Tagged: teknologi pendidikan Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • aldes91 3:27 am on January 13, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: teknologi pendidikan   

    East Meets West: What Americans and Hong Kong People Think About Technology 

    East Meets West: What Americans and

    Hong Kong People Think About Technology

    Kenneth S. Volk and William E. Dugger, Jr.

     

    A few years ago, Rose and Dugger (2002) published the results of a public opinion poll on What Americans Think about Technology. Sponsored by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) and conducted by the Gallup Organization, this ITEA/Gallup poll revealed many things about the public’s understanding and attitudes about technology, as well their ideas about technology in the school curriculum. Referencing the comprehensive Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000), a project that used experts to identify the content for technology education, an objective of the ITEA/Gallup poll was to determine if the public’s perception of technology is congruent with that of the experts. Clearly, given the thoroughness and credibility of the Standards along with its expected potential to influence technology education policy, direction and, content, an examination of public opinion was seen as being vital in determining the degree to which expert rhetoric matched public reality and expectations.

     

    Similarly, Hong Kong is now going through dialogue and critical selfexamination about technology education. In a departure from practice at the time, Hong Kong’s Curriculum Development Council (2000) in their document Learning to Learn, recognized the importance of technology and specifically identified Technology Education as one of the eight necessary Key Learning Areas (KLA) for all Hong Kong students to acquire from the six primary grades through the lower three secondary grades. The CDC also applied a broad definition of technology as being “the purposeful application of knowledge, skills, and experiences in using resources to create products or systems to meet human needs.” The impact of ITEA’s work and perspective was evident in references made to it in the TEKLA Curriculum Guide (CDC, 2002) that subsequently followed. Similar to ITEA’s Standards, the Guide was developed by academics, professionals from related fields, and other experts in order to help realize the recommendations made in the Learning to Learn document. The Guide included the framework, learning objectives, assessment practices, as well as exemplars for technology education.

     

    Considering that technology transcends international borders, many socioeconomic parallels exist between the US and Hong Kong, and both societies recognize the imperative of having a technically literate citizenry, a study was conducted on what Americans and Hong Kong people think about technology. Given the commonalities between the US and Hong Kong, this study would seek to ascertain if there is a similar understanding and knowledge of technology, as well similar concepts and priorities about technology education. In so doing, this study would add to the body of knowledge about cross-cultural, cross-country comparisons relating to technology, as well as the appropriateness of generalizing technology education curriculum in a global context. To facilitate making comparisons, the study conducted in Hong Kong used a similar instrument to that used in the ITEA/Gallup poll. This invitation to conduct additional research using the ITEA/Gallup poll was encouraged by ITEA (Rose and Dugger, 2002). In this manner, corresponding data between the US and Hong Kong could be analyzed for significance and conclusions drawn.

    The US and Hong Kong Context

     

    Before making any comparisons between the results of the study done in Hong Kong with the one done in the US by ITEA/Gallup, caution needs to be raised about the appropriateness of using data from two studies for comparisons, especially between cultures. Noah’s (1984) critique of the comparative education research cited ethnocentrism among the most notable misuse of such comparisons. This relates to looking at the world primarily from a point of view of the observer’s own culture and values. In this regard, using a survey designed for a US study may influence and limit comparisons, as not only are the respective cultures and values obviously different, so are facets of the economies, education systems, and politics.

     

    Given the increased sophistication of technology and increasing human interaction with technological products throughout the world, examining such issues as they relate to the public’s perception of technology and education may be appropriate. Noah recognized the importance of technology on all cultures many years earlier, when writing with Eckstein in their classic Toward a Science of Comparative Education (1969), they described the modernization of developing countries such as India. They stated: “the most important means of modernization may be the increasing availability of automobiles, bicycles, water pumps, and so forth” (p. 116). According to the authors, counting schools and the number of students was not enough, for the “informal effects” of Western technology also needed investigation.

     

    Given this caution, there are examples where cross-cultural comparisons have been successfully undertaken, some with the US serving as a benchmark. For instance, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) “resulted from the American education community’s need for reliable and timely data on the mathematics and science achievement of our students compared to that of students in other countries” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), sponsored by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), followed the TIMSS study and was an international assessment designed to help understand how the performance of students in subjects such as science compares to that of peers in OECD and non-OECD countries. Another example of cross-cultural comparisons that specifically related to technology education was the Pupils’ Attitudes Toward Technology (PATT) studies conducted over the past 20 years. Led by Dr. Marc DeVries at Eindhoven University of Technology, thirteen PATT Conferences have been held. Although many PATT conference papers examined cross-national comparisons, such comparisons were not without problems and limitations (Volk and Yip, 1999).

     

    Despite the obvious differences in culture, history, language, government structure, and population density, there are many similarities that make the United States and Hong Kong interesting and appropriate to compare. Some of these similarities relate to the use of technology, employment rates, annual income, and educational attainment. Even their respective Gini Coefficient ratings reflect the growing unequal income distribution facing both populations, with both greater than most developed European nations (United Nations, 2004). Table 1 shows selected demographic indicators obtained from sources such as the Asia Development Bank, the Hong Kong Census and Statistic Department, the United Nations, US Department of Labor, and the World Bank. The table of demographics also points out several differences between the US and Hong Kong. For example, given the expense of living in Hong Kong and the current difficult economic times and atypical high level of unemployment, the birth rate has dropped precipitously and is considerably lower than in the US. Hong Kong’s past manufacturing base is now much smaller, with industry having moved across the border into China. Hong Kong’s spending per student is also considered low, especially since the government is not obligated with other expenditures such as military defense.

     

    As far as the use and impact of technology in Hong Kong and United States, many parallels can be drawn. One obvious area is the confusion over technology education (TE) and educational technology (ET) – the latter going under names of information technology (IT), information communication technology (ICT), computer studies (CS) and others. Petrina (2003) addressed this confusion and pointed out the attempts by organizations such as the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) to maintain differences despite the great overlaps in content, ideology, and standards. Dugger and Naik (2001) also raised similar concerns and tried to explain the differences between technology education and educational technology. However, in acknowledging the problem in misconceptions that exist even for educators, the authors challenged that technology education teachers must be the ones to educate others.

    Table 1

    US and Hong Kong Demographics             US          HK

    Literacy (percent ages 15+)         97.2        94.0

    Unemployment rate (percent)  5.3          6.8

    GDP per person (US$1,000)         32.8        25.6

    GDP – Composition by sector (percent)

    Agriculture          2.0          0.1

    Industry               18.0        14.7

    Services               80.0        85.2

    Current spending per student (% of GDP)            4.9          2.9

    Starting teacher salary (per month, US$1,000)    2.5          2.1

    Gini Coefficient*              0.4          0.4

    Cellular telephone subscribers (percent of adult population)       62.0        87.2

    Internet users (percent of population)  54.0        48.4

    Median age of first marriage (female)    25.0        28.0

    Life expectancy at birth (years) 80.5        81.5

    Births per 1,000 population          14.0        6.8

    Crime rate (per 100,000)               730.0     207.0

    * The Gini Coefficient, also known as the index of income distribution, is used to measure income inequality. A Gini coefficient of 0 means that income is equally distributed among the population, while a value of 1 means essentially one person has all the income while everyone else has none.

     

     

    Confusion also exists in Hong Kong about what constitutes technology, with different public groups offering different emphases and/or meanings. For example, the Hong Kong Education Commission’s (1999) Education Blueprint for the 21st Century report was rife with references to technology, but they were almost totally related to information technology. This was in contrast to statements from other public bodies such as the Curriculum Development Council (2002) and Commission on Strategic Development (2000) that regarded technology in a broad sense. In this regard, comparing US and Hong Kong general public opinion about technology education is warranted, especially given that both have publicly stressed the need for technology education.

     

    One last aspect which ties the two studies and cultures together is the expected change by 2010 in the Hong Kong school structure from a “British system” to one that more closely resembles an “American system” (Education Commission, 2000). This restructuring will have students finishing secondary school after grade 12, instead of grade 13. University bachelor degrees will then correspondingly increase in time from three years to four. With this expected common education structure, perhaps both cultures can learn from each other’s concepts about technology and technology education.

    Methodology

     

    Both the US and Hong Kong studies used telephone interviews to obtain survey results. The Hong Kong poll was completed in early 2004 and used questions from the first ITEA/Gallup Poll (Rose & Dugger, 2002). The second US ITEA/Gallup Poll (Rose, Gallup, Dugger & Starkweather, 2004) was conducted after the Hong Kong poll, with some additions and deletions made to the original questions. Since the Hong Kong Poll was conducted between the two ITEA/Gallup Polls, the comparisons made between Hong Kong and the US use data that were compatible and/or most current.

     

    Obvious concerns arise about the appropriateness of using an existing questionnaire from one culture and translating it into another. As noted by Behling and Law (2000), the lack of semantic equivalence across languages, lack of conceptual equivalence across cultures, and the lack of normative equivalence across societies may be problematic. They point out measures that will help ensure reliability, validity, and contextual use of words in the source language. Based on their recommendations, a modified direct translation was used for this study, whereby a panel of experts made independent checks on the work of the original translator. In this procedure, the panel (a) reviews the items and reacts in writing, (b) shares their comments with one another, and (c) meets to consider the points made and make recommendations. For translating and preparing instructions, recommendations from Behling and Law were also taken into consideration to ensure proper words, grammatical forms, and sentence structure follow cultural contexts.

     

    The first step for using the ITEA/Gallup instrument in Hong Kong was to examine each item for appropriateness and relevance. An initial independent review by three lecturers in Design & Technology (D&T) at The Hong Kong Institute of Education determined two items required modification. One question included a specific definition for technology, so the exact definition used in the TEKLA, rather than ITEA’s was considered more appropriate. Another question asked if the individual interviewed could explain how a home heating system works. To match the Hong Kong context, this item was changed to ask how an air conditioner works. After this initial review, the D&T lecturers then translated the instrument into the Cantonese dialect of Chinese used in Hong Kong. Careful attention was given to words such as “Technology”, with the Chinese version of the TEKLA Curriculum Guide used as reference. From this translation by D&T lecturers, three lecturers in the Chinese Language Department were sent the original and Chinese versions for further comment and refinement.

     

    Based on an estimated adult population of 5,008,886 (HK Census & Statistics Dept, 2003), the sample size required for the Hong Kong study would be approximately 750 (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2003). This number would be sufficient for a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points and at the 95% confidence level. This sample size was similar to both the first and second ITEA/Gallup Polls, with sizes of 1,000 and 800 used respectively. The ITEA/Gallup poll also maintained a 95% confidence level with a margin of error set at plus or minus four percentage points.

     

    Datacap Computer Solutions Ltd, a data capturing firm experienced in telephone interviews for many Hong Kong government projects, was used to conduct a two-stage telephone interview of 750 adults age 18 and older. Stage One involved households selected in accordance with the 2003 white page database issued by PCCW, the largest telephone provider in Hong Kong, with the telephone number randomly selected by CATI telephone survey system. Stage Two involved the random selection of household members with a base on the nearest birthday. The ITEA/Gallup Polls also used a random selection of households and a multiple stage approach to select one person in the household.

     

    Table 2 provides details of the sample composition for the Hong Kong and second ITEA/Gallup poll. Differences in sample composition were noted for age and education, with the Hong Kong sample being younger and with less education. As far as the Hong Kong population’s level of education, it was only in 1978 that Primary 6 school leavers were guaranteed a place in secondary school. Combined with the examination-driven system of progression and the limited number of places in university programs, the Hong Kong sample matched the education level reflected in the general population (Hong Kong Census and Statistics, 2004). It appears the age of the US ITEA/Gallup sample quite closely reflected that in the US (US Census Bureau, 2004), while the sample for Hong Kong had a higher proportion of young adults (32.4%) than in the general population (27%).

    Table 2

    Hong Kong and US Sample Comparison                 HK(%)   US(%)

    Gender

    Male      45.9        48.6

    Female 54.1        51.4

    Age

    18-29     32.4        17.7

    30-49     49.0        41.7

    50+         17.3        39.7

    Missing 1.3          0.9

    Education

    Less than high school     25.6        9.3

    High school graduate      33.4        27.9

    Trade/Two-Years College             4.8          33.1

    College Graduate or more           26.2        29.6

    Missing Data      0.0 0.1

     

     

    As the information gained from the telephone interview was opinion-based, and since such surveys are about what people think and what it prepared to support or not support, percentages were used to analyze the data. Chi-square was also used to examine whether there was some relationship between US and Hong Kong poll results. Babbie (1999) and Baker (1999) noted the use of chisquare as being one of the most widely used tests for statistical significance in the social sciences when the variables are nominal or ordinal in measurement. Bernard (2000) even explained how chi-square can be used to make comparisons across complex tables with several sub-variables. All authors cautioned that chi-square does not measure the strength of the relationship.

    Findings and Discussion

     

    Data from the first and second ITEA/Gallup poll were compared with the Hong Kong poll about what adults think about technology. With the large number of questions included in each poll, only selected items were presented in detail for this discussion. The public’s responses to some of the questions were described in more general terms. In the following discussion, when 2004 ITEA/Gallup data were available, they superseded the 2002 ITEA/Gallup data.

    Understanding Technology

     

    The first series of questions related to the public’s understanding of technology. The response to the first question indicated Americans placed a significantly greater importance on being able to use and understand technology [Χ2(2, N=2036) 394.087, p<0.01]. Table 3 shows that while over two-thirds of Americans had this opinion, less than one-third of Hong Kong people viewed this item as being “very important.” It was also surprising that over six percent of Hong Kong people identified using or understanding technology as being “not very important.”

    Table 3

    Just your opinion, how important is it for people at all levels to develop some ability to understand and use technology? Would you say it is:         HK          US ‘04

    %

    Very important 28.9        73.8

    Somewhat important     64.2        23.6

    Not very important         6.3          0.4

    Not at all important         0.4          1.5

    Don’t know/refused      0.2          0.7

     

     

    The next question was open-ended, asking people what comes to mind when they hear the word “technology.” The Hong Kong responses were entered into a database, then grouped under categories similar to those used in the US study. Table 4 compares the responses to this open-ended question.

    Table 4

    When you hear the word “technology, what first comes to mind?            HK

    %            US ‘04

    %

    Computers         47           68

    Advancement   7              2

    New Inventions                7              1

    Electronics          5              5

    Information        4              0

    Science 3              1

    Space    3              1

    Things That Make Life Easier       3              0

    Machinery          2              1

    Internet               1              2

    Education            1              1

    Others  19           18

     

     

    Rose et. al. (2004) noted that for Americans, “computers have no rival in the public’s mind as emblematic of ‘technology’” (p.2). With over two-thirds of the US sample saying “computers,” this claim is easily substantiated. In contrast, it appears Hong Kong people have a much broader view of “technology,” with less than half providing “computers” as their definition. Compared to the US polls, respondents in the Hong Kong study were more likely to use descriptors that transcend the physical hardware of technology, with terms such as “advancement,” “new inventions,” and “information” used. Although the ITEA/Gallup data did not distinguish between urban and rural participants, it is possible the fast-paced and technologically stimulating environment that is ever-present in a compact and quickly-changing metropolitan area such as Hong Kong would produce a wider perception of technology.

     

    After the open-ended response, people were then asked to choose between either a specific broad definition of technology or one that narrowly-defined technology as computers and the Internet. For both studies, the broad definition provided was the one used by their respective professions. For example, the Hong Kong poll used the TEKLA definition of technology, “the application of knowledge, skills, and experiences in using materials to create products to meet human needs,” while the US poll used an ITEA definition of “changing the natural world to satisfy our needs.” As indicated in Table 5, two thirds of Hong Kong people agreed with the broad definition, which was in stark contrast to the US response, where a majority had a narrow definition of technology [Χ2(2, N=2376) 183.177, p<0.01].

