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
.1
, Mar
c
h20
15
, pp
.
3
8
~
44
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
38
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
Correl
at
ion bet
w
een T
e
acher’
s PCK (Pedagogical Content
Knowledge) and Student’s Mo
tivation in Primary School
Ika
Ma
ry
ani, Sri
Tutur Martaning
s
ih
Teacher
Trainin
g
of Primar
y
Sch
ool Depar
t
ment
,
UniversitasAhmad Dahlan, Yog
y
akarta, Indonesia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received
Ja
n 30, 2015
Rev
i
sed
Feb
20
, 20
15
Accepted
Feb 26, 2015
Various learn
i
ng
problems occur
due to
th
e te
ac
hers’ inabi
lit
y
i
n
m
a
naging
the learning pr
ocess. Teacher’
s lear
ning skil
l is influenc
ed
b
y
their
understanding
in the
curricu
lum components which are includ
ing
pedagogical kno
wledge and con
t
ent knowle
dg
e. The aims of this research
were to determ
ine: 1) the con
d
ition of Pedag
ogical Content
Knowledge
(PCK) of primar
y
schoo
l teachers; a
nd 2) th
e relationship b
e
tween th
e
tea
c
her’s PCK with student’s
m
o
tivati
on
in learning. The exp
e
riment
was
conducted on
teachers and
primar
y
schoo
l
stud
ents in Yog
y
akar
ta, Indonesia.
Teacher samples
were ta
ken b
y
purposive sampling technique,
whereas th
e
student samples were ta
ken b
y
random sa
mpling techniqu
e. The data of
students’ motivation wer
e
collected
th
rough questionnair
e, wh
er
eas data of
PCK obtained from
the results of teach
ers’ com
p
eten
c
y
test in th
e last 2013.
Data wer
e
an
al
yzed us
ing P
e
ars
on co
rrelation technique. The resu
lts showed
there
is a
rel
a
t
i
o
n
ship betwe
e
n t
e
ache
r’s p
e
dagog
ical cont
ent kno
wledge with
student motiv
ation in
learning (p
valu
e
is 0.000
,
and r is
0.0907)
Keyword:
In
d
onesi
a
Mo
tiv
atio
n
Peda
go
gi
cal
C
ont
e
n
t
K
now
ledg
e
Pr
im
ar
y Sch
ool
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
:
Ika
M
a
ry
ani,
Teacher T
r
aini
ng of Prim
ary School
De
part
ment,
Facul
t
y
o
f
T
e
a
c
her
Trai
ni
n
g
a
n
d
E
ducat
i
o
n,
Uni
v
ersi
t
a
s
A
h
m
a
d Da
hl
an
,
Jl.
K
i
A
g
eng
Pe
m
a
n
a
h
a
n
19
, So
ro
su
tan, Y
o
g
y
ak
ar
ta
551
62
, In
don
esia.
Em
a
il: ik
a_
m
a
i
l
8
7
@ym
a
il.co
m
1.
INTRODUCTION
Edu
catio
n syste
m
in
In
don
esia is always ev
o
l
v
i
ng
,
wh
ich
h
a
s
pu
rp
ose to
im
p
r
ov
e the qu
ality o
f
educat
i
o
n.
It
c
oul
d
be see
n
fr
om
t
h
e chan
ge
s o
f
t
h
e
cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
cont
ent
s
whi
c
h
have
be
en a
d
apt
e
d al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
the challenge
faced by Indonesi
a. Curri
culum
2006 and Curric
u
lum
2013 are the exam
ples of those
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
s t
h
at
have
bee
n
u
s
ed
by
t
h
e sc
h
ool
s i
n
I
n
do
nes
i
a. B
o
t
h
of t
h
e
m
have t
h
e i
m
po
rt
ant
c
ont
ri
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
reachi
n
g the e
d
ucational
purp
ose although t
h
ey are
neede
d
t
o
be e
v
aluate
d.
In t
h
e cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
devel
o
pi
n
g
pr
ocess
,
Th
e
Go
ve
rnm
e
nt
al
way
s
co
nsi
d
e
r
i
ng t
h
e st
age
s
of st
ude
nt
s’
th
in
k
i
n
g
co
m
p
eten
ce, so
th
at
th
e curricu
l
u
m i
m
p
l
e
m
en
tatio
n
will b
e
rig
h
t
o
n
targ
et.
Th
ese co
nsid
eratio
n
s
can
no
t b
e
sep
a
rated
fro
m
th
e
ap
p
lication
of
learn
i
ng
th
eo
ri
es that already
exist. Acc
o
rdi
ng t
o
construct
i
vis
m
view, st
udy is
consi
d
ere
d
as
change proce
ss of
view
, ins
i
ght,
hope a
n
d
m
i
ndset.
For teachers to
prom
ote
m
o
re effective
learni
ng the
teacher nee
d
s
to link
ne
w in
form
ation to
fa
miliar info
rm
ation selectivel
y in as
learner
– satis
fying a
form
at as possi
ble [1]. In ot
her
hand, in s
o
cial
constructivism
ap
proach, a teache
r
sh
ou
l
d
b
e
ab
le to
b
e
a facilit
ato
r
.
A facilitato
r shou
ld
b
e
ab
le to
p
r
od
u
c
e an
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
al who
cou
l
d
con
s
tru
c
t
their own
knowledge through
problem
solving exercises.
The teache
r
s a
r
e expected to
help their st
udents to
find a
conce
p
t. The
establishment of
the
abi
lity to think is
the prim
ary
responsi
bility
of t
eachers in equi
ppi
ng
st
ude
nt
s t
o
wa
r
d
s t
h
ei
r
fut
u
re t
h
at
co
ul
d
be
re
ached by
scientific approach [2].
In
d
onesi
a
n
N
a
t
i
onal
E
ducat
i
o
n St
an
da
rd i
n
p
r
i
m
ary
school
sho
w
s t
h
at
sci
e
nt
i
f
i
c
ap
pr
oac
h
con
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
stu
d
e
n
t
ab
ility
to
ask
i
n
g
, reaso
n
i
ng
, ob
servin
g
,
trying
, formin
g
,
produ
cin
g
, serv
ing
and
co
mm
u
n
i
cati
n
g. In
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
C
o
rrel
a
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
een Te
acher
'
s PC
K
(
P
ed
ag
ogi
c
a
l
C
o
nt
ent
K
n
ow
l
e
dge)
a
n
d
St
ude
nt
's
...
.
(
I
kaM
a
rya
n
i
)
39
scien
tific ap
pro
ach
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
tatio
n
,
t
h
e stu
d
e
n
t
s are en
co
urag
ed
to
th
i
n
k
an
alytically
. Th
e aim
is t
h
at th
e
stu
d
e
n
t
s wou
l
d
b
e
h
a
v
i
ng
b
a
lan
ce
an
d h
o
listic
of
attit
u
d
e
, life sk
ill, and
kno
wled
g
e
wh
ich are su
itab
l
e t
o
ward
educat
i
o
n dem
a
nd
i
n
2
1
st
ce
nt
ury
[3]
.
The i
d
eal
co
n
cept
of sci
e
nt
i
f
i
c
app
r
oac
h
i
n
t
h
e im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on o
f
C
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
201
3
i
s
not
easi
l
y
accepted. The
change of curriculum
may b
e
perceive
d
as
som
e
thing ve
ry com
p
licated
that
m
a
y result in
frustration
for
m
o
st teachers but it m
a
y
also be
percei
ve
d a
s
som
e
thing
ne
w
that c
h
allenges teac
her t
o
expl
oit
th
eir
k
nowledg
e,
sk
ill, an
d
creativ
ity to
mak
e
teach
i
ng
an
d learn
i
ng
mo
re enjo
yab
l
e
an
d m
o
re pro
d
u
c
tiv
e.
Ho
we
ver
,
i
t
m
u
st
be b
o
r
n
i
n
m
i
nd t
h
at
ho
w t
o
resp
o
nd
t
o
t
h
e cha
nge
of c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
depe
nds
very
m
u
ch on t
h
e
way it is perceived [4]. The
divers
ity of t
eachers’ skills
becom
e
s a
maj
o
r issue in t
h
e im
ple
m
entation of
scientific approach in a lea
r
ning
pro
cess
.
M
a
ny teache
r
s e
s
pecially in pr
imary school le
vel are
not rea
d
y to
apply this a
p
proach yet.
It is necessa
ry to prepare teac
hers
from
the lowes
t
level so that the teache
r
s wil
l
be
h
a
v
i
n
g
th
e sam
e
ab
ility in
conten
t kn
owledg
e o
r
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
i
cal k
nowledg
e throug
h
scien
tifi
c
app
r
o
a
ch
. B
o
th
o
f
th
is co
m
p
eten
ce called
as Ped
a
g
o
g
i
cal Co
n
t
en
t K
now
ledg
e (
P
CK)
in
th
e N
a
tio
n
a
l Council f
o
r
A
c
cr
ed
i
t
atio
n
o
f
Teach
er
Edu
catio
n (NCATE)
[5
]-[7
].
PCK is the com
b
ination of conte
n
t knowledge a
nd
teache
r
s’ ability in c
h
oosi
ng strategy to deliver
a
l
earni
n
g
m
a
t
e
ri
al
t
o
t
h
e st
u
d
e
nt
s, t
h
us
hel
p
i
ng st
ude
nt
s t
o
l
ear
n t
h
e
l
earni
ng m
a
t
e
ri
al [1
4]
. B
a
se
d
o
n
t
h
at
m
eani
ng,
PC
K
con
s
i
s
t
of t
w
o i
m
port
a
nt
c
o
m
pone
nt
s,
na
m
e
l
y
cont
ent
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e (C
K) a
n
d pe
da
g
ogi
cal
k
nowledg
e (PK)
[5
]-[7
]. Goo
d
PK cou
l
d
su
ppo
rt teach
ers’
sk
ill to
d
e
si
g
n
, app
l
y, an
d
asses learn
i
ng
p
r
o
cess.
Mean
wh
ile Co
n
t
en
t Kno
w
l
e
d
g
e
cou
l
d su
ppo
rt t
h
e abilit
y o
f
teachers in reflectin
g stud
en
ts’ l
e
v
e
l in
un
de
rst
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e co
nce
p
t
.
C
ont
e
n
t
K
n
o
w
l
e
dge c
o
ul
d s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e e
ffect
i
v
eness
o
f
l
ear
ni
n
g
st
rat
e
gy
on a
certain
learn
i
ng
m
a
terial. In
Scien
ce, PC
K
is d
e
fin
e
d
as “k
nowing
science is a n
ecessary bu
t no
t sufficien
t
condition for teaching.
Scie
nce
teach
e
r
m
u
st a
l
so ha
ve knowledge
ab
out science
learner, curri
culum
,
instructional st
rategies, a
nd a
ssessm
en
t th
rou
g
h
wh
ich
th
e
tran
sform
th
eir
scien
ce kn
owl
e
d
g
e
i
n
to
effectiv
e
and learning”
[8].
PCK has an i
m
portant role in the success
of entr
e
p
re
ne
urs
h
ip learning. In case all
lecturers a
nd
instruct
ors
ha
ve expertise in content m
a
te
rial as we
ll as
how t
o
teach entre
p
re
ne
urs
h
ip t
h
rough
various
approaches and learning st
ra
tegies, the
qua
lity of teaching e
n
trepre
neurship
will be i
m
prove [9].
Teachers
need
a
very
har
d
e
f
f
o
rt
i
n
im
pl
em
ent
i
ng
peda
g
ogi
cal
com
p
etence
to optim
ize s
t
ude
nts’ i
n
tellectual,
e
m
otional, and m
o
ral developm
ent [1
0]. Indonesia
n
Governm
e
nt has b
een stri
ved t
o
im
prove teachers
’
com
p
etence in
each e
ducational level su
c
h
a
s
certificate program
,
also the
establishm
ent of teac
hers
’ a
c
tivity
center, teache
r
s c
o
uncil, a
n
d teac
hers working
group. Th
rough the
s
e activities,
teachers’ quality
and
com
p
etence are expected to i
m
prove.
On t
h
e ot
her
hand, som
e
data shows that
the qu
alities of these teache
r
s ar
e not yet as expecte
d
.
There a
r
e so
many teachers do
not
have
qualifications in accorda
n
ce with
the subject they teach. Fasl
i Jalal
and
De
diSupri
a
di give t
h
e fa
ct that
60% te
achers
do not have a
p
propri
a
t
e qualification, 20% teache
r
s
teach
out
of t
h
ei
r ex
pert
i
s
e area
[1
1]
. As a re
sul
t
,
m
a
ny
im
port
a
nt
co
ncept
s
t
h
at
sho
u
l
d
be t
a
ug
ht
t
o
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
ju
s
t
skippe
d
because of t
h
e lack
of teach
e
r
s’ unde
rstanding to the
c
once
p
t. The
latest cas
e which is
bec
a
m
e
a
trending topic on s
o
cial
m
e
dia is a
bout a teacher who teaches the wrong m
a
them
atics conce
p
t to his stude
nt
s
.
The res
u
lt of a
researc
h
in 2013 s
h
owe
d
tha
t
m
a
ny t
eachers candi
date got
m
i
sconception in som
e
topics in
math
e
m
atics a
n
d
n
a
tural scien
ce. Th
ese m
i
scon
cep
tion
s
o
ccur
beca
use of the errors
c
o
ncept
s
t
a
ug
ht
by
t
h
e
pre
v
ious teachers. It is shows
how
low t
h
e teachers
’
com
p
etence in unde
rs
tandi
ng a learning m
a
terial c
onte
n
t
as well as
how
to teach it.
From
that discussion,
we could r
ealize the enorm
i
t
y
of the teacher
s’ responsi
b
ility to th
e students’
fu
t
u
re. Teach
e
rs are no
t on
ly resp
on
si
b
l
e in
p
r
ov
id
ing
material
to
th
e stu
d
e
n
t
s, bu
t also
m
u
st b
e
ab
le to
m
o
tivate the stude
nts. St
ude
nts’ m
o
tiv
ation is infl
uence
d
by teache
r
s
’
learning a
p
proach
[12]. When
the
teachers
have
been a
b
le to build st
udents
m
o
t
i
vation in
a learning pro
cess, they ha
ve built up easi
n
ess for
st
ude
nt
s [
1
3]
.
It
m
eans t
h
a
t
st
ude
nt
s ar
e
enc
o
u
r
a
g
ed
a
n
d
i
n
s
p
i
r
e
d
t
o
st
udy
c
o
nt
i
n
uo
usl
y
w
h
e
r
ev
er an
d
whe
n
e
v
er they
are. The purpose is
to
d
e
termin
e th
at stu
d
e
n
t
s h
a
ve
m
o
tiv
atio
n
to
lifelon
g
learn
i
ng
. B
a
sed
on
above desc
ription,
t
h
e rese
arche
r
realizes
that
Pe
da
go
gi
cal
C
o
nt
ent
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(PC
K
) a
n
d
st
ude
nt
s’
m
o
t
i
v
a
tio
n
h
a
ve th
e sam
e
i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
po
sition
in
a learn
i
ng
pro
cess
so it is im
p
o
r
tan
t
to
analyze th
e correlatio
n
bot
h of
t
h
em
.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Thi
s
researc
h
was
co
n
duct
e
d
by
c
o
l
l
ect
ing
p
r
i
m
ary and sec
o
ndary
data whic
h then
has
bee
n
d
e
scri
b
e
d and
an
alyzed
.
Th
is research
em
p
l
o
y
ed
qu
an
titativ
e ap
pro
a
ch
with
Ex-po
s
t facto
d
e
si
g
n
. Th
e m
a
in
reaso
n
wa
s t
h
a
t
t
h
e researche
r
di
d
not
gi
ve any
t
r
eatm
e
nt
and m
a
ni
pul
at
i
on t
o
t
h
e
resea
r
ch s
u
b
j
ect
[
1
0
]
. T
o
determ
ine the
correlation bet
w
een each com
ponent, t
h
e
re
searche
r
use
d
correlation
m
e
thod with
inferential
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:2252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
2
015
:
38
–
44
40
statistical
an
alysis tech
n
i
q
u
e
. Th
e resu
lt o
f
th
e d
a
ta an
alysis will sh
o
w
th
e stren
g
t
h
of th
e co
rrelation
b
e
t
w
een
teacher’s PC
K
and stude
n
t’s
m
o
tivation.
Fi
gure 1
s
h
ows
t
h
e researc
h
des
i
gn.
Explan
ation
:
X =
Teachers’ Ped
a
g
ogical con
t
en
t k
nowledge (PCK)
Y =
Students’ motivation in
learn
i
ng
process
Figure
1. Reas
each Program
e
schem
e
The population of
this resea
r
ch
was
all teachers
of elementary sc
hools
in
Yogyaka
r
t
a
, Indonesia.
The sam
p
l
e
w
a
s part
of t
h
e
num
ber a
nd c
h
aract
eri
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
e p
o
pul
at
i
o
n. T
h
e sam
p
l
i
ng t
e
c
h
ni
q
u
e
on t
h
i
s
research
was
pu
rpo
s
iv
e sam
p
lin
g
wit
h
jud
g
men
t
sa
m
p
lin
g an
d also
rando
m
sa
m
p
lin
g
.
Pu
rpo
s
iv
e
samp
ling
use
d
to take sa
m
p
le of teachers whom
repre
s
ent ve
ry
high, high, low, a
n
d very
low PCK. Meanwhile ra
ndom
sam
p
l
i
ng used
t
o
t
a
ke sam
p
le of st
ude
nt
s
wh
om
t
h
ei
r l
e
arni
ng m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on
wo
ul
d
be
m
easured
. T
h
e
y
were
st
ude
nt
s t
h
o
u
g
h
t
by
t
eac
her
s
a
m
p
l
e
whi
c
h t
a
ken
be
f
o
re.
T
h
ere
were
3
2
t
e
a
c
hers
an
d
8
2
st
ude
nt
s as
sam
p
l
e
s.
This
res
earc
h
use
d
close
d
questionnaire
as one of
the i
n
strum
e
nts. It wa
s use
d
to m
easure st
udents
’
m
o
ti
vat
i
on i
n
t
h
e l
ear
ni
n
g
pr
ocess.
T
h
i
s
qu
est
i
o
n
n
ai
re
use
d
Li
kert
Scale with four
po
ssib
le
answers to
be
chosen
by st
ude
nta wit
h
a
chec
k m
a
rk. The indicator
s
th
at h
a
v
e
b
een
u
s
ed
refer
to
th
e
fo
llo
wi
n
g
ch
aracteristics. Th
ey are
1) resilien
t
in
facin
g
adv
e
rs
it
y; 2
)
cou
l
d wo
rk
co
n
tinuo
usly fo
r a lon
g
ti
m
e
,
perse
v
e
r
i
n
g i
n
faci
n
g
t
h
e
t
a
sk
;
3)
D
o
n
o
t
ne
ed
out
si
de e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e t
o
m
a
ke t
h
e
best
ac
hi
evem
ent
;
4)
pr
efer
t
o
wo
rk
i
n
depe
n
d
e
nt
l
y
;
5) ca
pab
l
e t
o
de
fen
d
t
h
ei
r o
p
i
n
i
o
n;
6)
bo
re
d q
u
i
c
kl
y
on
r
out
i
n
e
t
a
sk
s;
7)
n
o
t
easy
t
o
t
a
k
e
d
o
wn
h
i
s
b
e
liefs; 8) lik
e to
fi
n
d
ou
t an
d so
lv
e
p
r
ob
lem
s
[1
7
]
. Th
e teach
e
rs’ PC
K
v
a
riab
le was ob
tain
ed fro
m
th
e d
a
ta
o
f
teach
e
rs’ co
m
p
et
en
cy test in
201
3
org
a
n
i
zed
by th
e Edu
cation
Qu
ality Assuran
ce
Dep
a
rtmen
t
of
Yo
gy
aka
r
t
a
, In
do
nesi
a.
Research
er tested
th
e v
a
lid
it
y an
d reliab
ility o
f
th
e
i
n
strumen
t
b
e
fore
u
s
in
g
it t
o
retriev
e
d
a
ta. Th
is
st
udy
use
d
co
nst
r
uct
val
i
d
i
t
y
by
li
st
en t
o
t
h
e opi
ni
o
n
a
nd s
u
g
g
est
i
o
n
of a pr
ofessi
onal
j
u
dgm
ent
.
Aft
e
r
im
pro
v
i
n
g t
h
e
i
n
st
rum
e
nt
ba
sed o
n
pr
ofe
s
s
i
onal
j
u
dgm
en
t
sug
g
est
i
o
n,
f
u
rt
her t
e
st
i
n
g
t
h
e i
n
st
r
u
m
e
nt
t
o
a
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
st
u
d
en
ts wh
ich
were n
o
t
sam
p
le.
Th
e resu
lts
o
f
calcu
latio
n
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e in
st
ru
m
e
n
t
reliab
ility An
ates
Versi
o
n
4
sh
owed
t
h
at th
e reliab
ility
o
f
the in
stru
m
e
n
t
m
o
t
i
v
a
tio
n
to
l
earn
is
b
y
0
.
8
6
with
a m
ean
o
f
7
7
.15
and
st
an
da
rd devi
at
i
o
n
was 11
.2
5. Anat
es si
gni
fi
ca
nt
l
y
(
α
) = 0.05, and it was found that the correlation
co
efficien
t for 3
0
sam
p
les were
0
.
0
4
9
.
Th
e resu
lt o
f
valid
ity tes
t
sh
o
w
ed
th
at r co
un
t (0
.8
60
) > r tab
l
e
(0
.3
4
9
);
i
t
ca
n
be c
oncl
u
ded
t
h
at
t
h
e
i
n
st
r
u
m
e
nt
o
f
st
u
d
ent
’
s m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on st
at
ed rel
i
a
bl
e
a
n
d
co
ul
d
be
us
ed as
a
d
a
ta co
llecting
in
stru
m
e
n
t
.
Before testin
g
th
e h
ypo
th
esis, th
e research
er co
nd
u
c
te
d
th
e an
alysis p
r
ereq
u
i
site test an
alysis in
th
is
stu
d
y
i
n
clud
es test of
n
o
rm
a
lity an
d
h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
ity
o
f
t
h
e sam
p
le. Normali
t
y test was u
s
ed to
i
n
v
e
stig
ate
wh
et
h
e
r t
h
e
data in
th
is st
ud
y were
n
o
rmal d
i
stribu
tio
n o
r
no
t.
Ho
m
o
g
e
n
e
ity test was u
s
ed
to d
e
t
e
rm
in
e
whet
her t
h
e
v
a
ri
ances f
r
o
m
som
e
pop
ul
at
i
on
were t
h
e
sam
e
or n
o
t
.
B
a
sed o
n
t
h
e
t
e
st
t
h
at
hav
e
been
per
f
o
r
m
e
d usi
n
g
SP
SS
20
was
got
t
e
n t
h
e c
oncl
u
si
o
n
t
h
at
al
l
sam
p
l
e
s w
e
re
di
s
t
ri
but
e
d
no
rm
al
and
hom
oge
neo
u
s
,
so t
h
e
hy
p
o
t
h
e
s
i
s
coul
d be
d
o
n
e usi
ng
st
at
i
s
t
i
cal
param
e
t
r
i
c
wi
t
h
Pear
so
n
cor
r
el
at
i
on a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
Pears
on c
o
r
r
el
at
i
on coe
ffi
ci
e
n
t
(Pr
o
duct
M
o
m
e
nt
C
o
rre
l
a
t
i
on) was
use
d
wi
t
h
co
nsi
d
e
r
at
i
on
of
several
reason
s, n
a
m
e
l
y
: sa
m
p
lin
g
o
f
th
e po
pu
lation
shou
ld
b
e
ran
d
o
m
; Th
e d
a
ta th
at th
e correlatio
n
was sou
ght
sh
ou
l
d
b
e
a scale in
terv
al
o
r
ratio
; th
e score
v
a
riation
of
both
v
a
riab
les t
h
at th
e correlatio
n was
soug
h
t
sh
ou
l
d
be t
h
e
sam
e
;
vari
abl
e
sc
ore
d
i
st
ri
but
i
o
n t
h
at
t
h
e c
o
r
r
el
at
i
o
n
was s
o
ug
ht
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
a
n
u
n
i
m
odal
di
st
ri
but
i
o
n;
t
h
e rel
a
t
i
o
ns
hi
p
bet
w
ee
n
vari
abl
e
s
X a
n
d
Y
sho
u
l
d
be l
i
n
ea
r [
1
6]
, [
1
8]
.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
3.
1.
Descripti
o
n of
te
achers
’
Peda
gog
ica
l
C
o
nt
ent Kno
w
ledg
e
data
PC
K
dat
a
are
gr
o
upe
d i
n
t
o
4
cat
ego
r
i
e
s i
.
e
very
hi
g
h
,
hi
g
h
, l
o
w
an
d
ver
y
l
o
w.
1
)
Very
hi
g
h
(
X
≥
X
i
+ 1.
5*
SB
i
);
2)
hi
g
h
(X
i
+ 1.
5*
SB
i
< X
≥
X
i
); 3)
lo
w (
X
i
< X
≥
X
i
-
1.5*
SB
i
); a
n
d
4
)
very
lo
w
(X <
X
i
-
1.
5*
SB
i
).
The
m
ean o
f
PC
K i
s
6
5
,
59;
w
h
i
l
e
t
h
e st
a
nda
rd
de
vi
at
i
on i
s
1
5
,
8
9. B
a
se
d
o
n
t
h
ose c
r
i
t
e
ri
a,
we
co
ul
d
concl
ude
t
h
at
fr
om
32 t
eac
he
rs
of
M
u
ham
a
di
y
a
h el
em
ent
a
ry
sch
o
o
l
s
i
n
Yo
gy
aka
r
t
a
a
r
e n
o
t
eac
her
w
h
o
ha
s
X
Y
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
IJERE
ISS
N
:
2252-8822
C
o
rrel
a
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
een Te
acher
'
s PC
K
(
P
ed
ag
ogi
c
a
l
C
o
nt
ent
K
n
ow
l
e
dge)
a
n
d
St
ude
nt
's
...
.
(
I
kaM
a
rya
n
i
)
41
very low PCK, 6 Teache
r
s
h
ave low PCK,
and 15 teache
r
s have hi
gh PC
K.
Those data are
prese
n
ted i
n
table 1
bel
o
w.
Tab
l
e
1
.
D
e
scr
i
p
tio
n of
teach
e
r
s
’
Pedagog
ical Co
n
t
en
t Know
ledg
e
d
a
ta
Calculation Result
Ver
y lowPCK
Low PCK
High PCK
Ver
y high PCK
N -
6
15
11
SD -
6.
31
5.
97
5.
03
M
E
AN -
40.
63
63.
33
82.
27
M
I
N -
31.
25
52.
50
75.
00
M
A
X -
47.
50
73.
75
91.
25
Based on the table 1, the dat
a
sh
own that there is no ele
m
entary sc
hool’s teacher in very high PC
K,
but the
r
e are 6
teachers
have l
o
w PC
K,
with minim
u
m
s
core is31,25;
m
a
xim
u
m score is 47,50; ave
r
age
score
is 40,63; a
n
d st
anda
rd
deviation is 6,31. 15 t
eacher
s
ha
ve high PCK with minim
u
m
score
is
52, 50;
m
a
xim
u
m
score i
s
7
3
,
75
;
average sc
or
e i
s
63, 3
3
;
an
d st
an
dar
d
de
v
i
at
i
on i
s
5, 9
7
.
Whi
l
e
11 t
e
a
c
hers
have
ver
y
hi
g
h
PC
K wi
t
h
m
i
ni
m
u
m
score i
s
75
, 0
0
;
m
a
xi
m
u
m
score i
s
91
, 2
5
;
ave
r
age sc
o
r
e i
s
82
, 2
7
;
a
nd st
anda
r
d
deviation
is 5, 03. Histog
ram
of the
distribut
i
on
of teache
r
s
’
PC
K sc
ore
ca
n
be see
n
i
n
Fi
gure
2.
Fi
gu
re 2.T
h
e d
i
st
ri
but
i
o
n of
P
C
K
sc
ore
B
a
sed
on
fi
gu
r
e
2,
i
t
can
be
seen t
h
at
t
h
e
l
a
rgest
p
r
ese
n
t
a
ge
of
t
eac
her
s
’ PC
K sc
o
r
e
i
s
t
h
e
hi
g
h
criteria in
46
,8
%; th
en
th
e seco
nd
is th
e v
e
ry h
i
g
h
criteria in
34
,3
8%; th
e lo
w criteria is
1
8
,75
%
; and
the v
e
ry
low criteria is 0,00%.
It shows th
at
m
o
st t
eachers
have
high PCK and will provi
de a positive im
p
act on
st
ude
nt
per
f
o
r
m
a
nce
[
20]
.
3.
2.
Descripti
o
n
of Stu
d
en
ts lear
ning
Moti
vation
St
ude
nt
s l
ear
ni
ng m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on
al
so be
g
r
o
u
p
e
d
i
n
4 cat
e
g
o
r
i
e
s,t
h
ey
are
ve
r
y
hi
g
h
,
hi
g
h
, l
o
w
,
an
d
very
low.
1
)
Very
hi
gh
(
X
≥
X
i
+
1.5*
SB
i
)
,
2)
hi
g
h
(
X
i
+ 1.
5*
S
B
i
< X
≥
X
i
),
3
)
lo
w
(
X
i
< X
≥
X
i
- 1.
5
*
SB
i
), an
d
4)
very
lo
w (X
<
X
i
- 1.
5*
S
B
i
). T
h
e a
v
era
g
e
of st
udents
’ learning
m
o
tiv
atio
n
is
67
,
1
3
, m
ean
wh
ile th
eir
st
anda
rd
de
vi
at
i
on i
s
8
,
27
. T
h
at
dat
a
i
s
s
h
o
w
n
by
Ta
bl
e 2
.
B
a
sed
on
Ta
bl
e 2 a
b
ove
, t
h
e
r
e i
s
no
st
u
d
e
n
t
ha
ve
ve
ry
l
o
w
l
ear
ni
n
g
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
o
n
,
but
t
h
ere a
r
e
5
st
ude
nt
s
wh
o
have
l
o
w l
ear
ni
n
g
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on w
h
i
c
h m
i
nim
u
m
score i
s
4
7
,
5
;
m
a
xim
u
m
sco
r
e i
s
54
,5
0;
t
h
e
avera
g
e sco
r
e i
s
5
1
,
0
0;
a
n
d
st
an
dar
d
de
vi
at
i
on
i
s
3,
5
0
.
There
are
45
s
t
ude
nt
s wh
o h
a
ve hi
g
h
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
o
n
whi
c
h m
i
nim
u
m
score i
s
56,
00;
m
a
xim
u
m
score i
s
7
1
,
2
5;
t
h
e avera
g
e sc
orei
s 6
3
,
1
75;
a
nd st
a
nda
rd
de
vi
at
i
o
n
i
s
4,
50
. M
ean
whi
l
e
t
h
e
r
e are
26
st
u
d
ent
s
w
ho
ha
ve
very
h
i
gh l
ear
ni
n
g
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
m
i
nim
u
m
score i
s
72
,
50;
m
a
xim
u
m
score i
s
8
2
,
00;
t
h
e avera
g
e i
s
78
, 1
7
;
and st
a
nda
r
d
de
vi
at
i
on i
s
3, 8
9
.
H
i
s
t
o
g
r
am
of di
st
ri
but
i
o
n
of
t
h
e st
ude
nt
’
s
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on sc
ore
i
s
s
h
o
w
n
b
y
F
i
g
u
r
e
3.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
VH
H
L
VL
34,
38%
46,
88%
18,
75%
0,
00%
prosentase
category
The distribution of
elementary
schools
teachers'
PC
K
score
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:2252
-88
22
I
JERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
2
015
:
38
–
44
42
Tab
l
e 2
.
Descri
p
tio
n
of Stud
en
ts
Mo
tiv
ation
(SM)
Calculation Result
Ver
y lowS
M
LowSM
High SM
Ver
y highSM
N -
5
45
26
SD -
3.
50
4.
50
3.
89
M
E
AN -
51
63.
175
78.
17
M
I
N -
47.
5
56
72.
5
M
A
X -
54.
5
71.
25
82
Fig
u
re
3
.
Stud
en
ts Mo
tiv
ation
Score
Fig
u
re
3
shows th
at t
h
e larg
est p
r
esen
tag
e
to stud
en
ts’ m
o
tiv
atio
n is i
n
h
i
gh
criteria in 59,21
%, th
en
in
th
e seco
nd
rank
is in
v
e
ry h
i
g
h
criteria in
34
,2
1%
, then
th
e low criteria is 6
,
58
%, and
th
e
v
e
ry h
i
gh
criteria is
0
,
0
0
%.
3.
3.
Hypotheses
Test
H
ypo
th
eses i
n
th
is r
e
sear
ch
co
u
l
d
b
e
tested
u
s
i
n
g
pr
oduct
m
o
m
e
n
t
co
rr
elatio
n
to
i
n
vestig
ate th
e
correlation bet
w
een PC
K a
n
d st
ude
nt m
o
ti
vation.
Afte
r
i
n
putting the
data of each
va
riable int
o
worksheet
SPSS
20 a
n
d t
h
en the
resea
r
c
h
er di
d the
hy
potheses
expe
rim
e
nt, and t
h
e result could be
seen
i
n
table 4 below:
Table 4 shows
that the coeffi
cient correlation be
twee
n teachers
’
PCK a
n
d students
’
m
o
tivation a
r
e
9,
07
. It
m
eans t
h
at
cor
r
el
at
i
on
bet
w
ee
n t
w
o va
ri
abl
e
s
ha
ve st
r
o
n
g
p
o
si
t
i
ve val
u
e
,
beca
use i
t
i
s
near t
o
1
.
It
shows that the i
m
provem
ent
of teacher’s PCK will be followed
by th
e i
m
provem
ent of stude
nts’ m
o
tivation.
Th
is resu
lt is stron
g
with
P Sco
r
e
(0,000
) are lo
wer t
h
an
sig
n
i
fican
t d
e
g
r
ee (
α
= 0.05), s
o
the
hypothes
es is
rejecte
d
, it m
e
a
n
s t
h
ere is
correlation
between
PC
K and
stud
en
ts’ m
o
tiv
atio
n.
Tabl
e
4.R
e
s
u
l
t
of
hy
pot
heses
Test
Correlations
Teachers’
PC
K
Learning Motivation
Teachers
’
PCK
Pearson
Correlatio
n
1
0.907
**
Sig. (2-tailed
)
0.000
Su
m
of Squar
e
s an
d Cr
oss-
pr
oducts
16.
219
189.
75
0
Covar
i
ance 0.
523
6.
121
N 32
32
L
ear
ning
m
o
tivation
Pear
son Cor
r
e
latio
n
0.
907
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed
)
0.000
Su
m
of Squar
e
s an
d Cr
oss-
pr
oducts
189.
75
0
2695.
6
2
5
Covar
i
ance 6.
121
86.
956
N 32
32
R
e
duct
i
o
n a
n
d
dat
a
anal
y
s
i
s
was d
o
n
e t
o
di
vi
de t
h
e
res
u
lt of teac
hers
’ com
p
etency test
to be s
o
m
e
criteria i.e
v
e
ry h
i
gh
, h
i
g
h
, l
o
w, an
d
v
e
ry l
o
w.
After
g
e
ttin
g criteria
of
PCK, th
e
research
er t
o
ok
samp
les
o
f
teacher.
It use
d
purposive
sa
m
p
ling technique with
ju
dgm
e
nt sam
p
ling techni
que
. T
h
e
use
of this tec
hni
que
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
VH
H
L
VL
34,
21%
59,
21%
6,
58%
0,
00%
prosentase
category
Student Motivation Score
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
C
o
rrel
a
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
een Te
acher
'
s PC
K
(
P
ed
ag
ogi
c
a
l
C
o
nt
ent
K
n
ow
l
e
dge)
a
n
d
St
ude
nt
's
...
.
(
I
kaM
a
rya
n
i
)
43
was base
d o
n
t
h
e co
nsi
d
e
r
at
i
on
of t
h
e sam
p
l
e
s t
a
ken fr
om
t
h
e PC
K coul
d rep
r
ese
n
t
t
h
e ent
i
r
e po
pul
at
i
on as
well as the ea
se access to retrieved stude
n
t’s m
o
tiva
tion data. Based on that step,
the researc
h
er got 32
teachers a
s
sa
m
p
le in the firs
t varia
b
le (PC
K
).
The ne
xt
st
ep was t
a
ki
n
g
sam
p
l
e
of t
h
e st
udent
s w
h
i
c
h t
h
ei
r l
earni
n
g
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on w
oul
d be m
easure
d
.
The sam
p
le we
re stude
n
ts
of t
h
e teachers
who als
o
beco
m
e
sam
p
le in this
resear
c
h
.
It use
d
random
sa
mpling
t
echni
q
u
e.
Th
e
r
e we
re
12
8 st
ude
nt
s as sam
p
l
e
b
u
t
j
u
st
82
st
ude
nt
s
wh
o
gave
bac
k
t
h
e
que
st
i
one
r.
St
u
d
ent
’
s
m
o
ti
vat
i
on
dat
a
was t
a
ken
by
cl
osed
q
u
est
i
o
ner
w
h
i
c
h
has
been
val
i
d
at
e
d
by
e
xpe
rt
j
u
d
g
m
e
nt
t
h
en t
e
s
t
ed t
o
t
h
e st
ude
nt
s. T
h
e q
u
est
i
o
ns i
n
t
h
i
s
q
u
est
i
o
n
e
r wer
e
arra
n
g
e
d base
d o
n
t
h
e i
ndi
cat
or t
h
a
t
have bee
n
pr
epare
d
bef
o
re
. Lea
r
ni
ng
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
on
score
we
re
di
vi
ded
i
n
t
o
f
o
ur c
r
i
t
e
ri
a, i
.
e.
ve
ry
hi
g
h
,
hi
gh
, l
o
w, a
n
d
very
l
o
w.
The p
r
ere
q
ui
si
t
e
s t
e
st
resul
t
sho
w
e
d
t
h
at
t
h
e sam
p
l
e
s were di
st
ri
but
e
d
n
o
r
m
a
ll
y
and ho
m
ogeneo
u
s
.
Th
erefo
r
e, p
a
ra
m
e
tric statist
i
c
s cou
l
d
b
e
u
s
ed
to
test th
e
hy
pot
heses.
I
n
t
h
i
s
resea
r
ch
, hy
p
o
t
h
eses
t
e
st
i
n
g
were
done
by Pea
r
s
o
n Correlation. The
res
u
lt wa
s the c
o
effi
cient correlation
betwee
n t
eacher’s PCK and
s
t
ude
nt’s
m
o
t
i
vation
wa
s 0,097. It indicated
strong positive correlation bet
w
e
e
n teache
r’s
PCK a
nd st
udent
’
s
m
o
ti
vat
i
on.
Teacher’s PC
K is a com
b
ination
of
pe
dagogical
and profe
ssional com
p
etency. In peda
gogy
com
p
etence, t
eachers are
requi
red to
ha
ve the
abilities of: 1) st
uden
ts
cha
r
acteristic, 2) c
u
rriculu
m
devel
opm
ent
,
3) t
h
e
de
vel
o
pm
ent
of
co
m
m
uni
cat
i
on
and
t
ech
nol
og
y
,
4)
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
opm
ent
of
s
t
ude
nt
s’
pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
asses
s
m
e
nt
sy
st
em
,
and l
e
a
r
ni
ng e
v
al
uat
i
o
n,
6)
.
Eff
o
rt
t
o
de
vel
op
f
un l
ear
ni
n
g
.
In t
h
e p
r
o
f
e
ssi
onal
com
p
etence, the teacher m
u
st be able
to: 1) m
a
stering the learni
ng materi
al, structure, conce
p
t, knowle
dge
mindset that s
u
pport the
les
s
on s
u
bject,
2) m
a
ster
the com
p
etence standa
rds a
nd
ba
sic com
p
etences of
teaching s
u
bje
c
ts, and 3) de
veloping
the teaching learni
ng m
a
terials e
ff
ectively [3].
Teachers’ pe
dagogical
cont
e
n
t
k
n
o
wl
edge
was
t
h
e
o
ret
i
cal
l
y
and
em
pi
ri
cal
ly
di
st
i
n
g
u
i
s
ha
bl
e
fr
om
t
h
ei
r cont
e
n
t
k
n
o
wl
edge
.
Mu
ltilev
e
l stru
ctu
r
al equ
a
tio
n
m
o
d
e
ls rev
eal
ed
a sub
s
tan
tial p
o
s
itiv
e effect o
f
p
e
d
a
gog
ical co
n
t
en
t know
ledge
o
n
stud
en
ts’ learn
i
n
g
g
a
ins that was m
e
d
i
ate
d
b
y
t
h
e
pro
v
i
sio
n
o
f
cog
n
itive activ
atio
n
and
ind
i
v
i
d
u
a
l learn
i
n
g
su
ppo
r
t
[2
1
]
.
B
y
un
derst
a
n
d
i
ng t
h
e c
h
arac
t
e
ri
st
i
c
s of l
e
a
r
ne
rs,
teac
hers
can c
u
stom
ize the learning strategies
su
itab
l
e with
th
e stud
en
ts’ stag
e of th
ink
i
ng
. In
th
e 1
st
until 3
rd
grade, the students ar
e in
co
n
c
rete th
in
k
i
ng
step
.
