Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.4
,
No
.3
, Sep
t
em
b
e
r
20
15, pp
. 130
~137
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
1
30
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Perspect
ive of
L
e
cturers i
n
Implementing PISMP Science
Curri
cul
u
m in Malaysi
a
’s
IPG
Fauz
iah Hj Yah
y
a, Abd
u
l Rahim
Bin
H
a
md
an,
H
a
fs
ah Binti
J
a
nta
n
, Ha
lima
t
ussadia
h
Binti Sa
leh
Faculty
of Education
,
Un
iv
ersiti Teknologi
Malay
s
ia
, Malaysia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Aug 15, 2015
Rev
i
sed
Au
g
29
, 20
15
Accepted Aug 31, 2015
The art
i
cl
e aim
s
to identif
y l
ect
urers
’
pers
pect
iv
es
in im
plem
enting P
I
S
M
P
s
c
ienc
e curricu
l
u
m
in IP
G
M
a
lays
ia bas
e
d on te
aching exp
e
rien
ce with KIP
P
model. Th
e r
e
spondents consisted of
105
lecturers from 20 IPG Malay
s
ia.
The stud
y
used
a questionnair
e consisting of
74 items cover
i
ng the fou
r
dimensions (Context, Input, Process
and Product). Data
collected
through
questionnaires w
e
re
analy
zed
using
one-way
AN
OVA. The stud
y found th
at
there was not a significant differenc
e of cur
r
iculum goals and course
objectives based
on teaching exp
e
rien
ce
at
school. For input dimension, ther
e
was no significant differen
c
e o
f
evaluation, co
ntent, source an
d pedago
g
y
based on school teaching exp
e
ri
ence
. In
process dim
e
nsion, there was no
significant diff
erence p
e
dagog
ical proc
ess, the
conten
t and
the process of
as
s
e
s
s
m
ent bas
e
d on teaching e
xperien
ce at s
c
h
ool. F
u
rtherm
ore, ther
e was
no significant difference of product dime
nsion of science cur
r
iculum based
on teach
ing exp
e
rien
ce at s
c
hoo
l. Bas
e
d on the
experien
ce of t
each
ing in
IPG, lecturers d
i
d not h
a
ve a s
i
gnifi
cant differ
e
nce of cu
rricu
lum goals,
course objectiv
es, evaluation
input, con
t
en
t, source, ped
a
gog
y
,
an
d
evalu
a
tion
process, and
content proc
ess, bu
t ther
e wer
e
significant
differen
ces in
th
e pedagog
ical in
put a
nd product
in the impl
ementation of
the
PISMP science
curricu
lum in IPG. It
s disc
ussions a
nd
recommendation wer
e
also discussed
in
this
arti
cl
e.
Keyword:
A
NOV
A
CIPP
PISMP
Scienc
e Curricul
um
Teaching Expe
rience
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Fauzi
a
h
H
j
Ya
hy
a,
Facu
lty of Edu
catio
n,
Un
i
v
ersiti Tekn
o
l
o
g
i
Malaysia,
Sk
udai
,
J
o
h
o
r
B
a
hr
u, M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
.
Em
a
il: g
i
eyah
y
a
@g
m
a
il.co
m
1.
INTRODUCTION
Teaching Bacc
alaureate Program
(PISMP) is one of
the teacher e
ducati
on
program
in
troduce
d
in
y
ear 2
0
0
7
by
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
’s M
i
ni
st
ry
o
f
Ed
uca
t
i
on. T
h
i
s
p
r
og
ram
was ful
l
y
ope
rat
e
d
by
Institu
tPen
d
i
d
i
kan
Gu
ru
(IPG). PISMP
was estab
lish
e
d
with
its o
w
n cu
rricu
lu
m
d
e
sign that is a plan of learning expe
rience to
learn
and learning expe
rience to teach in pr
oduci
ng teache
r
that is profes
siona
l
and integrate
d
[1]. T
h
e provide
d
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
has dy
nam
i
c, rel
e
vant
,
fut
u
ri
st
i
c
, resp
o
n
si
ve
, h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
and i
n
t
e
grat
e
d
cha
r
act
eri
s
t
i
c
besi
des
usi
n
g
holistic approa
ch and the
o
reti
cal appli
cation that is cohere
nt. It is one
of the effective t
eaching and critical
expe
rience
and lifetim
e learning [2]. T
h
is s
u
itable with
st
at
em
ent
[3]
t
h
at
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
i
s
one
o
f
t
h
e i
m
port
a
nt
el
em
ent
s
and v
i
t
a
l
t
o
war
d
s ed
ucat
i
on sy
st
em
t
h
at
creat
e fut
u
re ge
ne
rat
i
on
and
wel
l
sai
d
as a co
m
pone
nt
t
h
at
m
oves the education system
[
4
]. Howe
ve
r, t
h
e better
c
u
rric
ulum
cannot
be success
f
ul i
m
plem
ent without the
lecturer role. T
h
e effective
n
es
s of
an educati
on system
depends to the
people who im
ple
m
ent it. Teacher and
lecturer is the
people who i
m
ple
m
ent curriculum
that
have im
portant position i
n
formal education
becaus
e
th
ey will d
e
term
in
e stan
d
a
rd
,
qu
ality an
d th
e effectiv
en
ess
o
f
edu
c
ato
n
system
[5]. Th
is statemen
t is
supporte
d
by
[6] stated
major
player
whic
h
play
role by total in teach
er
e
d
ucation ecol
ogy is
teachers
'
educat
or
itself
and as
pect that
shoul
d
be
see
n
ca
refully is
teachers'
educat
or role its
elf. L
ecturers as a te
acher
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Perspective of Lecturers
in Imple
m
enting P
I
SM
P Science
Curricul
u
m in
Malaysi
a
'
s
IP
G (Fauzi
ah Hj
Yahya)
13
1
i
s
a m
o
st
im
port
a
nt
pe
o
p
l
e
and
i
n
m
o
st
fro
nt
r
o
w t
o
i
m
pl
em
ent
al
l
pol
i
c
y
a
n
d
pl
a
nni
ng
o
f
M
i
ni
st
ry
o
f
Edu
catio
n Malaysia [1
].
Every
st
age i
n
educat
i
o
n sy
st
em
shoul
d gi
ve at
t
e
n
t
i
on,
m
oni
t
o
red, re
v
i
sed, assesse
d and re
pai
r
e
d
esp
ecially in
asp
ects th
at h
a
s b
e
en
id
en
tified
h
a
s we
a
kness, lack
or al
ready
out
dated. This incl
ude
s the
im
ple
m
entatio
n of teache
r
e
d
ucation system that has
bee
n
carried out at IPG in t
h
is country. Im
plem
e
n
tation
of
eval
uat
i
o
n
pr
o
g
ram
i
s
a f
o
l
l
o
w
up
act
i
o
n a
f
t
e
r
o
n
e
pr
og
ram
has
bee
n
i
m
pl
em
ent
e
d. A
n
y
pr
o
b
l
e
m
t
h
at
ari
s
es i
n
eval
uat
i
on
of i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on w
a
s an i
ndi
cat
i
on
occu
r
n
ce of
no
n-c
o
nf
or
m
i
ty
i
n
educa
t
i
onal
in
no
v
a
tion
th
at
wan
t
to
be in
trodu
ced
[7
]. Ali [3
] stated
th
at th
e cu
rricu
l
u
m
is
n
o
t
a p
e
rm
an
en
t en
tity, b
u
t
it
can
b
e
ch
ang
e
d
acco
r
d
i
ng
to
eco
no
m
y
situ
at
io
n
,
so
cial
in
teractio
n, and
curren
t
po
titical i
ssu
e as a con
t
ex
t to
det
e
rm
i
n
e curr
i
c
ul
um
goal
s
.
Thi
s
si
t
u
at
i
o
n oc
cu
rs i
n
m
o
st
count
ry
t
h
at
co
nd
uct
s
educat
i
o
n c
u
r
r
i
cul
u
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t in
clud
ing
Malaysia. In
p
a
rall
el, th
e curricu
l
u
m
in
Malaysi
a
IPG
shou
ld
tag
along
th
e
so
cial
in
teractio
n
d
e
velo
p
m
en
t
an
d
cu
rren
t p
o
litical
issu
e.
Th
is
was supp
orted b
y
[8
] th
at stated
th
e curricu
lu
m
shoul
d
have be
en assesse
d continuousl
y to
fit in
cu
rren
t
d
e
v
e
lop
m
en
t. T
hus, the effectiveness and exce
llence
of a c
u
rriculum
can be ac
hieved includi
n
g the
ex
cellen
ce
o
f
PISMP Scien
ce cu
rricu
l
u
m
in
IPG.
The i
n
v
o
l
v
em
ent
o
f
exec
ut
i
v
e as c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
desi
gner
[
9
]
,
[
10]
a
nd t
r
ai
ni
n
g
o
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
s rega
r
d
i
n
g
current
curric
u
lum
[11] are
im
portant
be
cause acc
ordi
ng to [12], te
achers
’
e
d
u
cat
o
r
shou
ld no
t
on
ly
m
a
st
eri
ng a
n
d
im
pl
em
ent
i
ng t
h
e
new c
u
rri
c
u
l
u
m
,
but
t
h
ey
n
eed
to
prep
are
in
prov
id
i
n
g h
e
lp
to
the stud
en
ts to
master the c
u
rriculum
requi
re
ment and
pre
p
ares them
for a
cadem
ic activitie
s and future
career. As studied by
[9]
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
be
t
t
e
r im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on, t
h
e c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
shoul
d not
be e
v
al
uat
e
d i
n
w
h
at
eve
r
form
t
o
m
easure t
h
e
st
ren
g
t
h
, s
u
cce
ss or
weak
ness
i
n
cl
udi
ng i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on of
Sci
e
nce cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
.
Thi
s
st
ud
y
was co
nd
uct
e
d t
o
evaluate the i
m
ple
m
entation of PISMP sc
ience curricu
l
u
m
by Science lecturer in
IPG acc
ording to the
problem
state
m
ent that has
been disc
usse
d. Specifically, the resea
r
c
h
obj
ectives in
cl
ud
e: to
i
d
en
tify PISMP
Sci
e
nce c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
o
n
st
age
f
r
om
cont
e
x
t
,
i
n
p
u
t
,
p
r
oce
ss
and
p
r
od
uct
d
i
m
e
nsi
on
base
d
on
p
e
rsp
ectiv
e
o
f
IPG
Scien
c
e lectu
r
ers, and
to
id
en
tif
y diffe
re
nce pe
rspective of Science lecturers from
conte
x
ts, input, proc
ess and product dimension acco
rdi
ng to
gender, academic
qualification, teaching
expe
ri
ence
at
s
c
ho
ol
a
n
d
t
eac
hi
n
g
e
xpe
ri
enc
e
i
n
IP
G.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Th
is stud
y
u
s
ed
su
rv
ey research
with
a targ
et ac
q
u
i
sition
an
d exp
l
an
ation [13
]
.
Acqu
isitio
n
refers to
th
e d
a
ta co
llected
throug
h questio
nn
aire
which
con
s
ists
74 ite
m
s
u
s
ing
5
p
o
i
n
t
of lik
ert
scale. In
t
h
e cu
rren
t
stu
d
y
,
po
pu
latio
n
i
n
clud
e all scien
ce lectu
r
ers th
at sp
ecialize in
Scien
ce i
n
IPG th
roug
hou
t Malaysia. To
tal o
f
1
4
0
Scien
ce lectu
r
ers fr
o
m
2
0
I
P
G
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
cr
u
ited
as
samp
le in
th
is study. A
ll th
e 14
0
Scien
ce lectu
r
er
s w
e
re
involve
d
in thi
s
study
b
ecaus
e
the population was t
oo
sm
a
ll. As st
ated by [13], sam
p
ling ca
n
be carried out
b
y
recru
iting
t
h
e
who
l
e pop
ulatio
n
wh
en
the po
pu
latio
n
is no
t b
i
g.
Howev
e
r, th
er
e
are o
n
l
y 1
0
5
respon
d
e
n
t
s
who
return
t
h
e qu
estio
nn
aires th
at equ
a
l to
74
%
o
f
po
pu
latio
n and
fu
lfill th
e criteria t
o
perfo
r
m
th
e an
alysis.
Inferen
tial statistics u
s
ed in
t
h
is stud
y
was
On
e-way
ANOVA. Pilo
t stud
y h
a
s been do
n
e
prior to the actu
a
l
stu
d
y
to
acqu
i
r
e v
a
lid
ity and reliab
ility o
f
th
e qu
estionn
aires. Cron
bach
alp
h
a
test
was co
ndu
cted
with
the
v
a
lu
e of
co
n
t
ex
ts 0
.
9
7
,
inpu
t 0
.
9
7
, p
r
o
cess
0.
98
an
d pro
d
u
c
t 0
.
9
8
wh
ich fulfill th
e criteria
≤
0.
6 [1
4]
.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
3.1.
The
Differenc
e
s
of PIS
M
P Science
Curri
culu
m Imple
mentati
on fr
om Conte
x
ts, I
nput, Pr
ocess
and
Pr
oduc
t
Dimensions b
a
sed
on
Teac
h
i
ng E
x
perienc
e
in Sch
o
ol.
One
-
w
a
y
A
N
O
V
A
was
co
n
duct
e
d t
o
t
e
st
t
h
e hy
pot
hesi
s
H
ₒ
1
whi
c
h i
d
ent
i
f
i
e
d t
h
e
di
ffe
rences
i
n
im
pl
em
ent
i
ng PISM
P Sci
e
nc
e C
u
rri
cul
u
m
fr
om
cont
ext
s
,
i
nput
, p
r
ocess
and p
r
o
d
u
ct
di
m
e
nsi
on bas
e
d o
n
teaching e
xpe
rience in sc
hool. Th
e
res
u
lt was
shown i
n
Ta
bl
e 1.
Tabl
e
1. T
h
e
di
ffe
rences
o
f
PI
SM
P Sci
e
nce
C
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
Im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on b
a
sed
o
n
Teac
hi
ng
E
xpe
ri
ence
i
n
Sch
ool
Variable
Konteks
Matla
m
a
t
Objective
Context
Assess
m
e
nt
I
nput
Content
I
nput
Resour
ce
I
nput
Pedagogy
I
nput
Pedagogy
Process
Assess
m
e
nt
Process
Content
Process
Pr
oduct
Pengalam
a
n
M
e
ngajar
Sekolah
F= 0.
597
p = .
621
F = 0.
502
p = .
682
F = 0.
487
p = .
692
F = 0.
340
p = .
797
F = 0.
231
p = .
875
F= 0.
143
p = .
934
F = 1.
233
p = .
302
F = 0.
530
p = .
663
F = 0.
157
p = .
925
F = 0.
256
p = .
857
Notes: Teaching
Exper
i
en
ce
in S
c
hool
consist of
four stage:
(1)
1-
5
y
ears
,
(2)
6-10
y
ears
,
(3)
11-15
y
ears
and
(4) more
than 15
ye
ars
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
5
:
1
30
–
13
7
13
2
3.
1.
1.
C
o
nte
x
ts
Di
m
e
nsi
o
n
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed
wi
t
h
one
-
w
ay
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Tabl
e
1, t
h
ere i
s
n
o
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
ffe
rence i
n
curriculum
goa
ls conte
x
ts acc
ording to
teaching e
x
perienc
e
in school with
value of
F
= 0.597, p
= .621. Next
,
b
a
sed
o
n
d
a
ta
an
alysis w
ith
on
e
w
a
y ANO
VA
in Tab
l
e 1, co
n
t
ex
t of
cou
r
se ob
j
ecti
v
e
h
a
s v
a
lu
e of
F =
0.502
p = .6
8
2
. T
h
i
s
m
ean t
h
ere i
s
no
di
ffe
re
nce
i
n
cou
r
se
ob
j
ect
i
v
e fr
om
cont
ext
di
m
e
nsi
o
n base
d
on t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
expe
rience in s
c
hool. T
h
ere
f
ore, it can be concluded that
there is differe
nc
es of Science l
ecturer
pers
pec
tive
i
n
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on o
f
P
I
SM
P
Sci
e
nce cu
rri
cul
u
m
from
cont
ext
di
m
e
nsi
o
n base
d
on t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
ex
pe
ri
en
ce i
n
sch
ool
.
3.
1.
2.
Inpu
t
Di
mens
i
on
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
n
g o
n
e way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Table 1
,
th
ere is n
o
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
ce in
assessm
ent and eval
uation i
n
put acc
ordi
ng
to teaching experie
n
ce in sc
hool
with
value F = 0.487 p
= .692.
M
o
re
ove
r,
bas
e
d o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
n
g o
n
e
way
AN
OV
A i
n
Tabl
e 1, t
h
e
r
e i
s
val
u
e o
f
F = 0.3
40
p = .7
97 i
n
conte
n
t input of teaching experience in
school. Thus, the
r
e is no significa
n
t diffe
re
nce of conte
n
t input
based
on teachi
ng e
x
perie
n
ce in school.Besi
d
es
,
ba
sed on data analysed using on
e way ANOVA in Table 1, there is
value
of F = 0.231
p = .875 in sour
ce input of teaching experience in sc
hool. Thus, there is no significant
diffe
re
nce of source input
ba
sed on teachi
n
g experie
n
ce in
school.In addition,
base
d on data analyse
d
usi
n
g
one
way
ANOVA i
n
Ta
ble
1, there is
value
of F
= 0.143 p =
.934
in pe
da
gogy input of t
eaching e
xpe
ri
ence in
school. Thus, t
h
ere is
no significan
t di
fference of
pedagogy input
based
on
teachi
n
g experience in school.As
ove
ral
l
,
t
h
ere
i
s
no di
f
f
ere
n
ce i
n
i
nput
di
m
e
nsi
on i
n
i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on of PISM
P Sci
e
nce cur
r
i
c
u
l
um
fo
r
Science lecture
r
based on teac
hing e
xpe
rienc
e
in sc
hool.
3.
1.
3.
Process
Dime
nsion
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
n
g o
n
e way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Table 1
,
th
ere is n
o
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
ce in
peda
gogy
proc
ess according t
o
teachi
n
g e
x
perience i
n
sc
hool with value
F
= 1.233
p =
.302.Moreove
r,
base
d
on
dat
a
a
n
al
y
s
ed
usi
n
g
one
way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Tabl
e
1,
t
h
e
r
e i
s
v
a
l
u
e
of
F = 0
.
5
3
0
p =
.6
63
i
n
ass
e
ss
m
e
nt
and
evaluation
process of teachin
g expe
rience i
n
sc
hool. T
h
us
, there is
no signi
ficant di
ffe
rence of asses
s
m
ent
and e
v
aluation proce
ss base
d on teachi
ng e
x
perie
n
ce in sc
hool.Fut
herm
ore, based
on
data analysed usi
ng
one
way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Tabl
e
1, t
h
e
r
e i
s
val
u
e
o
f
F = 0.
1
57
p =.
92
5 i
n
c
o
nt
ent
pr
ocess
of t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
ex
pe
ri
en
ce i
n
school. Thus
, t
h
ere
is no
significant
diffe
re
nc
e of
c
onte
n
t process
base
d
on teaching e
x
perience in
school.
Ove
r
al
l
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
no
p
r
oces
s
di
m
e
nsi
on i
n
i
m
pl
em
ent
i
ng
PISM
P
Sci
e
nc
e cur
r
i
c
ul
um
for
Sci
e
nce
lecturer base
d on
teachin
g
experie
n
ce in sc
hool.
3.
1.
4.
Prod
uct Dime
nsion
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
n
g o
n
e way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Table 1
,
th
ere is n
o
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
ce in
product in implem
entation of PISM
P
Science curric
u
lum for Science
lect
urer in IPG base
d on teachi
ng
expe
ri
ence
i
n
s
c
ho
ol
wi
t
h
val
u
e
F
= 0.
25
6 p =
.8
5
7
.
3.
2.
Differe
ncess i
n
Impleme
ntation
of PI
SMP Sc
ience
Curriculum fr
om Context
Di
mension, Input,
Process
and P
r
oduc
t b
a
se
d
on Te
achin
g
Experience I
I
P
G
To
test th
e r
e
su
lt o
f
th
e study r
e
g
a
rd
ing
the h
y
p
o
t
h
e
sis H
ₒ
2, one way ANOVA are c
a
rried
out to
i
d
ent
i
f
y
t
h
e di
ffe
rences
of
P
I
SM
P Sci
e
nc
e cur
r
i
c
ul
um
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on fr
om
cont
ext
,
i
n
p
u
t
,
p
r
oces
s an
d
product
dim
e
nsion base
d
on t
eaching e
x
pe
ri
ence in IPG as
showe
d
i
n
Ta
ble 2.
Tabl
e 2. Di
f
f
er
ences
i
n
Im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on of P
I
SM
P Sci
e
nce C
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
ba
sed o
n
Teac
hi
n
g
E
x
peri
enc
e
i
n
IPG
Variable
Goals
context
Objective
context
Assess
m
e
nt
I
nput
Content
I
nput
Reour
ce
I
nput
Pedagogy
I
nput
Pedagogy
Process
Assess
m
e
nt
Process
Content
Process
Pr
oduct
Teaching
Experience in
IPG
W
=
1.
032
p = .
387
F = 0.
652
p = .
583
F = 1.
075
p = .
363
W
= 1.
528
p = .
220
F = 0.
895
p = .
446
F= 1.
043
p = .
377
W
= 3.
189
p = .
032
(1
) <
(4
)
(2
) <
(4
)
(3
) <
(4
)
W
= 1.
888
p = .
144
F = 0.
551
p = .
649
F = 2.
888
p = .
046
(2
) <
(4
)
(3
) <
(4
)
Notes: Teac
hi
ng E
x
perienc
e
i
n
IPG contain
of 4 stage:
(1
) 1-
5
y
ear
s, (2
) 6
-
1
0
y
ear
s, (3
) 1
1
-
1
5
y
ears
an
d (4
)
m
o
re than
15 y
ears
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Perspective of Lecturers
in Imple
m
enting P
I
SM
P Science
Curricul
u
m in
Malaysi
a
'
s
IP
G (Fauzi
ah Hj
Yahya)
13
3
3.
2.
1. C
o
nt
ex
t Di
mensi
o
n
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
n
g o
n
e way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Table 2
,
th
ere is n
o
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
ce in
curriculum
goals context acc
ording to
teaching experie
n
c
e
in IPG
with
value
W
=
1.032, p = .387 because
v
a
lu
e
p
=
.38
7
is reater th
an 0
.
