Peer Mentoring And Peer Assessing In Method Of Jigsaw
Donald Samuel Slamet Santosa Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana Salatiga
Abstract
This research start from students skills problem in teacher’s competency. Based on data, many students in Economics Education (who prepared to be teacher in the future) may not able to mentoring and assessing others. The purpose of this study is developing method of jigsaw that consist by peer mentoring and peer assessing. This study is Research and Development that adopt 4 steps (out of 10) Borg and Gall model. The study were done in 2nd semester 2015/2016 at“Student’s Pedagogical Development”class. Result of the study contain by factual model, hipotetical model, and final model. New sintax of jigsaw, lesson plan, and peer assessment instrument are parts of final model. Other lecture sugested to use this final model when they want improving mentoring and assessing skills on students.
Background
In the last several decades, there is changes on teaching and learning orientation in Indonesia. Newest orientation not only focused on students or teacher, but both. To make it real, the teachers must able to implement their pedagogical competencies. According to Indonesian ministry of education regulation (namely Permendiknas No. 16/2007), there are 10 components of pedagogical competency. All this 10 components related to teacher and students centred teaching-learning.
Developing this 10 components in the students of teacher college (candidate of teacher) is very strategic. This 10 starting by knowing characteristic of students and ending by reflecting all of teaching-learning process. Core of all components are planing, acting and evaluating. High School Teacher Training students who have high competency in all of those component are candidate of professional teacher.
According to past research (Mirakaho, 2015), the readynes to be professional teacher of students in Economics Education Major, Satya Wacana Christian University are low category averagely. It means students have low competencies that described into 10 components.
Deeply, result of observation show that the main weekneses in students are teaching skill (or mentoring skill) and assessing skill.
Ironically, skills in mentoring and assessing are most important skills that must owned by teacher (beside planning skill). Without good those skills, students may not able to be professional teacher. Urgently, this weakneses must solve soon.
There are many ways to execute this purpose, including developing inovative teaching approach, strategy, model, or method. Then, the product implement by lecture in class to develop mentoring skill and assessing skill.
There are various method of teaching. Due to Silberman (2011), teacher may use 101 kinds of teaching method. Each method have specialized to realized specific purposes. In cooperative learning, Slavin (1995) has been promoted several method that have different syntax of learning each others. The main problem in this case is choosing the best method.
2008:9; Andayani, 2015:89; Anas, 2014:7).
In case on this research, there are 30 relevant teaching method joining selection. To choose the best of that 30, the first step is developing instrument for teaching method assessment. Based on expert and user validating, the instrument consist by 9 indicators. Every indicator have their own priority (that valued by weight). The first priority until last priority as folowing: learning purposes (4), target for content (4), learning style of students (3), homogenity of students (3), time (2), environment (2), facility (1), number of students (1), size of classroom (1). Every teaching method was scoring by 1-5 in each indicators. Total score come from multiply between weight and the score. All of total score deviding by total weight (21).
Class of Student’s Pedagogical Development in Economics Education major, SWCU have following conditions: 1. The purposes of learning are developing
mentoring skills and assessing skills. 2. Target content including multiple
intelegences (Howard Gardner), theory of learning and neuroscience.
3. Learning style of 28 students are: 18 auditory students, 9 visual students, and only 1 kinestethic student.
4. Students are differenting by rases, sex, religion, and socio-economics background, but relatively same in ages (19 years old in average).
5. Duration for each meeting is 3 hours in the morning (start at 07.00).
6. Around the campus, there are boarding house, highway, and schools.
7. Main facility in the class are laptop, LCD, table built in chair (50 units), and wifi connection. Every students have their own internet browser.
8. Number of students is 28.
9. Size of classroom is 7 x 8 meters. Based on the conditions, the best teaching methods out of 30 is Jigsaw (score 4.19; the highest score comparing other teaching method). For purposes
optimalization reason, the basic model of jigsaw must modified.