    Table 5

    Which more closely fits what you think of when you hear the word “technology”?           HK

    %            US ‘01

    %

    Computers and the Internet       34           63

    The application of knowledge….. Changing the natural world      66           36

    Don’t know/refused      -              1

     

     

    The results from this question echo the responses given earlier in Table 4, with Hong Kong people applying wider definitions for technology. Even with limited efforts to educate the public about the elements of technology education through Key Learning Area promotional material, Hong Kong people appear to be naturally more accepting of the profession’s definition. Given the challenges in both the US and Hong Kong to convince the public about the need for technology education, it appears Hong Kong may potentially be more successful, as many of the citizens can already “talk the talk.”

     

    Table 6 shows the results of the public’s capability to understand and use technology. It appears US citizens have a higher perception of their ability to understand and use technology [Χ2(2, N=2397) 579.239, p<0.01]. When asked to respond to one of four qualifiers provided, 75 percent of Americans indicated “to a great extent” or “to some extent”, while only 24 percent of Hong Kong people indicated these characteristics. Caution needs to be made about the response to this question, as a specific definition of technology was not included. It is possible, based on the results seen in Table 5, that the US public was responding to a narrow “computer” definition, while Hong Kong people were responding to their wider definition. For example, in the US study, 90 percent of 18-29 year olds responded “to a great extent” or “to some extent”, while 57 percent of those 50 and older had this perception. For Hong Kong, the difference was much smaller, being 31 percent and 26 percent respectively.

    Table 6

    To what extent do you consider yourself to be able to understand and use technology?                HK

    %            US ‘01

    %

    A great extent   2              28

    To some extent                22           47

    To a limited extent          66           20

    Not at all              10           5

    Don’t know/refused      -              -

     

    Knowledge and Attitudes of Technology

     

    Several questions asked respondents about their knowledge of and attitudes about technology. The first question asked participants about their attitude toward technology in their everyday life. Hong Kong people seemed somewhat more ambivalent than Americans about the value of knowing more about technology, with one third (37%) responding they do not care about how things work. For those in the US, only one quarter (24%) had this lack of interest. There were significant differences between the US and Hong Kong answers to this question [Χ2(2, N=1401) 61.908, p<0.01]

     

    Another series of questions asked about the effect of technology and how much input the public desired into the decisions being made about technology. Americans identified “the society” (67.4%) as the most important effect of technology, while Hong Kong people said “the environment” (62.4%) [Χ2(2, N=2367) 610.417, p<0.01]. Hong Kong’s response might be reflecting the growing concern about worsening air and water pollution due to the rapid industrial expansion and lack of stringent environmental controls across the border into China (Civic Exchange, 2004). For decisions about items such as the designation of neighborhood community centers, where to locate roads in the community, the development of fuel-efficient cars, and genetically-modified foods, Americans expected to have significantly more input into the decisions. Hong Kong’s relatively passive response may be an influence of its limited democratically elected government and Confucian heritage (Tsang, 2004) which encourages an acceptance of hierarchical authority.

     

    The next two series of questions showed significant differences in the US and Hong Kong’s understanding and knowledge of technology. Table 7 shows the significant differences of whether individuals could explain different technologies to a friend. With all items, Americans were much more confident about explaining technology, perhaps being less-humble than Hong Kong people. Considering the relatively simple operation of a flashlight, it was somewhat surprising that only 30 percent of Hong Kong people were confident

    Table 7

    Let me ask you if you could explain each of the following to a friend, just answer “yes” or “no”. (% yes answers provided)                 HK          US ‘01   Χ2 (df=2) p<0.01

    How a flashlight works   29.9        89.5        (N=2358) 887.910

    How to use a credit card to get money out of an ATM     63.4        89.0        (N=2276) 220.331

    How a telephone call gets from point A to point B             48.0        64.5        (N=2173) 57.757

    How an air conditioner (home heating system) works     53.1        70.0        (N=2329) 82.838

     

     

    enough to explain how one works. The findings from this item suggest limits to this type of survey question, in that the depth of explanation was not ascertained, nor was the actual need for individuals to know the theory and operation of these particular technologies established. The public was then asked questions about how specific technologies worked and to answer “true” or “false.” Table 8 compares the US and Hong Kong responses, with the percentage of those providing the correct answer provided.

    Table 8

    Tell me if each of the following statements is true or false (% correct answers provided)               HK

    %            US ‘01

    %            X2 (df=2), p<0.01

    Using a portable phone in the bathtub creates the possibility of being electrocuted         57.8        53.0        (N=2306) 4.467

    FM radios operate free of static                46.0        26.5        (N=2156) 72.303

    A car operates through a series of explosions     61.8        84.4        (N=2218) 134.046

    A microwave heats food from the outside to the inside 45.1        62.9        (N=2311) 63.495

     

     

    The results for this section of questions were split, with each group having more correct for two items. However, none of the answers seemed convincing for either the US or Hong Kong population. This finding seems to concur with those noted by Pearson and Young (2002) in their review of the 2001 ITEA/Gallup poll, that even though many replied earlier in their self-assessment that they were able to understand and use technology (see Table 6), the lack of knowledge made such self-ratings “superficial” (p. 65).

    Technology and Education

     

    The last series of questions concerned the study of technology, and how it should be included in the school curriculum. Those polled were asked about a potential shortage of qualified technical people and what their respective governments should do. Hong Kong people had a much more open immigration position than those from the US. With the established and historical practice of expatriates coming to work in Hong Kong, this significant difference [Χ2(1, N=2003) 66.503, p<0.01] was not that unexpected.

    Table 9

    When a shortage of qualified people occurs in a particular area of technology, which of the following solutions would you feel is the most appropriate course of action for the government to take?           HK

    %            US ‘04

    %

    Bring in technologically literate people from outside Hong Kong (US)       15.8        5.0

    Take steps through our schools to increase the number of technologically literate people in Hong Kong (US)       84.2        95.0

     

     

    When provided with the broad definition of technology (& to meet human needs), those polled were asked if a study of technology should be included in the school curriculum (see Table 10). Overwhelmingly, both hellip;samples strongly supported the inclusion of technology in schools. However, when those who said it should be included were asked if it should be a separate subject or combined with other subjects, there were significant differences [Χ2(1, N=2002) 209.119, p<0.01]. Hong Kong people preferred it as a separate subject by a two to one margin, possibly reflecting the culture of public examinations (Kwong, 1997; Sweeting, 2004).

    Table 10

    Using a broad definition of technology as “the purposeful application of knowledge, skills and experiences to create products to meet human needs”, do you believe the study of technology should be included in the school curriculum or not?       HK

    %            US ‘01

    %

    Yes         97.6        97.4

    No          2.4          2.6

    Asked of those saying it “should be included in the curriculum” Should the study of technology be made a part of other subjects like science, math and social studies, or should it be taught as a separate subject?

    Part of other subjects    31.6        63.7

    As a separate subject     68.4        36.3

    Asked of those saying “separate subjects” Should the subject be required or optional?

    Required             38.3        50.7

    Optional               61.7        49.3

     

     

    The responses from the US and Hong Kong were also different when respondents were asked if a study of technology should be required or optional [Χ2(1, N=21073) 16.630, p<0.01]. The US response was equally divided on this question, but Hong Kong people suggested technology education should not be a required subject.

    Implications

     

    The findings from this study suggest that given the universals of technology, the many socio-economic parallels, and common education imperatives stated on the need for technology education, there exists many differences in US and Hong Kong people’s understanding and attitudes about technology. Their response to how technology education should be included in the school curriculum was also dissimilar.

     

    In general terms, Hong Kong people had a concept of technology that included more than “computers” and tended to accept the broad definition of technology presented by their technology educators and government position papers. This could suggest that the technology education profession in the US will have a more difficult time in trying to educate the public about the subject, given the lack of common definition and understanding about what actually constitutes “technology”. This is not to imply that it will be easy in Hong Kong, for impediments also exist. However, if nearly two-thirds of Americans do not equate technology as being more than computers and the Internet, it will be very difficult to convince them about the need for a subject that is more encompassing.