5
(con
d
ition
a
l prob
ab
ility
v
a
lu
e). ANOVA
test with
welch
robu
st
test
of
equality
of
m
e
ans was used in
this
subdimension
b
ecause its variance
neve
r show
hom
ogeneity based on
Leve
ne’s
t
e
st
o
f
hom
oge
nei
t
y
of
va
ri
ances
wi
t
h
val
u
e
(Le
v
e
n
e
(3
,
10
1)
=
3
.
6
1
4
,
p <
.0
5
)
.
Furt
herm
ore,
b
a
sed o
n
o
n
e w
a
y
ANO
VA i
n
Tabl
e 2, i
t
sho
w
s t
h
at
cou
r
se
ob
ject
i
v
e co
nt
e
x
t
has val
u
e
F = 0
.
652
p
= .5
83
. Th
is show
s th
at th
er
e is n
o
d
i
ff
er
en
ce
o
n
co
ur
se obj
ectiv
e f
r
o
m
co
ntex
t d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n b
a
sed
on teaching e
xpe
rience
in
IPG. The
r
efore
,
it can
be
c
o
ncluded that t
h
ere is
no
differe
n
ces of
Science
l
ect
urer
’s pe
rs
pect
i
v
e t
o
wa
r
d
s PISM
P Sci
e
n
ce curri
c
u
l
u
m
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on from
cont
ext
s
di
m
e
nsi
on bas
e
d o
n
teaching e
xpe
rience in IPG.
3.
2.
2. I
npu
t
Di
mensi
on
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
n
g o
n
e way
A
N
O
V
A
i
n
Table 2
,
th
ere is n
o
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
ce in
assessm
ent and eval
uation input accord
ing to teaching e
xpe
rience i
n
IPG
with val
u
e
F = 1.075
p
= .363.
Furt
herm
ore,
base
d o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed usi
ng
one
way
AN
O
VA i
n
T
a
bl
e 2, i
t
sho
w
s t
h
at
co
nt
ent
i
n
p
u
t
according to teaching experie
n
ce in IP
G has
value
W
= 1.528
p = .220. AN
OVA test with welch robus
t test
o
f
eq
u
a
lity o
f
mean
s was used
in
th
is su
bd
i
m
en
sio
n
b
ecause its v
a
rian
ce
n
e
v
e
r sh
ow hom
o
g
e
n
e
ity b
a
sed
on
Leve
ne’s
t
e
st
of
h
o
m
ogenei
t
y
of
va
ri
ances
wi
t
h
val
u
e
(Le
v
ene
(
3
,
1
0
1
)
= 5.
0
4
1
,
p <
.
0
5
)
.
Thi
s
i
n
di
cat
e t
h
at
there is
no si
gnificant di
ffe
rent in c
onte
n
t lea
r
ni
ng in
put bas
e
d on
teachi
n
g expe
rience
in
IPG beca
use va
lue
p
(.
22
0)
i
s
m
o
re
t
h
an
0.
5.
Furt
herm
ore,
b
a
sed
on
on
e w
a
y
AN
OV
A i
n
Tabl
e 2
,
i
t
sho
w
s t
h
at
s
o
u
r
ce
i
n
p
u
t
has
val
u
e
F =0.
8
95
p
= .446. This s
h
ows t
h
at there
is no
diffe
re
nc
e on c
o
urse
i
n
put
base
d on teaching expe
rience in IPG. Ba
sed on
o
n
e
way ANOVA in Tab
l
e 2, it shows t
h
at ped
a
gog
y inpu
t
acco
rd
ing
t
o
teach
ing
exp
e
rien
ce i
n
IPG
h
a
s
v
a
lu
e
F = 1.043 p =
.377. T
h
is indicates that there
is dife
rence i
n
pe
dagogy input base
d
on teaching e
xpe
rience i
n
IPG.
Ov
erall,
th
is ind
i
cates th
at th
ere is
no
d
i
ffe
ren
ce i
n
inpu
t d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n in
PISM
P Scien
c
e cu
rricu
lu
m
im
ple
m
entatio
n
for Scie
nce l
ecturer ba
sed on teachi
n
g e
x
perience i
n
IPG.
3.
2.
3.
Process
Dime
nsion
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed
usi
ng
o
n
e way
AN
O
VA i
n
T
a
bl
e 2, t
h
ere
i
s
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
ffe
re
nce i
n
peda
gogy proc
ess according to teachin
g experience in IPG
with value
W
=
3.189 p = .032. ANOVA test with
welch robust t
e
st of equality of m
eans was used in
t
h
is subdim
ension because
its variance ne
ve
r show
hom
oge
nei
t
y
b
a
sed
o
n
Le
ve
n
e
’s t
e
st
of
h
o
m
oge
nei
t
y
o
f
va
ri
ances
wi
t
h
v
a
l
u
e (
L
eve
n
e
(
3
,
1
0
1
)
=
6.
52
3,
p
<
.05). There
f
ore
,
Science lecturers w
ith teaching experie
n
ce
in IPG m
o
re
than
15 years have better pe
dagogy
pr
ocess m
o
re t
h
an t
hos
e w
h
o
have t
eac
hi
n
g
expe
ri
ence i
n
IPG
bet
w
ee
n
1-
5 y
ears,
6
-
1
0
y
ears, a
n
d 1
1
-
1
5
y
ears. M
ean
w
h
i
l
e
, ot
her t
eac
h
i
ng e
xpe
ri
ence
(1
-5 y
ear
s,
6-
10 y
e
a
r
s, a
nd
11
-
15 y
ear
s)
d
o
n
o
t
ha
ve si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
ce in ped
a
gog
y pro
c
ess.
Furt
herm
ore,
b
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed u
s
i
n
g one
way
A
N
O
VA i
n
Tabl
e 2
,
eval
uat
i
o
n an
d assessm
ent
process ac
cording t
o
teachi
n
g experi
e
n
ce in
IPG ha
s val
u
e
W =
1.888
p
= 1.444.
ANOVA test with
wel
c
h
robu
st test of eq
u
a
lity of m
e
a
n
s
was
u
s
ed
in th
is
subd
im
en
sio
n
b
ecau
s
e
it
s
v
a
rian
ce n
e
ver
sh
ow h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
ity
base
d on Le
ve
ne’s t
e
st
of h
o
m
ogenei
t
y
of vari
a
n
ces wi
t
h
val
u
e (Lev
en
e (3, 1
0
1
) = 4
.
1
2
6
,
p < .0
5).
Thi
s
indicate that there is no si
gnifican
t difference in assess
ment and ev
al
uation
process
based on teaching
expe
rience
in IPG beca
use va
lue
p
=1.444
is
greater than 0.50 as
require
d
.
M
o
re
ove
r,
bas
e
d
on
d
a
t
a
anal
y
s
ed
usi
n
g
one
way
AN
O
V
A
i
n
Ta
bl
e 2
,
i
t
s
h
o
w
s
t
h
at
c
ont
ent
p
r
oces
s
according t
o
t
eaching e
x
peri
ence in sc
hool
has
val
u
e
F
= 0.551 p = .649. T
h
is
s
h
ows t
h
at there
is no
diffe
re
nce
on c
onte
n
t process
base
d
on teaching e
x
perie
n
ce
in IPG.
Ove
r
al
l
,
t
h
i
s
i
ndi
cat
e t
h
at
t
h
ere i
s
no di
ffe
ren
ces i
n
proce
ss di
m
e
nsi
on i
n
PISM
P Sci
e
nce
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
im
ple
m
entatio
n
for Scie
nce l
ecturer ba
sed on teachi
n
g e
x
perience i
n
IPG.
3.
