Factors Influencing the Success of Teaching of Universitas Pgri Semarang Students in International PPL Program in Malaysia

  • Authors

    • Muhdi .
    • Suwarno Widodo
    • Achmad Buchori
    • Ririn Ambarini
    • Nur Fadhila
    2018-08-24
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.30.18421
  • factors of succesful teaching practice, international PPL program.

  • Abstract

    The rapid development of science and technology requires universities to prepare competent human resources in their fields, one of which is the ability in teaching practice in schools. To improve the students’ ability in teaching practice in both  Indonesia and overseas schools, it requires a strategic effort, such as exchange student program. Therefore, Universitas PGRI Semarang conducts MOU with Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia. Through this program, the students are  expected to be able to adapt the character learning and  become a professional teacher in the future.

    Factors influencing the success of the students in joining the exchange program can be seen from the internal and external aspects. Therefore the purpose of this study is to determine what factors influence the success of teacher students of Universitas PGRI Semarang in Malaysia. The population of all students who joined the international PPL program in Malaysia is 18 students with random sampling for students teaching in grade 4 and 5. The data  were obtained from questionnaire and interview.

    Based on the questionnaire, it is found that 95% of Universitas PGRI Semarang students are very pleased to join the International PPL program in Malaysia, as the cultural environment similar to the Indonesian nation give the easier adaptation process. Based on the interview with the students, the benefits of this program are as follows: 1) 90 % of students claim to gain new life and social experiences; 2) 87 % of students get additional knowledge about education in Malaysia; 3) 92% of students get strong fraternity from other apprentice students of other state / private universities, and 4) only 30%  of students are constrained by the language difficulties, 30% of students have difficulties in learning time, and 20% of students have difficulties in funding.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Buchanan J. Quality teaching: means for its enhancement? Aust Univ Rev. 2011;53(1):66–72.

      [2] Ehrman C. On using benefit segmentation for a service industry: A study on college career counseling services. J Am Acad Bus. 2006;8(2):179–85.

      [3] Helal A Al. Expensive Private Higher Education in Bangladesh : Who Can Afford ? 2012;2(2):1–19.

      [4] Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner KP, Walsh G, Gremler DD. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J Interact Mark. 2004;18(1):38–52.

      [5] Bailey AR, Chow CW, Haddad KM. Continuous Improvement in Business Education: Insights From the For-Profit Sector and Business School Deans. J Educ Bus. 1999;

      [6] Bertolin JCG. The quasi-markets in higher education: from the improbable perfectly competitive markets to the unavoidable State regulation. Educ Pesqui. 2011;

      [7] Hill C. International business: Competing in the global market place. Strateg Dir. 2008;1–16.

      [8] Kohont A, BergoÄ JN. On the way into the Bologna reform - a consideration of the quality and the role of human resource management in higher education system. Qual High Educ. 2010;7:12–36.

      [9] Lizzio A, Wilson K, Simons R. University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(1):27–52.

      [10] Walker P. What Do Students Think They (Should) Learn at College? Student Perceptions of Essential Learning Outcomes. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2008;

      [11] Longanecker D a., Blanco CD. Public policy implications of changing student attendance patterns. New Dir High Educ. 2003;(121):51–68.

      [12] Wilkinson R, Yussof I. Public and private provision of higher education in Malaysia: A comparative analysis. High Educ. 2005;

      [13] Woodhouse D. Quality Assurance in Higher Education: the next 25 years. Qual High Educ. 1998;

      [14] Umemiya N. Regional quality assurance activity in higher education in Southeast Asia: Its characteristics and driving forces. Qual High Educ. 2008;14(3):277–90.

      [15] Ginns P, Prosser M, Barrie S. Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Stud High Educ. 2007;32(5):603–15.

      [16] Fish S. First, kill all the administrators. Chron High Educ. 2003;20–20.

      [17] Marshall C, Rossman G. Designing qualitative research. Designing Qualitative Research (3rd edition). 1999.

      [18] Sarpkaya R. Factors affecting individual education demand at the entrance to university: Adnan Menderes University sample. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egit Bilim. 2010;

      [19] Brennan J, Teichler U. The future of higher education and of higher education research. High Educ. 2008;56(3):259–64.

      [20] Rahman A, Uddin S. Statistical Analysis of Different Socio Economic Factors Affecting Education of N-W . F . P ( Pakistan ). J Appl Quant Methods. 2009;4(1):88–94.

      [21] Bay A. Balancing Theory and Practice. 1999;9.

      [22] Kotler P, Armstrong G. Principles of Marketing. World Wide Web Internet And Web Information Systems. 2010.

      [23] Nadiri H, Kandampully J, Hussain K. Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2009;

      [24] Arnon S, Reichel N. Who is the ideal teacher? Am I? Similarity and difference in perception of students of education regarding the qualities of a good teacher and of their own qualities as teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2007.

      [25] Briukhanov VM, Kiselev VI, Timchenko NS, Vdovin VM. Monitoring the Opinions of Parents of College Students as a Component of the Institution’s In-House Education Quality Management System. Russ Educ Soc. 2010;52(5):79–88.

      [26] Monem M, Baniamin HM. Higher Education in Bangladesh: Status, Issues and Prospects. Pakistan J Soc Sci. 2010;

      [27] Akareem HS, Hossain SS. Perception of education quality in private universities of Bangladesh: A study from students’ perspective. J Mark High Educ. 2012;

      [28] Koslowski FA. Quality and assessment in context: A brief review. Qual Assur Educ. 2006;14(3):277–88.

      [29] Ingvarson L, Beavis A, Kleinhenz E. Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. Eur J Teach Educ. 2007;

      [30] Garza Mitchell RL. Approaching common ground: Defining quality in online education. New Dir Community Coll. 2010;

      [31] Ashraf MA, Ibrahim Y, Joarder MHR. Quality Education Management At Private Universities in Bangladesh: an Exploratory Study. 2009;24:17–32.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    ., M., Widodo, S., Buchori, A., Ambarini, R., & Fadhila, N. (2018). Factors Influencing the Success of Teaching of Universitas Pgri Semarang Students in International PPL Program in Malaysia. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.30), 517-522. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.30.18421

    Received date: 2018-08-28

    Accepted date: 2018-08-28

    Published date: 2018-08-24