In
th
is step
, t
h
e st
ud
en
ts
can
t
h
ink
log
i
ca
lly, b
u
t
ju
st in con
c
rete th
ings. Meanwh
ile in
4
th
u
n
til 6
th
gr
ad
e,
it risen
in
to
t
h
e ab
stract st
ep
.
At th
is st
ag
e, ch
ild
re
n
are ab
le t
o
thin
k
ab
stractly with
th
e m
i
n
d
s
et of
“p
ossib
ility” an
d b
e
ab
le t
o
th
ink
scien
tifically. By k
n
o
wing
th
e d
e
v
e
lo
p
m
en
t o
f
stu
d
e
n
t
’s th
ink
i
n
g
, th
e
teacher ca
n c
h
oose
the s
u
i
t
able learni
ng strategy,
thus students
do not fi
nd
di
fficulty gras
ping
ne
w
k
nowledg
e.
The stud
en
ts
b
e
come
m
o
re in
terested
in
learn
i
ng
so
t
h
eir m
o
tiv
atio
n will
b
e
h
i
gh
er [1
9
]
.
Th
e cu
rricu
l
um
m
u
st b
e
co
nstan
tly ad
ju
sted
to
cu
rrent
de
velopm
ent and fut
u
re c
h
allenges. Teac
he
rs
are th
e m
a
in
acto
r
s t
o
carry
o
u
t
cu
rricu
l
u
m
in
th
e schoo
ls. Th
e curricu
lu
m
wh
ich
d
e
si
g
n
e
d
i
d
eally will b
e
optim
al while
the teachers
unde
rstand
the
conce
p
t.
In t
h
e first year of
the im
ple
m
entation of Curri
c
ulum
2
013
, teach
e
rs
were co
m
p
lain
t ab
ou
t th
e lack
o
f
t
h
eir
u
n
d
e
rstand
ing
in that cu
rricu
l
u
m
co
n
c
ep
t.
Ho
wever th
e
go
ve
rnm
e
nt
’s eff
o
rt
t
o
p
r
ovi
d
e
t
r
ai
ni
ng assi
s
t
ed by
hi
g
h
er e
ducat
i
o
n t
h
at
a
l
way
s
gi
vi
n
g
a
ssi
st
ance was a
b
l
e
t
o
be sol
u
tion i
n
that problem
. Ele
m
en
tary school’s teac
he
rs in Yogyak
a
r
ta becam
e
more c
o
m
p
etent in the
i
m
p
l
e
m
en
tatio
n
of Curricu
lum 2
0
1
3
wh
ich
h
a
s po
sitiv
e effect
in
th
e learn
i
ng
pro
cess.
Scien
tific app
r
o
ach
i
n
t
h
e l
ear
ni
n
g
p
r
oces
s ca
n
op
t
i
m
i
ze st
ude
nt
s’
pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
S
t
ude
nt
s
have
t
h
e sam
e
op
p
o
rt
uni
t
y
t
o
e
x
pl
o
r
e
th
em
selv
es an
d d
e
v
e
lop
all ab
ilities in
learn
i
ng
.
Th
is is
wh
at
mak
e
s th
e st
u
d
en
ts are m
o
tiv
ated
to
learn.
In C
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
20
1
3
, t
h
e i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on an
d
com
m
uni
cat
i
on t
ech
nol
ogi
es
m
u
st
be i
n
t
e
g
r
at
ed i
n
t
o
t
h
e
l
earni
n
g
p
r
oce
ss. Teac
he
rs a
r
e re
qui
red
t
o
m
a
st
er IC
T i
n
or
der
t
o
de
vel
o
p
IC
T
-
based
l
earni
n
g
m
e
di
a.
W
i
t
h
the help
of t
h
e
m
e
dia, learning bec
o
m
e
s
m
o
re inter
active
.
Stude
nts ca
n a
l
so acce
ss teac
hing m
a
terials
fro
m
many internet
sources
. Thus, stude
nts are
m
o
re
m
o
tivate
d
to learn.
An
assessm
ent and eval
uation
s
y
ste
m
is
an im
portant part of the le
arni
ng
process
.
Teache
r
s ar
e
require
d
to be able to de
velop asses
s
m
e
nt a
nd
evaluation syste
m
that capable of
m
easuring all students
’
com
p
etence.
Those students
’ com
p
etences are not
only in cognitive aspect, but
also attitude and skill aspect. Knowing that
all they have done to
be recogniz
e
d
as a resu
lt o
f
learn
i
ng
, stud
en
ts
will b
e
m
o
re activ
e a
n
d
m
o
tiv
ated
to
learn
.
Th
is activ
en
ess and
hi
gh
m
o
t
i
v
a
tio
n
h
a
s i
m
p
licatio
n
s
for t
h
e h
i
gh qu
ality o
f
the learn
i
n
g
process and
t
h
e
o
u
t
co
m
e
s o
f
stu
d
e
n
t
s
learning.
Teachers Com
p
etence i
n
implem
enti
ng the curricul
u
m
requi
res m
a
ster
y of t
h
e learni
ng m
a
teria
l
cont
e
n
t
.
I
n
C
u
rri
cul
u
m
2013
st
ruct
u
r
e, l
ear
n
i
ng m
a
t
e
ri
al pr
esent
e
d i
n
t
h
e
m
es. They
are no l
o
n
g
er
pres
ent
e
d
separately as s
u
bjects.
In 4
th
gra
d
e,
scie
nce and social
studies
subject
s
g
e
t its o
w
n po
rti
o
n
t
h
at is th
ree h
ours
ev
er
y w
e
ek
.
Th
en
, th
e o
t
her
lear
n
i
ng
mater
i
als ar
e p
r
esen
ted
th
em
atically
th
r
o
ugh scien
tif
ic ap
pr
o
a
ch
.