     

    Regarding each population’s knowledge and attitudes, Hong Kong people seemed less interested in knowing more about technology as well as being part of the decision-making process. Americans perhaps are more accustomed to participatory stances, such as their historical input into educational matters, i.e., local boards of education, and their participation in a democratic government is established and expected (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). This might suggest that if the technology education profession in the US could be more successful in convincing the general population about what is meant in a broader concept of “technology” and correspondingly that technology education should be a part of the curriculum, change may occur easier. This is because top down education mandates and initiatives are rarely successful without the understanding and support of the local community, both of which are necessary in order to accomplish reform (Fullan, 2001).

     

    The US and Hong Kong’s perceived knowledge about technology and their less than convincing answers to specific questions about technology also indicates potential problems. The higher confidence in their ability suggests that what they already know or have learned about technology may be sufficient, at least in their minds. For educators trying to convince a somewhat contented public that they need to know more, or that their knowledge about technology is lacking, may prove a daunting task.

     

    Extrapolating from the data on the public perception about technology and education, it would be difficult to claim that either the US or Hong Kong population would support a required separate subject of technology. Although both samples supported the study of technology education, as suggested in a broad definition (see Table 10), their desire to have it as a separate subject and/or as a required subject was tepid. With 68 percent of Hong Kong people indicating technology should be a separate subject, but only 38 of them saying it should be required, it could be inferred only 26 percent of the total population would support it as a separate required subject, while the number would be less than 20 percent for the US. For Hong Kong, a lack of support currently exists in schools, with only 61 percent of secondary schools offering the broad technology subject of Design & Technology, while 100 percent offer narrow technology subjects in computers (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Institute, personal communication September 3, 2004). Pearson and Young (2002) also acknowledge this problem for the US and that the widespread adoption of dedicated courses in technology education is most likely “an unlikely scenario” (p. 104). Perhaps this reality of limited technology education in schools is a true reflection of public perception, as opposed to the rhetoric of the technology education profession. If this is the case, a lot of work is required by the technology education profession in both the US and Hong Kong to change the status quo.

    Final Thoughts

     

    Using a similar public opinion poll to compare what Americans and Hong Kong people think about technology provided interesting contrasts and similarities. Obvious differences in cultural influences such as history, language, and political systems play a part in the formation of education policy and public perceptions. However, the universality of technology can serve as a common basis for better understanding each other. In this regard, this study attempted to add to the body of knowledge about what different cultures think about technology. Perhaps the common issues and threats identified in trying to convince a public about the need for technology education will serve as a basis for future international collaborative efforts and discussions. In this regard, it is recommended the US study initiated by Rose and Dugger (2002) and replicated in Hong Kong be expanded to other countries and cultures.

    References

     

    Babbie, E. (1999). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

     

    Baker, T. (1999). Doing social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Behling, O., & Law, K. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

     

    Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitiative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

     

    Civic Exchange (2004). Air pollution: Air quality management issues in the Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta. Hong Kong: Author.

     

    Commission on Strategic Development (2000). Bringing the vision to life: Hong Kong’s long-term development needs and goals. Author: HKSAR Printing Department.

     

    Curriculum Development Council (2000). Bringing the vision to life: Hong Kong’s long-term development needs and goals.I . Author: HKSAR Printing Department.

     

    Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Technology education key learning area curriculum guide. HKSAR: author.

     

    Dugger, W. & Naik, N. (2001). Clarifying misconceptions between technology education and educational technology. The Technology Teacher, 61(2). 25- 28. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

     

    Education Commission (1999). Education blueprint for the 21st century. Author: HKSAR Printing Department.

     

    Education Commission (2000). Learning for life, learning through life. Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Author: HKSAR Printing Department.

     

    Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College.

     

    Gall, M., Gall, J. & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

     

    Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. Hong Kong statistics. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from: http://www.info.gov.hk/censtatd/eng/hkstat/index.html

     

    International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

     

    Kwong, K.S. (1997). Technology and industry. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

     

    National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Trends in international mathematics and science studies. Retrieved September 13, 2004 from: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/).

     

    Noah, H. & Eckstein, M. (1969). Toward A science of comparative education. New York: Macmillan

     

    Noah, H. (1984). The uses and abuses of comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 28(4), 550-562.

     

    Pearson, G. & Young, A.T. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington: National Academy Press.

     

    Petrina, S. (2003). The educational technology is technology education manifesto. Journal of Technology Education. 15(1), 64-74.

     

    Rose, L. & Dugger, W. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from: http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/Gallupreport.pdf

     

    Rose. L., Gallup, A., Dugger, W. & Starkweather, K. (2004). A report of the second survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the International Technology Education Association. International Technology Education Association. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from: http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/GallupPoll2004.pdf

     

    Sweeting, A. (2004). Education in Hong Kong, 1941 to 2001: Visions and revisions. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.

     

    Tsang, S. (2004). A modern history of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

     

    United Nations. (2004). Human Development Report. New York: Author.

     

    U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). US statistics in brief. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/statab/www/brief.html.

     

    Volk, K.S. & Yip, W. M. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: A study of pupils’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 57-71.

     

    Westheimer, J. & Kahane, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41,(2). 237-269.

     
  • aldes91 3:03 am on January 13, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: teknologi pendidikan   

    Pengertian dan kawasan teknologi pembelajaran 

    Dalam definisi teknologi pembelajaran dinyatakan bahwa ” Teknologi pendidikan adalah teori dan praktek dalam hal desain, pengembangan, pemanfaatan, mengelolaan, dan evaluasi terhadap sumber dan proses untuk belajar” (Barbara, 1994)

    Kawasan Teknologi Pembelajaran

    Definisi 1994, dirumuskan berlandaskan lima bidang garapan dari Teknologi Pembelajaran, yaitu : Desain, Pengembangan, Pemanfaatan, Pengelolaan dan Penilaian. Kelima hal ini merupakan kawasan (domain) dari bidang Teknologi Pembelajaran. Di bawah ini akan diuraikan kelima kawasan tersebut, dengan sub kategori dan konsep yang terkait :

    1. Kawasan Desain

    Yang dimaksud dengan desain disini adalah proses untuk menentukan kondisi belajar dengan tujuan untuk menciptakan strategi dan produk. Kawasan desain bermula dari gerakan psikologi pembelajaran, terutama diilhami dari pemikiran B.F. Skinner (1954) tentang teori pembelajaran berprogram (programmed instructions). Selanjutnya, pada tahun 1969 dari pemikiran Herbert Simon yang membahas tentang preskriptif tentang desain turut memicu kajian tentang desain. Pendirian pusat-pusat desain bahan pembelajaran dan terprogram, seperti “Learning Resource and Development Center” pada tahun 1960 semakin memperkuat kajian tentang desain. Dalam kurun waktu tahun 1960-an dan 1970-an, Robert Glaser, selaku Direktur dari Learning Resource and Development Center tersebut menulis dan berbicara tentang desain pembelajaran sebagai inti dari Teknologi Pendidikan.

    Aplikasi teori sistem dalam pembelajaran melengkapi dasar psikologi pembelajaran tersebut. Melalui James Finn dan Leonard Silvern, pendekatan sistem pembelajaran secara bertahap mulai berkembang menjadi suatu metodologi dan mulai memasukkan gagasan dari psikologi pembelajaran.

    Perhatian terhadap desain pesan pun berkembang selama akhir 1960-an dan pada awal 1970-an. Kolaborasi Robert Gagne dengan Leslie Briggs telah menggabungkan keahlian psikologi pembelajaran dengan bakat dalam desain sistem yang membuat konsep desain pembelajaran menjadi semakin hidup.

    Kawasan Desain paling tidak meliputi empat cakupan utama dari teori dan praktek, yaitu : (1) Desain Sistem Pembelajaran; (2) Desain Pesan; (3) Strategi Pembelajaran; (4) Karakteristik Pembelajar.

    Desain Sistem Pembelajaran; yaitu prosedur yang terorganisasi, meliputi : langkah-langkah : (a) penganalisaan (proses perumusan apa yang akan dipelajari); (b) perancangan (proses penjabaran bagaimana cara mempelajarinya); (c) pengembangan (proses penulisan dan pembuatan atau produksi bahan-bahan pelajaran); (d) pelaksanaan/aplikasi (pemanfaatan bahan dan strategi) dan (e) penilaian (proses penentuan ketepatan pembelajaran).

    Desain Sistem Pembelajaran biasanya merupakan prosedur linier dan interaktif yang menuntut kecermatan dan kemantapan. Agar dapat berfungsi sebagai alat untuk saling mengontrol, semua langkah –langkah tersebut harus tuntas. Dalam Desain Sistem Pembelajaran, proses sama pentingnya dengan produk, sebab kepercayaan atas produk berlandaskan pada proses.

    Desain Pesan; yaitu perencanaan untuk merekayasa bentuk fisik dari pesan agar terjadi komunikasi antara pengirim dan penerima, dengan memperhatikan prinsip-prinsip perhatian, persepsi,dan daya tangkap. Fleming dan Levie membatasi pesan pada pola-pola isyarat, atau simbol yang dapat memodifikasi perilaku kognitif, afektif dan psikomotor. Desain pesan berkaitan dengan hal-hal mikro, seperti : bahan visual, urutan, halaman dan layar secara terpisah. Desain harus bersifat spesifik, baik tentang media maupun tugas belajarnya. Hal ini mengandung makna bahwa prinsip-prinsip desain pesan akan berbeda, bergantung pada jenis medianya, apakah bersifat statis, dinamis atau kombinasi keduanya (misalnya, suatu potret, film, atau grafik komputer). Juga apakah tugas belajarnya tentang pembentukan konsep, pengembangan sikap, pengembangan keterampilan, strategi belajar atau hafalan.

    Strategi Pembelajaran; yaitu spesifikasi untuk menyeleksi serta mengurutkan peristiwa belajar atau kegiatan belajar dalam suatu pelajaran. Teori tentang strategi pembelajaran meliputi situasi belajar dan komponen belajar/mengajar. Seorang desainer menggunakan teori atau komponen strategi pembelajaran sebagai prinsip teknologi pembelajaran. Dalam mengaplikasikan suatu strategi pembelajaran bergantung pada situasi belajar, sifat materi dan jenis belajar yang dikehendaki.

    Karakteristik Pembelajar, yaitu segi-segi latar belakang pengalaman pembelajar yang mempengaruhi terhadap efektivitas proses belajarnya. Karaketeristik pembelajar mencakup keadaan sosio-psiko-fisik pembelajar. Secara psikologis, yang perlu mendapat perhatian dari karakteristik pembelajar yaitu berkaitan dengan dengan kemampuannya (ability), baik yang bersifat potensial maupun kecakapan nyata — dan kepribadiannya, seperti, sikap, emosi, motivasi serta aspek-aspek kepribadian lainnya.

    2. Kawasan Pengembangan

    Pengembangan adalah proses penterjemahan spesifikasi desain ke dalam bentuk fisik, di dalamnya meliputi : (1) teknologi cetak; (2) teknologi audio-visual; (3) teknologi berbasis komputer; dan (4) teknologi terpadu.

    Kawasan pengembangan berakar pada produksi media. Melalui proses yang bertahun-tahun perubahan dalam kemampuan media ini berakibat pada perubahan kawasan. Walaupun perkembangan buku teks dan alat bantu pembelajaran yang lain (teknologi cetak) mendahului film, namun pemunculan film merupakan tonggak sejarah dari gerakan audio-visual ke era Teknologi Pembelajaran sekarang ini. Pada 1930-an film mulai digunakan untuk kegiatan pembelajaran (teknologi audio-visual). Selama Perang Dunia II, banyak jenis bahan yang diproduksi terutama film untuk pelatihan militer. Setelah perang, televisi sebagai media baru digunakan untuk kepentingan pendidikan (teknologi audio-visual). Selama akhir tahun 1950- an dan awal tahun 1960-an bahan pembelajaran berprograma mulai digunakan untuk pembelajaran. Sekitar tahun 1970-an komputer mulai digunakan untuk pembelajaran, dan permainan simulasi menjadi mode di sekolah. Selama tahun 1098-an teori dan praktek di bidang pembelajaran yang berlandaskan komputer berkembang seperti jamur dan sekitar tahun 1990-an multimedia terpadu yang berlandaskan komputer merupakan dari kawasan ini.

    Di dalam kawasan pengembangan terdapat keterkaitan yang kompleks antara teknologi dan teori yang mendorong terhadap desain pesan maupun strategi pembelajarannya . Pada dasarnya kawasan pengembangan terjadi karena : (1) pesan yang didorong oleh isi; (2) strategi pembelajaran yang didorong oleh teori; dan (3) mManifestasi fisik dari teknologi – perangkat keras, perangkat lunak, dan bahan pembelajaran

    Teknologi Cetak; adalah cara untuk memproduksi atau menyampaikan bahan, seperti : buku-buku, bahan-bahan visual yang statis, terutama melalui pencetakan mekanis atau photografis. Teknologi ini menjadi dasar untuk pengembangan dan pemanfaatan dari kebanyakan bahan pembelajaran lain. Hasil teknologi ini berupa cetakan. Teks dalam penampilan komputer adalah suatu contoh penggunaan teknologi komputer untuk produksi. Apabila teks tersebut dicetak dalam bentuk “cetakan” guna keperluan pembelajaran merupakan contoh penyampaian dalam bentuk teknologi cetak.

    Dua komponen teknologi ini adalah bahan teks verbal dan visual. Pengembangan kedua jenis bahan pembelajaran tersebut sangat bergantung pada teori persepsi visual, teori membaca, pengolahan informasi oleh manusia dan teori belajar.

    Secara khusus, teknologi cetak/visual mempunyai karakteristik sebagai berikut : (1) teks dibaca secara linier, sedangkan visual direkam menurut ruang; (2) keduanya biasanya memberikan komunikasi satu arah yang pasif; (3) keduanya berbentuk visual yang statis; (4) pengembangannya sangat bergantung kepada prinsip-prinsip linguistik dan persepsi visual; (5) keduanya berpusat pada pembelajar; dan (6) informasi dapat diorganisasikan dan distrukturkan kembali oleh pemakai.

    Teknologi Audio-Visual; merupakan cara memproduksi dan menyampaikan bahan dengan menggunakan peralatan dan elektronis untuk menyajikan pesan-pesan audio dan visual. Pembelajaran audio-visual dapat dikenal dengan mudah karena menggunakan perangkat keras di dalam proses pengajaran. Peralatan audio-visual memungkinkan pemroyeksian gambar hidup, pemutaran kembali suara, dan penayangan visual yang beukuran besar. Pembelajaran audio-visual didefinisikan sebagai produksi dan pemanfaatan bahan yang berkaitan dengan pembelajaran melalui penglihatan dan pendengaran yang secara eksklusif tidak selalu harus bergantung kepada pemahaman kata-kata dan simbol-simbol sejenis.

    Secara khusus, teknologi audio-visual cenderung mempunyai karakteristik sebagai berikut : (1) bersifat linier; (2) menampilkan visual yang dinamis; (3) secara khas digunakan menurut cara yang sebelumnya telah ditentukan oleh desainer/pengembang; (3) cenderung merupakan bentuk representasi fisik dari gagasan yang riil dan abstrak: (4) dikembangkan berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip psikologi tingkah laku dan kognitif; (5) sering berpusat pada guru, kurang memperhatikan interaktivitas belajar si pembelajar.

    Teknologi Berbasis Komputer; merupakan cara-cara memproduksi dan menyampaikan bahan dengan menggunakan perangkat yang bersumber pada mikroprosesor. Pada dasarnya, teknologi berbasis komputer menampilkan informasi kepada pembelajar melalui tayangan di layar monitor. Berbagai aplikasi komputer biasanya disebut “computer-based intruction (CBI)”, “computer assisted instruction (CAI”), atau “computer-managed instruction (CMI)”.