2.
4.
Prod
uct Dime
nsion
B
a
sed o
n
dat
a
anal
y
s
ed
usi
ng
o
n
e way
AN
O
VA i
n
T
a
bl
e 2, t
h
ere
i
s
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
ffe
re
nce i
n
im
ple
m
entatio
n of PISM
P Sc
ience curricul
um for IPG
Sci
e
nce lecture
r
according
to eteaching experie
n
ce in
I
P
G w
ith v
a
l
u
e (W
elch
(
3
,
45
)
= 2.888
,
p
< .05
)
.
A
NOVA
test w
ith w
e
lch
ro
bu
st test
o
f
equ
a
lity o
f
mean
s
was
use
d
in t
h
is subdim
e
nsion
because
its varia
n
ce
doe
s
not s
h
ow homogei
n
ity base
d on Le
vene
’s t
e
st of
hom
oge
nei
t
y
of vari
a
n
ces wi
t
h
val
u
e
(Le
v
en
e (3,
10
1) =
3.
89
1,
p < .0
5)
. Th
us, i
t
sho
w
s
t
h
at
Sci
e
nce ect
ure
r
with teaching
expe
rience in
IIPG
for m
o
re than
15 year
s
have better product dim
e
ns
ion from
those who ha
ve
ex
p
e
r
i
en
ce 1-
5 year
s,
6
-
10
year
s an
d 11
-15
year
s in
im
plementing Scie
nce curricul
u
m
.
Meanwhile, t
h
ere
is
no significant
diffe
re
nce in product
dim
e
nsion ba
sed on
ot
her teaching e
xpe
rience
in
IPG
(1-5 years
,
6-10
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
5
:
1
30
–
13
7
13
4
y
ears, an
d
11
-
15 y
e
a
r
s)
. Thi
s
i
ndi
cat
es th
at th
ere is sign
ifican
t d
i
ffer
ence in product dim
e
nsion in
PISM
P
Sci
e
nce c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on
f
o
r
IP
G
Sci
e
nce l
ect
ur
er
based
o
n
t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
e
xpe
ri
en
ce i
n
IP
G.
3.
3.
Discussion
Thi
s
st
u
d
y
sh
owe
d
t
h
at
P
I
SM
P Sci
e
nce
l
ect
urer i
n
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
IPG do
not
have
di
ffe
ren
ces i
n
curriculum
goals context a
nd curric
u
lum
objective
from
conte
x
t
dim
e
ns
ion ba
sed on teaching e
x
perie
n
ce i
n
school. For the curric
u
lum
goals base
d on
teaching e
x
perience in school,
Science lecture
r
do not ha
ve the
di
ffe
re
nces i
n
pro
v
i
d
i
n
g re
qui
rem
e
nt
of Sci
e
nce Ed
uc
at
i
on i
n
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
, goal
s
of
Nat
i
onal
Ed
ucat
i
o
n
Ph
ilo
sop
h
y
(
Fal
s
af
ah Pen
d
i
d
i
k
a
n
K
e
ba
ngs
a
a
n
),
g
o
al
s of Tea
c
he
r
Ed
ucat
i
on
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
(
Fa
lsa
f
ah
Pend
id
ikan
Gu
ru
),
goals of Teacher Education Institute (
In
stitu
t Pen
d
i
d
i
kan
Gu
ru
), PISMP curriculum
l
earni
n
g
out
c
o
m
e
, PISM
P S
c
i
e
nce cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
goal
s
an
d m
i
ssi
on and
FPG
vi
si
o
n
.
For t
h
e cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
ob
ject
i
v
e
base
d
on
l
ear
ni
n
g
e
xpe
ri
ence
i
n
sc
ho
ol
,
Sci
e
nce l
ect
urer
s
h
o
w
s t
h
at
t
h
ey
do
n
o
t
ha
ve
di
ffe
re
nc
es i
n
im
parting
knowledge related to PISMP
Sce
i
nce subject
com
ponent, tra
n
s
l
ating scientifi
c
skills in the PISMP
Sceince subje
c
t co
m
pone
nt, knowle
dga
ble
in Science, k
nowledgeble
in all aspect
of skills in Science,
achieving learning outcom
e of PISM
P
Science curric
u
lum, in accorda
n
ce
with student
’
s ability. Si
mila
r wit
h
[1
5]
t
h
at
st
at
ed c
ont
e
x
t
di
m
e
nsi
o
n
are
f
o
cu
sed
wi
t
h
t
h
e e
nvi
ro
nm
ent
w
h
i
c
h
cha
nge
s t
h
at
occ
u
r
a
n
d
envi
ronm
ent problem
that will be faced
. In
the curre
nt study, Science lec
t
urers show the sam
e
perception i
n
the changes that occur and the peoble
m in e
nvi
ronm
ent that their faced. T
h
ey also have t
h
e sam
e
perce
p
tion
whic
h is the conte
x
t ele
m
ents serve as inform
ation prov
ider to
th
e in
pu
t, p
r
o
ce
ss and product evaluation t
o
am
end o
r
co
nt
i
nue a
n
y
pr
o
g
ra
m
.
Howe
ve
r, l
ect
urer
s nee
d
t
o
di
sc
uss t
h
e c
h
an
ge
d t
h
at
ha
s been
do
ne a
n
d t
h
e
p
r
ob
lem
th
at th
eir faced
t
o
geth
er.
Th
is is
i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
for
th
e pu
rpo
s
e
o
f
find
ing
so
lu
tio
n
i
n
assessi
ng
and
a
m
en
d
s
t
h
e fu
t
u
r
e
pr
ogr
am
.
M
o
re
ove
r, i
t
can be co
ncl
u
de
d t
h
at
cont
e
x
t
el
em
en
t in
PISMP Scien
ce curricu
l
u
m
o
f
M
a
laysia IPG
in
th
e curren
t
stu
d
y
was d
e
term
in
ed
b
y
lectu
r
er’s
qu
ality
i
n
stead
o
f
t
h
eir ex
p
e
rien
ce. Th
is is p
a
rallel t
o
th
e
stu
d
y
do
n
e
b
y
[16
]
who
found
th
at t
h
ere are sign
ifican
t i
n
flu
e
n
ces of con
t
ex
t co
m
p
on
en
ts tow
a
rd
s t
h
e
qu
ality
of t
h
e
pe
opl
e
wh
o i
m
pl
em
ent
t
h
e cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
.
Thi
s
al
so si
m
i
l
a
r wi
t
h
t
h
e
st
udy
by
[
1
7]
t
h
at
f
r
om
fo
ur
aspect
s
of e
v
al
uat
i
o
n,
aspect
of c
o
n
t
ext
wa
s include in the cate
g
or
y that are
im
portant a
n
d effective.
Howeve
r,
envi
ronm
ent
aspects
s
h
oul
d be developed to
s
u
pport
t
h
e
succes
sful
of curric
u
lu
m
im
ple
m
entation at any
place including Malaysia IPG. T
h
is is
bec
a
use c
u
lture
was differe
n
t ac
cording to di
fferent
places a
n
d ca
n
i
n
fl
ue
nce t
h
e c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on.
The
result s
how that t
h
e Sci
e
nce
l
ect
u
r
er
p
e
rcept
i
o
n t
o
wa
rds
M
i
ni
st
ry
o
f
E
ducat
i
o
n
ha
s t
a
ken
i
n
t
o
account the c
o
mm
unity interest an
d c
ountry re
quirement as c
o
ntex
t
in im
ple
m
enting PISMP Science
curriculum
wa
s the sam
e
. Thi
s
indicates that
what has
b
een carried
ou
t b
y
lectu
r
er is
g
r
eatly su
pp
ort
with
the
Nat
i
onal
E
duc
at
i
on P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
(
F
a
l
s
af
a
h
Pendi
di
ka
n K
e
b
a
n
g
s
a
a
n
) fo
rm
ul
at
i
on es
peci
al
l
y
i
n
t
h
e educa
t
i
on
o
f
ch
ild
ren
th
at are
sid
i
n
g
with
co
mm
u
n
ity
in
terests
an
d
n
a
ti
o
n
a
l. Sim
ilar t
o
th
e stud
y b
y
[1
8
]
th
at stated
an
y
pr
o
g
ram
shul
d
m
eet t
h
e requi
rem
e
nt
of soci
et
y
and co
unt
ry
. Nat
i
ona
l
Eucat
i
on Ph
i
l
o
so
phy
(
Fa
lsa
f
ah
Pend
id
ikan
Keb
ang
saan
)
has
been as a
basi
s
fo
r Nat
i
o
nal
E
ducat
i
o
n P
o
l
i
c
y
(
D
a
sa
r Pendid
i
ka
n
Keb
angsa
a
n
).
It sh
ou
ld
co
n
c
o
m
i
t
an
t w
ith
co
un
try’s w
ill a
n
d
v
i
sio
n
an
d
n
eed
to
b
e
ob
eyed
. Th
is should
b
e
carried
ou
t to
ensure t
h
e problem
s
faced will be re
sol
v
e
d
and to
unde
rtake c
h
anges c
o
rr
ectly. This
si
m
ilar with [19] that
stated to
plan the
new progra
m
,
the pre
v
ious problem
shol
d
be take
n i
n
to account.
Input assessm
e
n
t accordi
ng to [20]
m
easure
the syst
e
m
’s ability and input from
strategy aspect and
source to c
r
eate the com
p
ilation
of
re
su
lt and
to
b
eco
m
e
as g
u
i
d
e
lin
e in
ch
oo
si
n
g
the pr
og
r
a
m
str
a
teg
y
an
d
changes t
h
at need to do.
For the
whol
e inpu
t d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n
i
n
th
is st
ud
y, th
ere is no
si
gn
ifi
cant differe
n
ce
i
n
eval
uat
i
o
n a
n
d
assessm
ent
inp
u
t
,
c
ont
e
n
t
i
n
p
u
t
,
ed
ucat
i
on
res
o
u
r
se i
n
put
a
nd
pe
da
g
ogy
i
n
p
u
t
bas
e
d o
n
teaching e
x
perience of PISMP Science
lecture
r
in sc
hool. This show th
at PISMP Scie
nce lecture
r
s do not
have
di
ffe
rent
strategy a
nd ource
in m
a
king
deci
sion be
fore
unde
rtake teach
i
n
g and
learning process
event
h
ough they have
differe
n
t teach
ing e
x
perie
n
ce in sc
hool.
Howe
ve
r,
it does
not m
ean that input ele
m
ent
i
n
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
o
n sh
o
u
l
d
be avoi
ded
.
I
n
p
u
t
el
em
ent
i
s
impo
rt
ant
an
d s
h
oul
d be st
re
n
g
t
hen t
o
fortify the teaching m
a
terial,
teaching
strate
gy, teaching medium
and m
e
dium
of instruction that are s
u
itable
and tra
n
s
f
orm
into teaching and lear
ni
ng program
.
This program
should
be arra
nged com
p
letely before
teaching a
n
d learni
ng proce
s
s started and c
a
n
becom
e
as
gui
deline i
n
te
aching.
Thus, teacher’s knowledge
an
d
sk
ills are t
h
e im
p
o
r
tan
t
facto
r
in
i
n
pu
t
d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n
as
Min
i
stry o
f
Edu
catio
n
Malay
s
ia (A
zizi, 1992
)
h
a
s
p
r
ov
id
e train
i
ng
in
serv
ice (
La
tih
an
D
a
l
a
m
Perkh
i
dma
t
an
)
.
Trai
ni
ng i
n
se
rvi
ce (
La
tihanD
a
l
a
m
Perkh
i
dm
a
t
a
n
)
as was stated by [21] was a syste
m
atic
learning
process that
should be prov
ide
d
to the teaching staff to
ens
u
re
th
e learn
i
ng
pro
cess always hap
p
e
n
to
im
p
r
ov
e th
e kn
ow
led
g
e
an
d
sk
ills t
o
fit in
th
e cu
rren
t
requ
irem
en
t an
d
changes
.
Evaluation
process according to [15]
and
[20] was
em
phasized to t
h
e
process that
used in ac
hievi
ng
o
b
j
ectiv
es and g
o
a
ls
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
og
r
a
m
.
Th
is in
fo
r
m
atio
n
need
to
b
e
know
n
f
r
o
m
ti
me
to
ti
m
e
to
co
ntr
o
l th
e
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Perspective of Lecturers
in Imple
m
enting P
I
SM
P Science
Curricul
u
m in
Malaysi
a
'
s
IP
G (Fauzi
ah Hj
Yahya)
13
5
program
s
’ goal
s
. Eval
uation
proces
s for
the
current study is teaching style of
Scie
nce lecturer, teache
r
’s style
i
n
eval
uat
i
ng t
h
e p
r
oject
wo
r
k
s a
nd c
o
urse
fol
l
o
we
by
t
h
e
lecturer. Teac
hing and l
earni
ng
strategies t
h
at are
sug
g
est
e
d t
o
t
h
e Sci
e
nce E
d
ucat
i
o
n
s
u
b
j
ect
i
s
base
d
o
n
l
e
arni
ng
f
r
om
ex
peri
e
n
ce.
Fo
r
pr
ocess
di
m
e
nsi
on i
n
th
e curren
t
stud
y, th
ere is no
sig
i
n
i
fican
t
d
i
fferen
ce in
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
sk
ills p
r
ocess, edu
cation co
n
t
en
t pro
c
ess and
evaluation a
nd assessm
ent process
base
d
on P
I
SMP
Scie
nce lecturer te
aching e
x
perie
n
ce i
n
sc
hool. This
sim
ilar with [22] who found
t
h
at m
o
st of the
teachers
are
using t
h
e sa
m
e
techni
que
such
as teaching in
class
as not too m
u
ch effective as a
whole.
[23] stated that this happe
n
becau
se the teachers c
o
nstantly de
pends on
t
h
e ri
gi
d t
eac
hi
n
g
st
rat
e
gy
suc
h
as di
scu
ssi
on
, o
b
ser
v
a
t
i
on, cl
ass an
d st
ude
nt
’s
re
po
rt
whe
r
eas
out
do
o
r
activ
ities an
d
th
e u
s
e
o
f
lab
are less to
b
e
u
s
ed
. Alt
h
ou
g
h
i
n
th
is stud
y the PISMP Scien
ce lectu
r
er h
a
s u
s
ed
variety of
strat
e
gies
nd teachi
n
g m
e
thod, the
y
still have
t
h
e
sam
e
learning
im
plem
enta
tio
n process
.
In
fact
the
teaching expe
riences in
diff
erent school ne
ver di
ffe
rentiate
the style
of te
aching a
n
d learni
ng
proce
ss i
n
IPG.
Th
us, t
h
e m
e
t
hod
o
f
i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on
o
f
l
ear
n
i
ng
p
r
oces
s
ne
eds t
o
be i
m
prove
d t
h
r
o
ug
h t
r
ai
ni
n
g
.