Method
This is Research and Development model. Borg and Gall (2007) conduct the major step in the R&D cycle used to develop mini courses are as follows: (1) Research and information collecting, includes needs assessment, review of literature, class room observation, and preparation of a report of state of the art; (2) Planning, include defining skills, stating objectives determining course sequence, small scale feasibility testing; (3) Develop preliminary form of the product, include preparation of instructional materials, handbook, and evaluation devices; (4) Preliminary field test, conducted in from 1 to 3, using 6 to 12 subjects, interview, observational, and questionnaire data collected and analyzed; (5) Main product revision, revision of product as suggested by the preliminary field test result; (6) Main field testing, conducted in 5 to 15 schools with 30 to 100 subject. Quantitative data on subject pre course and post course performance are collected. Result are evaluated with respect to course objective and are compare with control group data, when appropriate; (7) Operational product revision, revision of product as suggested by main field-test results; (8) operational field testing, conducted in 10 to 30 schools involving 40 to 200 subject. Interview, observational and questionnaire data collected and analyzed; (9) Final product revision of product as suggested by operational field-test result; and (10) Dissemination and implementation, report on product at professional meetings and in journals. Work with publisher who assumes commercial distribution. Monitor distribution to provide quality control.
This study limited for only 4 main steps. Each step have its data collection and data analisys stratrgy as follow:
developed by Eliot and modify by Slavin. The main source in this step is book of cooperative learning by Slavin. 2. Development step: analyzing factual
model to getting its weakneses in case of the condition, and revise it based on theory. This development step done to produce hipotetical model. The model consist by the new syntax of jigsaw and its following tools.
3. Validating the hipotetical model by two experts and two practicioners by filling validating instrument. The validating instrument consist by indicators: inovation, ability to realize purposes, aplicability, realistic, and clear. Each indicators valued by likert scale by validators. If the total score of model more than 3 in average (from 4 validator), the model is decent to use. But, if the score is less than 3, model must be revised before testing.
4. Field testing: testing model in class of Student’s Pedagogical Development. Instrument filled by students and observer as score of the impact variable (peer mentoring skills). Other way, score for peer assessing skills of students came from analisys on results of peer assessing. Level of consistency between result of a student and others are indicator for those. The effectivenes of model judged by focus group discussion between lecture, observer and students. This step producing final model of Jigsaw.
Results
Result of this study consist by 3 product that produced by research step, development step, and validating and field testing steps. Main result of every step are factual model, hipotetical model, and final model.
Figure 1. Main Result of Each Step
Result of research step (Factual Model): Result of research step is original model of Jigsaw that have been developed by Slavin (1995). The syntac of jigsaw as follow:
1. Making heterogen group that consist by 4-5 students.
2. Individually student learn several topics in their own group.
3. Students move to expert group that learn same topic.
4. Students back to their own group and present their topic individually.
5. Test
6. Group recognition
Presentation in small group of students that described in original model make all students have their own responsibility to mentoring others. Logicaly, it can make students seriously preparing their presentation that mean mentoring others (peer mentoring). Based on the description for original model of Jigsaw, one the strength of model is ability to improving mentoring skill of students.
Result of development step (Hipotetical Model):
Modification of the original model may done for optimalization in developing mentoring skill, and making this method able to developing assessing skill on students. This second puspose of modification based on jigsaw’s weaknes in this research context, that is the model unable to developing assessing skill.
Based on the condition, the syntax of jigsaw must be modified. First, second and thirth steps in syntax may be maintained because these steps were not determined to this research purposes (improving mentoring and assessing skills). The step that can directly improving mentoring skill is fourth step. This step must modified to optimalization jigsaw’s ability on improving mentoring skill.
Research: Factual
Model
Validating and field testing: Final Model Developing:
The own experience, showing that the students may perform good presentation (that means good mentoring) when some body assessing it. The other experience showing that the teacher have many difficulties when they must assessing several students in a time.
To actualize good perform of presentation, some body must helping teacher in assessing presenter in this model. Logically, more assessor will make better perform of presentation. The easiest way to realized it is using other students in the group as assessor to their presenter. If the group consist of 5 students, 1 student will be presenter and other 4 students will be assessor (helping teacher assessing presenter).