    Aplikasi-aplikasi ini hampir seluruhnya dikembangkan berdasarkan teori perilaku dan pembelajaran terprogram, akan tetapi sekarang lebih banyak berlandaskan pada teori kognitif. Aplikasi-aplikasi tersebut dapat bersifat : (1) tutorial, pembelajaran utama diberikan, (2) latihan dan pengulangan untuk membantu pembelajar mengembangkan kefasihan dalam bahan yang telah dipelajari sebelumnya, (3) permainan dan simulasi untuk memberi kesempatan menggunakan pengetahuan yang baru dipelajari; dan (5) dan sumber data yang memungkinkan pembelajar untuk mengakses sendiri susunan data melalui tata cara pengakasesan (protocol) data yang ditentukan secara eksternal.

    Teknologi komputer, baik yang berupa perangkat keras maupun perangkat lunak biasanya memiliki karakteristik sebagai berikut :
    Dapat digunakan secara secara acak, disamping secara linier
    Dapat digunakan sesuai dengan keinginan Pembelajar, disamping menurut cara seperti yang dirancang oleh pengembangnya.
    Gagasan-gagasan biasanya diungkapkan secara abstrak dengan menggunakan kata, simbol maupun grafis.
    Prinsip-prinsip ilmu kognitif diterapkan selama pengembangan
    Belajar dapat berpusat pada pembelajar dengan tingkat interaktivitas tinggi.

    Teknologi Terpadu; merupakan cara untuk memproduksi dan menyampaikan bahan dengan memadukan beberapa jenis media yang dikendalikan komputer. Keistimewaan yang ditampilkan oleh teknologi ini,– khususnya dengan menggunakan komputer dengan spesifikasi tinggi, yakni adanya interaktivitas pembelajar yang tinggi dengan berbagai macam sumber belajar.
    Pembelajaran dengan teknologi terpadu ini mempunyai karakteristik sebagai berikut :
    Dapat digunakan secara acak, disamping secara. linier
    Dapat digunakan sesuai dengan keinginan Pembelajar, disamping menurut cara seperti yang dirancang oleh pengembangnya.
    Gagasan-gagasan sering disajikan secara realistik dalam konteks pengalaman Pembelajar, relevan dengan kondisi pembelajar, dan di bawah kendali pembelajar.
    Prinsip-prinsip ilmu kognitif dan konstruktivisme diterapkan dalam pengembangan dan pemanfaatan bahan pembelajaran
    Belajar dipusatkan dan diorganisasikan menurut pengetahuan kognitif sehingga pengetahuan terbentuk pada saat digunakan.
    Bahan belajar menunjukkan interaktivitas pembelajar yang tinggi
    Sifat bahan yang mengintegrasikan kata-kata dan contoh dari banyak sumber media.

    3. Kawasan Pemanfaatan

    Pemanfaatan adalah aktivitas menggunakan proses dan sumber untuk belajar. Fungsi pemanfaatan sangat penting karena membicarakan kaitan antara pembelajar dengan bahan atau sistem pembelajaran. Mereka yang terlibat dalam pemanfaatan mempunyai tanggung jawab untuk mencocokkan pembelajar dengan bahan dan aktivitas yang spesifik, menyiapkan pembelajar agar dapat berinteraksi dengan bahan dan aktivitas yang dipilih, memberikan bimbingan selama kegiatan, memberikan penilaian atas hasil yang dicapai pembelajar, serta memasukannya ke dalam prosedur oragnisasi yang berkelanjutan.

    Kawasan pemanfaatan mungkin merupakan kawasan Teknologi Pembelajaran, mendahului kawasan desain dan produksi media pembelajaran yang sistematis. Kawasan ini berasal dari gerakan pendidikan visual pada dekade pertama abad ke 20, dengan didirikannya museum-museum. Pada tahun-tahun awal abad ke-20, guru mulai berupaya untuk menggunakan film teatrikal dan film singkat mengenai pokok-pokok pembelajaran di kelas.

    Di antara penelitian formal yang paling tua mengenai aplikasi media dalam pendidikan ialah studi yang dilakukan oleh Lashley dan Watson mengenai penggunaan film-film pelatihan militer Perang Dunia I (tentang pencegahan penyakit kelamin). Setelah Perang Dunia II, gerakan pembelajaran audio-visual mengorganisasikan dan mempromosikan bahan-bahan audio visual, sehingga menjadikan persediaan bahan pembelajaran semakin berkembang dan mendorong cara-cara baru membantu guru. Selama tahun 1960-an banyak sekolah dan perguruan tinggi mulai banyak mendirikan pusat-pusat media pembelajaran.

    Karya Dale pada 1946 yang berjudul Audiovisual Materials in Teaching, yang di dalamnya mencoba memberikan rasional umum tentang pemilihan bahan dan aktivitas belajar yang tepat. Pada tahun, 1982 diterbitkan diterbitkan buku Instructional Materials and New Technologies of Instruction oleh Heinich, Molenda dan Russel. Dalam buku ini mengemukakan model ASSURE, yang dijadikan acuan prosedur untuk merancang pemanfaatan media dalam mengajar. Langkah-langkah tersebut meliputi : (1) Analyze leraner (menganalisis pembelajar); (2) State Objective (merumuskan tujuan);(3) Select Media and Materials (memilih media dan bahan); (4) Utilize Media and Materials (menggunakan media dan bahan), (5) Require Learner Participation (melibatkan siswa) ; dan (6) Evaluate and Revise (penilaian dan revisi).

    Pemanfaatan Media; yaitu penggunaan yang sistematis dari sumber belajar. Proses pemanfaatan media merupakan proses pengambilan keputusan berdasarkan pada spesifikasi desain pembelajaran. Misalnya bagaimana suatu film diperkenalkan atau ditindaklanjuti dan dipolakan sesuai dengan bentuk belajar yang diinginkan. Prinsip-prinsip pemanfaatan juga dikaitkan dengan karakteristik pembelajar. Seseorang yang belajar mungkin memerlukan bantuan keterampilan visual atau verbal agar dapat menarik keuntungan dari praktek atau sumber belajar.

    Difusi Inovasi adalah proses berkomunikasi malalui strategi yang terrencana dengan tujuan untuk diadopsi. Tujuan akhir yang ingin dicapai ialah untuk terjadinya perubahan. Selama bertahun-tahun, kawasan pemanfaatan dipusatkan pada aktivitas guru dan ahli media yang membantu guru. Model dan teori pemanfaatan dalam kawasan pemanfaatan cenderung terpusat pada perpektif pengguna. Akan tetapi, dengan diperkenalkannya konsep difusi inovasi pada akhir tahun 1960-an yang mengacu pada proses komunikasi dan melibatkan pengguna dalam mempermudah proses adopsi gagasan, perhatian kemudian berpaling ke perspektif penyelenggara.

    Rogers (1983) melakukan studi tentang difusi inovasi, yang mencakup berbagai disiplin ilmu. Hasil studinya telah memperkuat pandangan tentang pentahapan, proses, serta variabel yang dapat mempengaruhi difusi. Dari hasil studi ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa pemanfaatan bergantung pada upaya membangkitkan kesadaran, keinginan mencoba dan mengadopsi inovasi. Dalam hal ini, penting dilakukan proses desiminasi, yaitu yang sengaja dan sistematis untuk membuat orang lain sadar adanya suatu perkembangan dengan cara menyebarkan informasi. Desiminasi ini merupakan tujuan awal dari difusi inovasi. Langkah-langkah difusi menurut Rogers (1983) adalah : (1) pengetahuan; (2) persuasi atau bujukan; (3) keputusan; (4) implementasi; (5) dan konfirmasi.