Furt
herm
ore, e
v
aluation outc
om
e and product phas
e accordi
ng to
[20],
the
purpose of the current
ev
alu
a
tion
is to
relate th
e go
als, con
t
ex
t,
in
pu
t an
d p
r
oc
ess wi
t
h
p
r
o
g
r
am
’s out
c
o
m
e
. Thi
s
st
udy
ai
m
s
t
o
i
d
ent
i
f
y
t
h
e
di
ffe
rences
o
f
i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on pr
o
duct
o
f
S
c
i
e
nce cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
for Sci
e
nc
e l
ect
urer
bas
e
d
o
n
teaching e
x
perience in sc
hool
. The
r
e is no si
gni
fant
diffe
re
nce in PISMP
Science curric
u
lum
im
ple
m
e
n
tation
for Science lec
t
urer i
n
IPG based on teachi
ng e
xpe
ri
ence
in school. T
h
is
indicate that even t
h
ough PISMP
Science lecturer in Malaysia
IPG
has diffe
r
ence year
s
of teaching e
xpe
rience in
sc
hool, they produce the
sam
e
prod
uct
i
n
i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on
o
f
S
c
i
e
nce c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
.
Based on teaching experie
n
c
e
in IPG, the
r
e
is no
diffe
rence in lecturers’
curric
u
lum
goals context,
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
ob
j
ect
i
v
e cont
e
x
t
,
assessm
ent
and eval
uat
i
on i
n
put
, c
ont
e
n
t
i
n
put
, s
o
urce i
n
p
u
t
,
pe
da
go
gy
i
n
p
u
t
,
peda
g
ogy
p
r
o
cess, assessm
ent
and e
v
auat
i
on
pr
ocess, l
e
arni
ng c
ont
e
n
t
pro
cess, b
u
t
t
h
ere i
s
si
gni
f
i
cant
di
ffe
re
nces i
n
pr
o
duct
of
P
I
S
M
P Sci
e
nce
c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on f
o
r Sci
e
nce l
ect
u
r
er i
n
IP
G
bas
e
d
on
teaching experience in IPG.
Th
is indicate that Science lec
t
urer
with t
eac
hing expe
rienc
e
in IPG m
o
re
than
15
years
ha
s better product dim
e
nsion fr
om
Science lecturer that ha
ve
t
eachi
n
g expe
rience
in IPG bet
w
ee
n
1-5
y
ears, 6
-
10 y
e
ars, a
n
d
1
1
-
1
5
y
ears i
n
i
m
plem
ent
i
ng t
h
e
Sci
e
nce c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
. On t
h
e
ot
he
r ha
n
d
,
ba
sed
o
n
teaching expe
rience in a
n
othe
r IPG
(1-5
years, 6-10 yea
r
s, a
n
d 11-15 year
s
)
, the
r
e is
no signi
ficant
diffe
rence
i
n
pr
od
uct
di
m
e
nsi
o
n
.
Thi
s
paral
l
e
l
wi
t
h
t
h
e st
udy
by
[22]
w
ho c
o
ncl
u
de t
h
at
be
si
des usi
n
g va
ri
et
y
of
prese
n
tation
m
e
thod,
the
people
who im
plem
ent the cu
rriculum
should m
a
ke
use
the e
x
isting teaching
expe
rience as
one
of the strat
e
gy to im
prove
the teachi
ng outcom
e. Therefore
,
PISM
P Sc
ience lecturer i
n
IPG
sho
u
l
d
cha
ngi
ng t
h
ei
r m
i
nd and s
h
a
r
i
n
g t
h
ei
r expe
ri
ence
w
ith their c
o
lleague
s as one
of the
factor to m
a
ke
their teaching
m
o
re effective. They
should
acknowledg
e
the
sharing of expe
rience with
colleagues or
ot
he
r
lecturers great
ly
influence
d
the
im
provement of e
v
e
r
yday teaching a
nd learning.
T
h
ey can im
prove t
h
e
attitude and
de
velopm
ent of teacher’s
candi
date in teaching and learni
ng
process with t
hose activities. This
will give im
pa
ct to the teacher’s can
didate towards science an
d technology developm
ent
in t
h
e current
global
era.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
From
t
h
e pre
v
i
ous
res
u
l
t
,
sci
e
nce l
ect
ure
r
s
wh
o i
m
pl
em
en
t
e
d PISM
P sci
e
nce cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
i
n
IPG d
o
not have different
pe
rception towa
rd
s c
o
ntexts, input, process and pro
duct based
on teaching expe
rience
i
n
school.
Ne
vert
heless, t
h
ey ne
ed to a
d
a
p
t and s
p
rea
d
the
Science curric
u
lum
accordin
g t
o
the
de
velopment of
soci
et
y
and e
nvi
ro
nm
ent
.
The cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
m
i
ght
be
faci
n
g
som
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
sim
u
l
t
a
neou
sl
y
wi
t
h
t
h
e
devel
opm
ent
of soci
et
y
and e
nvi
ro
nm
ent
.
Thus
, l
ect
ure
r
expe
ri
ence m
u
st
be adde
d t
h
r
o
ug
h t
r
ai
ni
ngs
whet
her
local, national
or
internationa
l.
On
t
h
e othe
r hand, base
d
on teaching e
x
perience in
IPG, Science lecturer
who
teach Science
curriculum
for 15 years s
howed
better
product elem
ent. This indi
cate that gove
rnment of
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
shoul
d co
nsi
d
e
r
t
o
i
m
pl
em
ent
t
r
ai
ni
ng an
d speci
fi
c sho
r
t
cou
r
se fo
r t
h
e y
o
u
ng l
ect
urer a
nd l
e
c
t
urer
wh
o
ha
ve m
o
r
e
y
ears
of
t
eac
hi
n
g
e
x
p
e
ri
enc
e
i
n
or
de
r t
o
i
n
crease l
e
ss
o
n
a
n
d
l
ear
ni
n
g
res
u
l
t
.
T
h
e s
u
gge
st
i
ons
are
not
f
o
cuse
d
ge
neral
l
y
t
o
w
a
rds
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
n g
ove
r
n
m
e
nt
onl
y
,
b
u
t
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d be
t
a
ke
n i
n
t
o
acc
ou
nt
by
S
c
i
e
nc
e
lecturer to im
prove the
ongoi
ng
pe
rs
onal com
p
etency. They should
not
e
xpect
on t
h
e t
r
ai
ni
ng
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
go
ve
rnm
e
nt
o
n
l
y
, b
u
t
t
h
ey
can ca
rry
out
di
scussi
o
n
wi
t
h
ot
he
r l
ect
ur
er t
o
i
m
prove
t
h
ei
r c
o
m
p
et
ency
i
n
co
ndu
ctin
g certain
curricu
lu
m.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
Ou
r
dee
p
est
ap
preci
at
i
o
n a
n
d
unl
i
m
it
ed t
h
a
n
kf
ul
nes
s
a
d
d
r
e
ssed t
o
ou
r
fa
m
i
ly
, ou
r c
o
l
l
eague
s, a
n
d al
l
staffs
of Facu
lty o
f
Edu
cation
,
Un
iv
ersitiTekn
o
l
o
g
i
Malaysia.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
5
:
1
30
–
13
7
13
6
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, “Draf
Kurikulum
Kursus Dalam Perkhidmatan
1
4
Minggu: Latihan Guru Sekolah
Bestari”, Edisi Kelima, Kuala
Lu
mpur:
Kementer
ian Pend
idikan
Malay
s
ia, 2007
.
[2] Kementerian
Pela
jar
a
n Malay
s
ia, 2011.
[3]
Ali, A., V
a
n d
e
r Zee, K., San
d
er
s, G., “Deter
minants of intercultur
a
l ad
justment among expatriate spouse”,
International Jo
urnal of In
tercultural Relations
, vol/issue: 27(5), pp.
563–580
,
20
08.