Thr
o
ug
h t
h
i
s
t
h
em
ati
c
l
earni
ng
, t
h
e
go
ve
r
n
m
e
nt
i
s
t
r
y
i
n
g
t
o
ease t
h
e
bu
r
d
en
of t
e
a
c
hers
w
ho
fo
r
m
erl
y
require
d
a
d
m
i
nistering a
num
ber of
subj
e
c
ts. The
r
e
f
ore,
teachers' loa
d
is getting lighter so t
h
ey a
r
e m
o
re
freely to im
prove thei
r m
a
ster
y of the learni
ng m
a
terial.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:2252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 4
,
N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
2
015
:
38
–
44
44
Th
e
b
e
n
e
fit o
f
th
em
a
tic learn
i
n
g
is th
e
flex
i
b
ilit
y o
f
ti
m
e
, so
th
at th
e teach
e
r
who
m
a
ste
r
ing
learn
i
n
g
material co
n
t
en
t will
b
e
ab
le
to
ad
ap
t learn
i
n
g
m
a
terial
to
stu
d
e
n
t
s’ n
e
eds. St
u
d
e
n
t
s’ load
is ligh
t
er that cou
l
d
m
o
t
i
vate stude
nts’ t
o
learn m
o
re
. By
understanding t
h
e c
o
ntent
or pe
da
g
ogical
knowledge
, the
teache
r
will
be
ab
le to
d
e
si
g
n
an
in
teresting
learn
i
n
g
. Teach
er
will b
e
m
o
re co
m
p
eten
ce to
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
learn
i
ng
material,
esp
ecially co
mb
in
ing
certain
su
bj
ect i
n
to
i
n
terestin
g th
em
e
s
in
acco
r
d
a
n
c
e to
th
e stud
en
t
’
s th
i
n
k
i
n
g
sk
il
l. The
teachers also
have m
o
re fle
x
ibility to
conne
c
ting the
learning m
a
terial wi
th environm
ent and stude
n
ts’ daily
expe
rience
so t
h
at learning
be
com
e
s
m
o
re
m
eani
n
gf
ul
.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
Fro
m
th
e d
a
ta
an
alysis an
d
d
i
scu
ssion
, it can
b
e
con
c
lud
e
d
th
at th
ere is stron
g
po
sitiv
e co
rrelatio
n
bet
w
ee
n Pe
da
g
ogi
cal
C
ont
e
n
t
Kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e (
P
C
K
)
wi
t
h
st
ude
nt
s’ l
e
a
r
ni
ng
m
o
t
i
v
at
i
o
n
(
p
val
u
e
was
0.
00
0,
and
r
was 0.
09
0
7
)
.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Tan OS., Rich
ard DP., Stephan
i
e LH., Deborah SB., “Edu
cational Ps
y
c
ho
log
y
”, Singa
por
e: Thomson Learning,
2003.
[2]
Hariy
a
nto
,
Su
y
o
no, “Belajard
a
n
P
embelajar
a
n (
t
eo
ridankonsepdas
a
r)”, Bandung
: P
T
RemajaRosdakar
y
a
, 2014.
[3]
BSNP, “Standar
Nasional p
e
ndidikan SD/ MI v
e
rsi Kurikulum 201
3”,
Jak
a
rta: BSNP, 2013.
[4]
Muth’im A., "
U
nderstanding
and Respondin
g
to th
e Ch
an
ge of Curr
iculum in the Con
t
ext o
f
Indones
i
an
Education",
American Journal of Educa
t
ional Research
, vol/issue:
2(11), pp. 1
094–1099, 20
14.
doi:10.12691
/ed
u
cation-2-11-15, 2014.
[5]
AACTE, “Handbook of Technolog
y
Ped
a
gogical
Content Knowledge (
T
PCK) for Educator”, US: tay
l
or& Fran
cis
Group, 2011.
[6]
Shulm
a
n LS., “Knowledge and
teach
ing:
Foundation of the ne
w reform
Harvard Educat
ional r
e
view”
,
vol/issu
e:
57(1), 1987
.
[7]
Barrett D., Green K., “Pedago
g
ical Content
Knowledge
As a Foundation
for an Interdisciplinar
y
Gradu
a
te
Program”, 2002.
[8]
Abell, Sandra K., Rogers Meredith A.,
“Preparin
g
the Next G
e
neration
of Sc
ience Teacher
Educat
ors: A Model f
o
r
Developing
P
C
K for T
each
ing
S
c
ienc
e T
e
a
c
her
s
”,
Journal of Science
Tea
c
her Education
, vol. 20
, pp
.77-93, 2009
.
[9]
Sipon M.,Pihie
ZAL., “
I
m
p
lem
e
nting Pedagogi
c
a
l Conten
t K
nowledge in t
each
i
ng and Learn
i
ng Entrepr
e
neurshi
p
at
Com
m
unity
Co
l
l
ege
:
an Ins
t
ru
ct
ional
Enrichm
e
n
t
”,
Procid
ia Graduate Research in Edu
c
ation
(
G
REDUC 2013
)
,
pp.532 –
539, 20
13.
[10]
Akh
y
ak
, M. Idrus, Y. Abu B
., “Implementation of
Teacher
pedagog
y
Co
mpetence
to Optimizing Learn
e
r
s
Development in
Public Primar
y
School in Indon
esia”,
Internatio
nal Journal of Education and Research
, vol/issue:
1(9), 2013
.
[11]
Fasli J., Dedi S., “Refor
masiPendidikanDalamK
onteksOtonomi Daerah”,
Yog
y
a
k
ar
ta: Mitr
a Gama Wid
y
a, 2001
.
[12]
Jam
e
s AM., Photini AS., “
M
otivation for Achie
v
em
ent in
Mathe
m
atics: Finding General
i
z
a
tions,
and Critic
ism
of
the R
e
s
ear
ch”
,
I
n
ternational Jou
r
nal for research in Ma
thematic
Education
, vo
l/issue: 30(1), pp.6
6
-88, 1999
.
[13]
Su
y
a
nto
AD., “BagaimanaMen
j
adiCalon
Guru d
a
n Guru Pr
ofesional (2
ed
.)”, Yo
g
y
ak
arta: Multi
Pressindo, 2013.
[14]
Susanta A., “Professional Lear
ning fo
r teachin
g
Mathematics
Through probl
em Solving in I
ndonesian Primar
y
School”,
Dise
rtation
, Doctor
of P
h
ilosoph
y
,
Cur
t
in University
, 20
13.
[15]
Lodico MG., Spaulding DT., Voegtle KH., “Methods in Edu
cational Resear
ch (From theo
ry
to
Practice)”, USA:
Josse
y
-
Ba
ss,
2006.
[16]
Suharsimi A., “Prosedur
penelitian (SuatuPendek
a
tanPraktik
)”, Jak
a
rta: Rin
e
kaCip
t
a, 2010
.
[17]
Sa
rdima
n
,
“
Inter
a
ksi
&
Motivasi Belajar
dan M
e
n
gajar (
22 ed.)
”,
Jakarta: PT Raja
Grafindo Persad
a, 2014
.
[18]
Sugiy
ono, “
Met
ode P
e
nel
itian
K
uantitat
if Kua
lit
atif dan
R
&
B
”, Bandung:Alfab
e
ta, 2012.
[19]
Winkel WS., “Psikologi Pendid
i
kan dan
Ev
al
uas
i
Belajar”, Jak
a
rta Gramedia, 200
3.
[20]
BettWK., On
y
a
ngo M., Ban
t
u
W., “Role Of
Teacher Mo
tiv
a
tion On Student’s Ex
aminatio
n Performance
At
Secondar
y
Scho
ol Lev
e
l In Ken
y
a (A
Case S
t
ud
y
Of Ker
i
ch
o District)
”
,
In
ternational
Journal of Ad
vanced
Research,
vo
l/iss
u
e: 1(6)
, pp
. 547
-553,2013.
[21]
Baum
ert J
.,
et all.
, “
T
each
er’s Mathem
atic
al
Knowledge, Co
gnitive Act
i
va
ti
on in the Classroom
, and S
t
udent
Progress”,
Amer
ican Educationa
l
Research Journal,
vol/issue: 47
(1), pp
. 133–180
, 2010
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.