Internship Students' Comprehension of Pedagogic Competency and of the Learning Theory of Liberating Learning


Indonesian education is challenged with low quality teacher training program management, outdated pedagogy of teaching and learning, a lack of teaching resources, no professional development follow-up for recently certified teachers, a lack of quality control of graduates who enter teacher training courses, and a lack of rigor in teacher training programs. In order to upgrade the quality of education, the government issued a Circular Letter of The Freedom of Learning Policy. This study aimed to determine students’ comprehension of the pedagogic competency and learning theory that liberates learners, which could be used as a basis in developing learning models to accommodate the Policy of Freedom of Learning. The research was a descriptive study with a quantitative approach, and 238 internship students were included who were randomly selected from 7 faculties. The data were collected online using tests and questionnaires. It was found that the mean score of students’ comprehension of pedagogical competency was 41.66, which can be considered low. The mean score of their comprehension of liberating learning theory was 51.43 which can be considered high. In addition, it was found that they agreed with the idealism of the educational leaders about liberating learning; this mindset was developed through taking a Learning Strategy course, Learning Theory course or both. The results of this study can be used to help develop liberating learning models for students.

Keywords: comprehension, pedagogic competency, liberating learning theory, liberating learning

[1] Budiningsih AC. Belajar dan pembelajaran. Rineka Cipta; 2013.

[2] Budiningsih AC, Siswa K. Sebagai pijakan pembelajaran. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta; 2018.

[3] Berybe H. Dilema pelembagaan pendidikan. Pendidikan kegelisahan sepanjang zaman: Kanisius; 2001.

[4] Brooks JG, Brooks M. The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1993.

[5] Degeng NS. Pandangan behavioristik vs konstruktivistik: Pemecahan masalah belajar abad XXI. Makalah seminar TEP; 2001.

[6] Duffy TM, Jonassen DH. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Lawrence Erbaum Associates: Publishers Hillsdale; 1992.

[7] Freire P. Politik pendidikan. Research, Education, and Dialogue: Pustaka Pelajar; 2007.

[8] Goble FG. Mazhab ketiga psikologi humanistik Abraham Maslow. Penerbit Kanisius; 1993.

[9] Illeris K. Contemporary theories of learning. Routledge; 2009.

[10] Illich I. Bebas dari sekolah. Pustaka Sinar Harapan: Yayasan Obor Indonesia; 2000.

[11] Jonassen DH. Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development; 1991;39(3):5-14.

[12] Luhur M, Siswa T. Karya-karya ki hajar dewantara. Majelis Luhur Taman Siswa; 2016.

[13] Mangunwijaya A. Sindhunata, pendidikan: Kegelisahan sepanjang jaman. Kanisius; 2001.

[14] Mangunwijaya A. Pendidikan pemerdekaan, catatan separuh perjalanan SDK eksperimen mangunan. DED Misereor/KZE; 2004.

[15] Moll LC. Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and internship cations of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge University Press; 1994.

[16] Suparno P. Konstruktivisme dan dampaknya terhadap pendidikan. Kompas; 1996.

[17] Perkins DN. What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology. 1991;33(9):19-21.

[18] Malik RS. Educational challenges in 21st century and sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Development Education and Research, JSDER. 2018;2(1):9-20.

[19] Mumpuniarti M, Handoyo RR, Pinrupitanza DT, Batotuttaqiyah D. Teacher’s pedagogy competence and challenges in implementing inclusive learning in slow learner. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan. 2020;39(1): 217-229