The main benefit in this peer assessment is not only improving mentoring skill, but also assessing skill. The students will get experience to assessing others. This idea just only to helping teacher assessing the presenter, and not to change the role of teacher as an assessor.
Concequences of this new model are strategy in making group and developing peer assessment instrument. Description of two concequences as follow:
1. Making heterogen group must passing specific strategy. The lecture must knowing the students characteristics that including social and cultural backgroud, economic, ages, rases, past learning results, and pretest results. To knowing those, the lecture may make instrument that filled by students. Both of group (students group and expert group) must consist by heterogen students.
2. Second concequency is developing peer assessment instrument. According to Hammerman, 2009:69, several indicators to assessing presenter are (1) Provides a clear overview of project and goals; (2) Describes a variety of strategies and resources to communicate ideas; (3) Organized content effectively and shows
understanding of concepts; (4) Is able to answer questions related to learning and connections; (5) Uses technology or other resources appropriately and effectively; (6) Shows evidence of critical thinking; (7) Demonstrates effective presentation skills (organization of content, eye contact, clear speech, time, etc). Closed statement questionaire with likert scale is the best instrument for this condition. Asessor may choose the number in every indicator that showing the real conditions of presenter.
Result of validating and field testing (Final Model):
The hipotetical model (new syntax of jigsaw) validating by experts and practitioners, then testing in empirical conditions. Result of validating and field testing consist several added as follow: 1. Instrument of peer assessment must
filled by identity and sign of assessor to improving responsibility of assessor. 2. Teacher must fill the same instrument
that filled by students in peer assessment section.
3. Then, teacher must comparing results of peer assessing and result of assessment of teacher.
4. Improving of assessing skill on students valued by result of compared results of peer assessment and result of assessment of teacher. The assessing skill of students have already improved if there is no differences (or the differences is not significant).
5. Mentoring skill valued by the score that produced by both of peer assessment and assessment by teacher. The mentoring skill of students have already improved if the score is highly enough (more than 4 in scale of 5).
6. Final score of mentoring skill containt 60% observation result and 40% peer mentoring result.
(more than minimum criteria of improvement). Based on desciptive statistic, average score from observation is 4.2 with standard deviation 0.22. Then, average score from peer mentoring is 4.17 with standard deviation 0.16. Table 1 showing result of assessment.
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistic of Assessment Result
The result seems small differences between observation and peer mentoring. Only 0.025 points, where observation result is higher than peer mentoring result. The differences must testing by one paired sample t-test to knowing more about significance of this differences. In this research, differences is significant on alpha 0.05. Table 2 showing result of testing.
Table 2.
Result of Independen Sample Test
T-value is 0.473 that significant on level 0.638 (higher than 0.05). It mean no differences between observation and peer assessing results. The consistency between score of observation (from lecture) and peer mentoring (from students) is the proof of improving assessing skill. Students may able to assess others like their lecture (the skill already same).
Conclution of this research is New syntax of Jigsaw may able to improve mentoring skill and assessing skill of students. Then, other lecture sugested to use this final model when they want improving mentoring and assessing skills on students.
References
Anas, M. 2014. Mengenal Metode Pembelajaran. Pasuruan: Pustaka Hulwa
Andayani. 2015. Problema dan Aksioma: dalam Metodologi Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia. Sleman: Deepublish Publisher
Borg, R. W., Gall, J. P. 2007. Educational Research: An Introduction. Eight edition. New York: Pearson
Hammerman, E. 2009. Formative Assessment Strategies for Enhanced Learning in Science, K-8. Corwin Press
Mirakaho, D. C. A. Pengaruh Akses Internet dan Motivasi Berkuliah Terhadap Kesiapan Menjadi Guru Profesional Dikalangan Mahasiswa Pendidikan Ekonomi FKIP UKSW. Prosiding Seminar Pendidikan Ekonomi dan Bisnis Vol 1. No. 1. 2015.
Nursalam, Efendi, F. 2008. Pendidikan dalam Keperawatan.Jakarta: Salemba Medika
Silberman, L. M. 2005.101 Ways to Make Training Active. John Wiley & Sons. Slavin E. R. 1995. Cooperative Learning:
