Peningkatan Kemampuan Berpikir Komputasional pada Guru Madrasah: Scratch
Abstract
Penelitian ini mempunyai tujuan terkait pemahaman guru madrasah pada kemampuan berpikir komputasional sebelum maupun setelah kegiatan implementasi pelatihan scrath serta bagaimana efektivitas penggunaan teknologi scratch dalam proses pembelajaran di kelas oleh guru madrasah. Metode dalam penelitian yang akan telah digunakan adalah penelitian eksperimen dengan desain one grup pretest and posttest. Populasi pada kegiatan penelitian ini adalah guru madrasah di wilayah binaan kementerian agama di Kabupaten Semarang dan Kudus. Teknik sampling yang akan digunakan adalah teknik sampling incidental dimana yang akan terpilih menjadi sampel adalah guru yang akan ditugaskan oleh sekolah dalam mengikuti kegiatan pelatihan pembelajaran dengan menggunakan scratch. Selanjutnya akan digunakan uji peringkat bertanda alam mengetahui peningkatan kemampuan berpikir komputasional dengan menggunakan scratch. Hasil penelitian menyebutkan bahwa pemahaman guru sebelum mengikuti kegiatan implementasi scratch pada proses pembelajaran sebesar 13,33. Setelah diadakan kegiatan pelatihan implementasi scratch dalam pembelajaran pemahaman kemampuan berpikir komputasional guru menjadi 88,33. Nilai rata-rata tes kemampuan berpikir komputasional guru sebelum kegiatan pelatihan adalah 23, 89 dan selanjutnya setelah mengikuti kegiatan pelatihan maka nilai rata-rata menjadi 73,06. Berdasarkan hal tersebut maka dapat dilihat ada peningkatakan kemampuan beripikir komputasional akibat diadakan kegiatan pelatihan scratch dalam pembelajaran.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Allinder, R. (1995). An Examination of the Relationship Between Teacher Efficacy and Curriculum-Based Measurement and Student Achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 16(4), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259501600408
Angeli, C. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. In Computers in Human Behavior (Vol. 105). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185
Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2011). A Methodology for Conducting Integrative Mixed Methods. National Institute of Health, 4(4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382916.A
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research : Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.
Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2022). Computational Thinking Through an Empirical Lens: A Systematic Review of Literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 481–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158
Guggemos, J. (2021). On the predictors of computational thinking and its growth at the high-school level. Computers and Education, 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104060
Kemdikbud. (2021). Materi pelatihan program sekolah penggerak. In Dirjen GTK Kemdikbud.
Kong, S. C. (2022). Computational identity and programming empowerment of students in computational thinking development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13175
Labusch, A. (2023). Learning computational thinking in secondary school (year 8) in Germany in international comparison: Results from ICILS 2018. In Teaching Coding in K-12 Schools: Research and Application (pp. 319–329). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21970-2_21
Marom, S., Waluya, S. B., Mariani, S., & Susilo, B. E. (2024). Computational Thinking Processes in Solving the Corona Epidemic Model: Pre-service Maths Teachers. International Journal of Experimental Research and Review, 43, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.52756/ijerr.2024.v43spl.005
Octalia, R. P., Rizal, N., & Siswandari, H. (2021). Pengembangan Media Pembelajaran Digital Berbasis Game Challenges untuk Meningkatkan Computational Thinking dalam Pembelajaran Mandiri sebagai Upaya Mewujudkan Merdeka Belajar. 149–166.
OECD. (2021). OECD member countries and Associates decided to postpone the PISA 2021 assessment to 2022 to reflect post-Covid difficulties. This draft vision was created before the crisis. The final version will reflect the new name of the cycle “PISA 2022.” 95. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-mathematics-framework.pdf
OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 MATHEMATICS FRAMEWORK. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa-2021-mathematics-framework-draft.pdf
Pérez-Marín, D. (2020). Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children? Computers in Human Behavior, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.027
Rich, P. (2022). Using Dr. Scratch as a Formative Feedback Tool to Assess Computational Thinking. In Research Anthology on Computational Thinking, Programming, and Robotics in the Classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 550–572). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-2411-7.ch026
Sari, D. M., Suhendra, & Elah Nurlaelah. (2024). How Prospective Mathematics Teachers Do Computational Thinking (CT) Task? : An Analysis Of CT Prior Knowledge. Hipotenusa: Journal of Mathematical Society, 6(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.18326/hipotenusa.v6i1.1908
Sentance, S. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0
Soegeng, Y. (2017). Dasar-dasar penelitian : bidang sosial, psikologi, dan pendidikan. Magnum Pustaka Utama.
Tabesh, Y. (2017). Computational thinking: A 21st century skill. Olympiads in Informatics, 11(Special Issue), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.15388/ioi.2017.special.10
Trocado, A. (2022). Developing Computational Thinking in Portuguese Mathematics Curricula with Collatz Conjecture. In Proceedings of the Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 363–372). https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85142434828
Wibawa, B. (2014). Konsep Dasar Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, 1–60. http://repository.ut.ac.id/4022/1/MIPK5201-M1.pdf
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. March 2006, 3–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/vlhcc.2011.6070404
Wing, Jeannette M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59698/afeksi.v5i6.375
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Saiful Marom, Wulan Izzatul Himmah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License