    Implementasi dan Institusionalisasi; yaitu penggunaan bahan dan strategi pembelajaran dalam keadaan yang sesungguhnya (bukan tersimulasikan). Sedangkan institusionalisasi penggunaan yang rutin dan pelestarian dari inovasi pembelajaran dalam suatu struktur atau budaya organisasi. Begitu produk inovasi telah diadopsi, proses implementasi dan pemanfaatan dimulai. Untuk menilai pemanfaatan harus ada implementasi. Bidang implementasi dan institusionalisasi (pelembagaan) yang didasarkan pada penelitian, belum berkembang sebaik-bidang-bidang yang lain. Tujuan dari implementasi dan institusionalisasi adalah menjamin penggunaan yang benar oleh individu dalam organisasi. Sedangkan tujuan dari institusionalisasi adalah untuk mengintegrasikan inovasi dalam struktur kehidupan organisasi. Keduanya tergantung pada perubahan individu maupun organisasi.

    Kebijakan dan Regulasi; adalah aturan dan tindakan yang mempengaruhi difusi dan pemanfaatan teknologi pembelajaran. Kebijakan dan peraturan pemerintah mempengaruhi pemanfaatan teknologi. Kebijakan dan regulasi biasanya dihambat oleh permasalahan etika dan ekonomi. Misalnya, hukum hak cipta yang dikenakan pada pengguna teknologi, baik untuk teknologi cetak, teknologi audio-visual, teknologi berbasis komputer, maupun terknologi terpadu.

    4. Kawasan Pengelolaan

    Pengelolaan meliputi pengendalian Teknologi Pembelajaran melalui : perencanaan, pengorganisasian, pengkoordinasian dan supervisi. Kawasan pengelolaan bermula dari administrasi pusat media, program media dan pelayanan media. Pembauran perpustakaan dengan program media membuahkan pusat dan ahli media sekolah. Program-program media sekolah ini menggabungkan bahan cetak dan non cetak sehingga timbul peningkatan penggunaan sumber-sumber teknologikal dalam kurikulum.

    Dengan semakin rumitnya praktek pengelolaan dalam bidang teknologi pembelajaran ini, teori pengelolaan umum mulai diterapkan dan diadaptasi. Teori pengelolaan proyek mulai digunakan, khususnya dalam proyek desain pembelajaran. Teknik atau cara pengelolaan proyek-proyek terus dikembangkan, dengan meminjam dari bidang lain. Tiap perkembangan baru memerlukan caraa pengelolaan baru pula.

    Keberhasilan sistem pembelajaran jarak jauh bergantung pada pengelolaannya, karena lokasi yang menyebar. Dengan lahirnya teknologi baru, dimungkinkan tersedianya cara baru untuk mendapatkan informasi. Akibatnya pengetahuan tentang pengelolaan informasi menjadi sangat potensial. Dasar teoritis pengelolaan informasi bersal dari disiplin ilmu informasi. Pengelolaan informasi membuka banyak kemungkinan untuk desain pembelajaran, khususnya dalam pengembangan dan implementasi kurikulum dan pembelajaran yang dirancang sendiri.

    Pengelolaan Proyek; meliputi : perencanaan, monitoring, dan pengendalian proyek desain dan pengembangan. Pengelolaan proyek berbeda dengan pengelolaan tradisional (line and staff management) karena : (a) staf proyek mungkin baru, yaitu anggota tim untuk jangka pendek; (b) pengelola proyek biasanya tidak memiliki wewenang jangka panjang atas orang karena sifat tugas mereka yang sementara, dan (c) pengelola proyek memiliki kendali dan fleksibilitas yang lebis luas dari yang biasa terdapat pada organisasi garis dan staf.

    Para pengelola proyek bertanggung jawab atas perencanaan, penjadwalan, dan pengendalian fungsi desain pembelajaran atau jenis-jenis proyek yang lain. Peran pengelola proyek biasanya berhubungan dengan cara mengatasi ancaman proyek dan memberi saran perubahan internal.

    Pengelolaan Sumber; mencakup perencanaan, pemantauan dan pengendalian sistem pendukung dan pelayanan sumber. Pengelolaan sumber memliki arti penting karena mengatur pengendalian akses. Pengertian sumber dapat mencakup, personil keuangan, bahan baku, waktu, fasilitas dan sumber pembelajaran. Sumber pembelajaran mencakup semua teknologi yang telah dijelaskan pada kawasan pengembangan. Efektivitas biaya dan justifikasi belajar yang efektif merupakan dua karakteristik penting dari pengelolaan sumber.

    Pengelolaan sistem penyampaian; meliputi perencanaan, pemantauan pengendalian “cara bagaimana distribusi bahan pembelajaran diorganisasikan” Hal tersebut merupakan suatu gabungan antara medium dan cara penggunaan yang dipakai dalam menyajikan informasi pembelajaran kepada pembelajar.

    Pengelolaan sistem penyampaian memberikan perhatian pada permasalahan produk seperti persyaratan perangkat keras/lunak dan dukungan teknis terhadap pengguna maupun operator. Pengelolaan ini juga memperhatikan permasalaan proses seperti pedoman bagi desainer dan instruktur dan pelatih. Keputusan pengelolaan penyampaian sering bergantung pada sistem pengelolaan sumber.

    Pengelolaan informasi; meliputi perencanaan, pemantauan, dan pengendalian cara penyimpanan, pengiriman/pemindahan atau pemrosesan informasi dalam rangka tersedianya sumber untuk kegiatan belajar. Pentingnya pengelolaan informasi terletak pada potensinya untuk mengadakan revolusi kurikulum dan aplikasi desain pembelajaran

    Kawasan Penilaian

    Penilaian merupakan proses penentuan memadai tidaknya pembelajaran dan belajar, mencakup : (1) analisis masalah; (2) pengukuran acuan patokan; (3) penilaian formatif; dan (4) penilaian sumatif .

    Dalam kawasan penilaian dibedakan pengertian antara penilaian program, proyek , produk. Penilaian program – evaluasi yang menaksir kegiatan pendidikan yang memberikan pelayanan secara berkesinambungan dan sering terlibat dalam penyusunan kurikulum. Sebagai contoh misalnya penilaian untuk program membaca dalam suatu wilayah persekolahan, program pendidikan khusus dari pemerintah daerah, atau suatu program pendidikan berkelanjutan dari suatu universitas.

    Penilaian proyek – evaluasi untuk menaksir kegiatan yang dibiayai secara khusus guna melakukan suatu tugas tertentu dalam suatu kurun waktu. Contoh, suatu lokakarya 3 hari mengenai tujuan perilaku. Kunci perbedaan antara program dan proyek ialah bahwa program diharapkan berlangsung dalam yang tidak terbatas, sedangkan proyek biasanya diharapkan berjangka pendek. Proyek yang dilembagakan dalam kenyataannya menjadi program.

    Penilaian bahan (produk pembelajaran) – evaluasi yang menaksir kebaikan atau manfaat isi yang menyangkut benda-benda fisik, termasuk buku, pedoman kurikulum, film, pita rekaman, dan produk pembelajaran lainnya.

    Analisis Masalah. Analisis masalah mencakup cara penentuan sifat dan parameter masalah dengan menggunakan strategi pengumpulan informasi dan pengambilan keputusan. Telah lama para evaluator yang piawai berargumentasi bahwa penilaian yang seksama mulai saat program tersebut dirumuskan dan direncanakan. Bagaimanapun baiknya anjuran orang, program yang diarahkan pada tujuan yang tidak/kurang dapat diterima akan dinilai gagal memenuhi kebutuhan.

    Jadi, kegiatan penilaian ini meliputi identifikasi kebutuhan, penentuan sejauh mana masalahnya dapat diklasifikasikan sebagai pembelajaran, identifikasi hambatan, sumber dan karakteristik pembelajar, serta penentuan tujuan dan prioritas (Seels and Glasgow, 1990). Kebutuhan telah dirumuskan sebagai “jurang antara “apa yang ada”dan “apa yang seharusnya ada” dalam pengertian hasil (Kaufman,1972). Analisis kebutuhan diadakan untuk kepentingan perencanaan program yang lebih memadai.