[4]
Abdul Rahim H
a
mdan, “Pengajian Kurikulum
”,
Skudai: Univ
ersiti
Teknolog
i Malay
s
ia, 2007.
[5]
Sufean H., “Pen
capaian
Pelaksanaan Das
a
r-Dasar Pe
ndidik
a
n Malay
s
ia”, 1957 –
2
011,
Universiti
Malay
a
, 2011
.
[6]
Lunenburg, FC,
Thom
pson, B., Pagani
, D., “The Multifac
tor Lead
ership Questionnaire (M
LQ): Factor Structur
e of
an Operational Measure”, Paper pres
ented at the
annual m
eeting of th
e
American Education
a
l Research
Association, Denver, CO
, 2010
.
[7]
Clinton, J., “The Power of Evaluation Readiness in
Program Evaluation
”
, Auclan
d:
UNITEC. School of Education
,
2001.
[8]
Sulaiman, “Penekanan Kurikulu
m
dan Pengajar
a
n Sains di
Sek
o
lah”, Kertas Kerja
d
i
bentangkan dalam Seminar
Kebangsaan
Pen
d
idikan
Sains dan Mate
matik, UTM pada 12-13
September 2008
.
[9]
Kobia JM., “Ch
a
llenges facing the
implementation of 2002 seco
ndar
y
Kiswahili curriculum in Ken
y
a”,
Irania
n
Journal of Language Stud
ies (
I
JLS)
, vol/issue: 3(
3), pp
. 303-316
,
2009.
[10]
Ramirez R., “An Analy
s
is Of Cu
rricular Change
In Ph
y
s
ica
l
Edu
c
ation
”
, Ph.D Th
e
s
is, Universit
y
O
f
W
i
sconsin-La
Crosse, 2013.
[11]
S
h
arifah Nor P
u
teh, Kam
a
rul
Azm
a
n Abd S
a
lam
,
Ka
m
a
ruzam
an J
u
s
o
ff, “
U
s
i
ng CBAM
to Evalua
te T
each
ers
’
Concerns in Science
Literacy
fo
r Human
Capital Development at the Preschool”,
World Applied S
c
ien
ces Journal
14 (
L
earning Innovation
and Inter
vention for
Diverse Learners)
,
pp. 81-87
, 2011
.
[12]
Kem
p
, “Eco-Innovation: Defin
ition, Measurem
en
t and Open Research Iss
u
es", Econom
ia Politica,
So
cieta
Editric
eil
Mul
i
n
o
, vol. 3
,
pp
. 297
-316, 2010
.
[13]
Bungin, “Sosiologi Komunikasi
(Teori, Parad
i
gma, dan Discourse Te
knolog
i Komunikasi
di Mas
y
arak
at)
”
,
Jakarta: Ken
can
a Prenad
a Med
i
a Group, 2009
.
[14]
Hair, JF., Anderson, RE., Ta
th
am
, RL., Bla
c
k,
W
C
., “
M
ultivariat
e
Data Anal
ysis”
,
Upper Saddle River
,
New
Jersey
: Pr
entice
Hall, 2010.
[15]
Azizi Hj. Yahay
a
, “The Using of Model Con
t
ext.
Input, Process and Products (CIPP) In Learning Programs
Assessment”, In
ternational Conf
erence
on Ch
allenges and Prosp
ects in
Teach
er
Education, Concorde Hotel Shah
Alam 16 & 17 J
u
ly
2001.
[16]
Artha, IGK., N.
Dantes, M
.
Can
d
iasa, “Determinas
i Komponen
Konteks, Input,
Pr
oses, Dan Produk Pelaksan
aan
P
r
ogram
S
e
kolah S
t
andar Nas
i
o
n
al (S
S
N
) Terha
d
ap Kuali
t
as
P
e
l
a
ks
anaan P
e
m
b
e
l
aj
aran P
a
r
a
Gur
u
Di S
m
pNegeri
2 Kuta”,
e-Journal Program Pascasarjan
a
Univ
ersitas Pend
idikan
Ganesha, Program Studi
Penelitian dan
Ev
aluas
i
Pendidikan
,
vol.
3, 2013
.
[17]
Agung Hastomo, “Evaluasi Pela
ksanaan Man
a
jemen Berbasis S
e
kolah
(Mbs) Di Sekolah Dasar
Menggunakan
Model Contex
t, Input, Proses
Dan Product (C
IPP)”, Faku
ltas
Ilmu Pendidikan
Univer
sitas Negeri Yog
y
ak
arta,
2010.
[18]
Ty
ler
,
TW., “Basic Principles o
f
Curriculum and
In
struction
”
, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1949.
[19]
Stufflebeam, Daniel L., Harold
, McKee, Beulah, “The cipp model for
evalu
a
tion”, Portland,
Oregon:
Materi
presentasi
pad
a
konferensi tahun
an
Oregon
Program Evalu
a
tors N
e
twork (OPEN),
2003.
[20]
Stufflebeam, DL., Folely
, WJ., Gephart, WJ
., Guba, EG., Hammond RL., Merriman, HO., Provus, MM.,
“Education
a
l Ev
aluation
and Decisionmak
ing”, Itasca, IL:
F.E. Peacock
, 1971
.
[21]
Fauziah
Hj Yah
y
a, “Tah
ap Kep
e
rluan
Guru Sains terh
ad
ap Isi
Kandungan Pelajaran
”
,
Tesis Sa
rjana Pendid
i
ka
n,
Universiti Kebangs
aan Malay
s
ia, 2002
.
[22]
Mohammad Sani bin
Ibrahim, “Sat
u Penilaian
Terhadap
Pendi
dikan Guru Dalam Perkhidm
atan
di Malay
s
ia dan
Im
plikasin
ya Un
tuk Masa D
e
pan
”
,
Te
sisPh.
D,
Fakulti Pend
idik
an
, Universi
ti
Keb
a
ngsaan Malay
s
i
a
, 1992
.
[23]
Fullan,
MG., “
V
isions that
Bl
ind
”
,
Educa
tional Leadership
, vo
l/is
sue: 49(5), pp
. 1
9
-20, 1992
.
BIOGRAP
HI
ES OF
AUTH
ORS
Fa
uz
ia
h Hj Ya
hy
a,
She is Ph.
D
Ca
ndida
te
a
t
Fa
cu
lt
y of
Edu
cat
io
n,Universi
ti Tek
nologi Malay
s
ia
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Perspective of Lecturers
in Imple
m
enting P
I
SM
P Science
Curricul
u
m in
Malaysi
a
'
s
IP
G (Fauzi
ah Hj
Yahya)
13
7
Abdul Rahim
Bi
n Ham
d
an is Associat
e Professor
at
Facul
t
y
of
E
ducat
ion, Univ
er
siti T
e
knolog
i
Malay
s
ia, 8131
0 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malay
s
i
a
. He
com
p
let
e
d Bachelor of
Hum
a
nities with
Education (Ba.ed. Honours) (Geograp
h
y
), University
of
Science Malay
s
ia in 19
90; Master of
Education (Curr
i
culum and
Instr
u
ction) Univ
er
siti Teknologi Malay
s
ia
in 1997
and Doctor of
Philosoph
y
(Pro
fesional
and Co
ntinuing Edu
c
ation)
, University
of Surrey
,
United Kingdom i
n
2005.
Hafsah Binti Ja
ntan, She
is Ph.D Candida
te
at Facul
t
y
of
Educa
tion,Univ
e
r
siti Tekno
logi
Mala
y
s
ia
Halim
atussadiah
Binti Saleh,
She is Ph.D
Ca
ndidate at Faculty
of
Educ
ation
,
Universit
i
Teknologi Malay
s
ia
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.