dan Pembangunan Manusia Universitas Malaya Serawak. Http:/www.webeastmy.com.my/unimasrescarchgateway/thesis/thesi s-0042/index.htm Hisyam, Z. 2002. Design of Teaching/Learning in Higher Education Instituitons (Desain Pembelajaran Di Perguruan Tinggi). Yogyakarta: IAIN Sunan Kalijaga.