    Pengukuran Acuan Patokan; pengukuran acuan patokan meliputi teknik-teknik untuk menentukan kemampuan pembelajaran menguasai materi yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Penilaian acuan patokan memberikan informasi tentang penguasaan seseorang mengenai pengetahuan, sikap, atau keterampilan yang berkaitan dengan tujuan pembelajaran. Keberhasilan dalam tes acuan patokan berarti dapat melaksanakan ketentuan tertentu, biasanya ditentukan dan mereka yang dapat mencapai atau melampaui skor minimal tersebut dinyatakan lulus.Pengukuran acuan patokan memberitahukan pada para siswa seberapa jauh mereka dapat mencapai standar yang ditentukan.

    Penilaian Formatif dan Sumatif; berkaitan dengan pengumpulan informasi tentang kecukupan dan penggunaan informasi ini sebagai dasar pengembangan selanjutnya. Dengan penilaian sumatif berkaitan dengan pengumpulan informasi tentang kecukupan untuk pengambilan keputusan dalam hal pemanfaatan. Penilaian formatif dilaksanakan pada waktu pengembangan atau perbaikan program atau produk (atau orang dsb). Penilaian ini dilaksanakan untuk keperluan staf dalam lembaga program dan biasanya tetap bersifat intern; akan tetapi penilaian ini dapat dilaksanakan oleh evaluator dalam atau luar atau (lebih baik lagi) kombinasi. Perbedaan antara formatif dan sumatif telah dirangkum dengan baik dalam sebuah kiasan dari Bob Stake “ Apabila juru masak mencicipi sup, hal tersebut formatif, apabila para tamu mencicipi sup tersebut, hal tersebut sumatif. Penilaian sumatif dilaksanakan setelah selesai dan bagi kepentingan pihak luar atau para pengambil keputusan, sebagai contoh : lembaga penyandang dana, atau calon pengguna, walaupun hal tersebut dapat dilaksanakan baik oleh evaluator dalam atau dalam untuk gabungan. Untuk alasan kredibiltas, lebih baik evaluator luar dilibatkan daripada sekedar merupakan penilaian formatif. Hendaknya jangan dikacaukan dengan penilaian hasil (outcome) yang sekedar menilai hasil, biukannya prose — hal tersebut dapat berupa baik formatif maupun sumatif. Metoda yang digunakan dalam penilaian formatif berbeda dengan penilaian sumatif. Penilaian formatif mengandalkan pada kajian teknis dan tutorial, uji coba dalam kelompok kecil atau kelompok besar. Metoda pengumpulan data sering bersifat informal, seperti observasi, wawancara, dan tes ringkas. Sebaliknya, penilaian sumatif memerlukan prosedur dan metoda pengumpulan data yang lebih formal. Penilaian sumatif sering menggunakan studi kelompok komparatif dalam desain kuasi eksperimental.

    Hubungan Antara Kawasan

    Dengan adanya kawasan sebagaimana dikemukakan di atas, teknologi pembelajaran sampai dengan masa definisi 1994 telah memiliki kepastian tentang ruang lingkup wilayah garapannya. Meski ke depannya jumlah kawasan beserta kategorinya akan semakin berkembang, sejalan dengan perkembangan dalam bidang teknologi dan pendidikan, serta disiplin ilmu lainnya yang relevan, sebagai penopangnya. Setiap kawasan tidak berjalan sendiri-sendiri, tetapi memiliki hubungan yang sinergis.

    SUMBER DAN DISARIKAN DARI :

    Barbara. Seels dan Rita C. Richey yang berjudul Teknologi Pembelajaran: Definisi dan Kawasannya, hasil terjemahan Dewi S. Prawiradilaga, dkk.(1995) dari judul aslinya Instructional Technology : Definition and Domain of Field yang diterbitkan pada tahun 1994.
    picture1

     
  • aldes91 4:48 am on January 11, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: teknologi pendidikan   

    definisi teknologi, teknologi pendidikan, dan teknologi dalam pendidikan 

    Definsi teknologi
    Teknologi didefinisikan sebagai paduan sempurna antara ilmu (science), rekayasa (engineering), seni (art), dan ekonomi.
    Arti istilah teknologi dianggap berkaitan erat dengan pengertian berikut
    Penerapan keilmuan yang mempelajari dan mengembangkan kemampuan dari suatu rekayasa dengan langkah dan teknik tertentu dalam suatu bidang.

    Teknologi, menurut Djoyohadikusumo (1994, 222) berkaitan erat dengan sains (science) dan perekayasaan (engineering). Dengan kata lain, teknologi mengandung dua dimensi, yaitu science dan engineering yang saling berkaitan satu sama lainnya. Sains mengacu pada pemahaman kita tentang dunia nyata sekitar kita, artinya mengenai ciri-ciri dasar pada dimensi ruang, tentang materi dan energi dalam interaksinya satu terhadap lainnya.

    Definisi teknologi pendidikan

    Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.(Teknologi Pembelajaran adalah studi dan etika praktek untuk memfasilitasi pembelajaran dan meningkatkan kinerja melalui penciptaan, penggunaan, dan pengaturan proses dan sumber daya teknologi.)
    Teknologi Pendidikan adalah suatu cara yang sistematis dalam mendesain, melaksanakan, dan mengealuasi proses keseluruhan dari belajar dan pembelajaran dalam betuk tujuan pembelajaran yang spesifik, berdasarkan penelitian dalam teori belajar dan komunikasi pada manusia dan menggunakan kombinasi sumber-sumber belajar dari manusia maupun non manusia untuk membuat pembelajaran lebih efektif.

    Teknologi dalam pendidikan
    Teknologi dalam pendidikan sangat berperan penting. Beberapa contoh manfaat teknologi bagi bidang pendidikan
    1. Peralatan kelas. Proyektor : membuat materi pelajaran makin mudah dimengerti. Pengeras suara : makin banyak peserta bisa mengikuti di kelas.

    2. Internet. Materi pelajaran tersedia dimana-mana. Bisa melihat rekaman kuliah universitas di Amerika lewat youtube. Dari internet ini juga siswa-siswa di daerah bisa ngikuti perkembangan bidang ilmu mereka. Lewat internet, siswa bisa download buku teks (kalo ada), cari jurnal (lewat langganan atau minta langsung ke penulisnya).

    3. Administrasi. Sekarang di banyak sekolah siswa bisa mengurus administrasinya lewat internet ya, misalnya mengurus DNS. Kemajuan di bidang perbankan membuat siswa bisa bayar sekolah lewat autodebet.

    Soal lembaga pendidikan yang tidak mampu menyediakan teknologi. Saya pikir itu bukan alasan buat mereka tidak bisa bersaing. Yang paling penting itu ada akses internet. Yang lainnya itu cuma memberi kemudahan. Dengan menyerap ilmu yang ada di internet juga bisa pintar kok (baca artikel online, liat kuliah online, interaksi dengan para pakar).

     
  • aldes91 4:29 am on January 11, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: teknologi pendidikan   

    pengertian teknologi pembelajaran 

    picture12Dalam definisi teknologi pembelajaran dinyatakan bahwa ” Teknologi pendidikan adalah teori dan praktek dalam hal desain, pengembangan, pemanfaatan, mengelolaan, dan evaluasi terhadap sumber dan proses untuk belajar” (Barbara, 1994)

     
  • aldes91 3:53 am on January 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: teknologi pendidikan   

    pengertian teknologi pendidikan 2008 

    Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.(Teknologi Pembelajaran adalah studi dan etika praktek untuk memfasilitasi pembelajaran dan meningkatkan kinerja melalui penciptaan, penggunaan, dan pengaturan proses  dan sumber daya teknologi.)

    Teknologi Pendidikan adalah suatu cara yang sistematis dalam mendesain, melaksanakan, dan mengealuasi proses keseluruhan dari belajar dan pembelajaran dalam bentuk tujuan pembelajaran yang spesifik, berdasarkan penelitian dalam teori belajar dan komunikasi pada manusia dan menggunakan kombinasi sumber-sumber belajar dari manusia maupun non manusia untuk membuat pembelajaran lebih efektif.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.