The concept of teacher aptitude has been derived from the three-ring concepts theory

by Renzulli. The teacher aptitude consists of three dimensionals, there are creativity

pedagogy, pedagogical commitment, and emotional intelligence. The purposeof this study

was to determine thecontent validity of each dimension of the teacher aptitude concept. The

determination of thecontent‟s validity was implemented using focus group discussion by

seven experts, they were two education experts, two measurement experts, two psychologists,

and a linguist. Instrument was assessed using the assessment form. The gradation assessing

are excellent, good, adequate, less, and very less. The content validity was analyzed by the

Aiken‟s formula. The result of the analysis showed that the index content validity of teacher

aptitude construct were 0.835, p =0.024, creativity pedagogy has content validity index of

0.847,p=0.019, commitment pedagogy has content validity index of 0.842, p=0.021, and

emotional intelligence has acontent validity index of 0.85, p=0.018. This means that the

construct validity of teacher aptitude instrument has a good content validity

Wasidi, .

Lumbung Pustaka UNY  (UNY Repository)

191  THE CONTENT VALIDITY OF THE TEACHER APTITUDE INSTRUMENT  Wasidi Universitas Bengkulu/PEP 10701261001 Abstract  The concept of teacher aptitude has been derived from the three-ring concepts theory by Renzulli. The teacher aptitude consists of three dimensionals, there are creativity pedagogy, pedagogical commitment, and emotional intelligence. The purposeof this study was to determine thecontent validity of each dimension of the teacher aptitude concept. The determination of thecontent‟s validity was implemented using focus group discussion  by seven experts, they were  two education experts, two measurement experts, two psychologists, and a linguist. Instrument was assessed using the assessment form. The gradation assessing   are  excellent, good, adequate, less, and very less. The content validity was  analyzed by the Aiken‟s formula. The result of the analysis showed that the index content validity of teacher aptitude construct were 0.835, p =0.024, creativity pedagogy has content validity index of 0.847,p=0.019, commitment pedagogy has content validity index of 0.842, p=0.021, and emotional intelligence has acontent validity index of 0.85, p=0.018. This means that the construct validity of teacher aptitude instrument has  a good content validity.  Keyword: Content Validity, Pedagogy Creativity, Pedagogy Commitment, Emotional Intelligence. Introduction Implementation of  the Law  number 20 in  2003 about educational system, law  number 14 in  2014, government regulation number 19 in 2005 requires that teacher shave the ability ideal among other aptitudes, interests, calls the soul, and idealism. The result of research by  Block (2008) showed that mentions the role of the teacher is very great in the changing world. Sudarnoto (2009) mentions that the teacheris acrucial factor in the success of education as assessed student achieve. Dicky (2011) mentions that the graduate education of primary school teachers are not ready to teach to all levels of classes, still needs a few more years of teaching experience. The result of research that has be done by Alkharusi (2011) indicated that inservice teachers had a lower level of knowledge, a higher level of perceived skilfulness, and a more favourable attitude toward educational measurement than preservice teachers. Research by Fokkens-Bruinsma (2012) showed that affective commitment was predicted bythe motivations of teaching ability, working with children, prior teaching and learningexperiences, and time for family, as well as satisfaction with the choice of teaching andperceived task demand. Macklem (1990) said that the aptitude testis a good predictor of future achievement. Character, personality, and aptitude fatigue will affect teachers teaching process in the classroom. Aptitude is a variable that has a significant contribution to the 192  achievement of learning in the future. Now, the teacher aptitude instrument did not available. This reasearch will create the teacher aptitude instrument that it can be applied in Indonesia.  Constructs of teacher aptitude instrument was developed based on the theory of the threering giftedness concepts by Renzulli (1986).  The three ring concept by Renzulli's theory consists of three dimensions: the ability above average, creativity, and commitment.  The ability above average can be subtitution by intelligence. Renzulli (no year), while there are eight intelligences by Gardner (2006). Intrapersonal intelligence and interpersonal intelligence is an important factor in education (MLPTS, 1992; Suryadi, 2009). Both of these are included in the intelligence of emotional intelligence (Chan, 2008; Gardner, 1993; Goleman, 2006; Salovey, 2004; Sigmar, 2010). Thus the construct of teacher aptitude instrument consist of three dimensions, namely creativity pedagogy, pedagogical commitment, and emotional intelligence. Creativity is the process of feeling and observing the problem, making guesses about the short comings of this problem, assess, and test the conjecture or hypothesis, then change and test it again, and finally preparing the results. Aspects of product creativity emphasize that what comes out of the processof creativity is something new, original (Torrance, 1969). The hall mark of creativity is a new product. New products in this case can be either developmentor completely different from existing products. New product development process is required divergent thinking (Kaufman, 2008; Purwanto, 2008). The thoughtof peoplecame up witha fairly new idea or with a number of alternative ideas, and then he said to the creative. (DeBono, 1998). The characteristics associated with the ability to think creatively is fluency, flexibility, originality (Elliot, 2000; Munandar, 1999),  (Kim, 2006) added elaboration into the creativity concept.  Work commitments reflect the level of identification and involvement of the individual in his work and devotion to the job. Commitment to the task or task commitment teacher is a teacher's commitment to the completion of tasks that boreh is responsibilities include the ability or capacity, motivation, work discipline, and task orientation (Greenberg, 1993). Binding themselves to the task or task commitment is to approach the task as a form of internal motivation that drives a person to be diligent and tenaciousin their work, despite of  the many obstacle  (Munandar, 1999) The pedagogy commitment is the degree of teacher pedagogical positive, effective bond between the teacher and the school community (Crosswell, 1997) consists off our dimensions, namely motivation to the task, the discipline of the assignment, the responsibility for the task, and thetenacity of the task. 193  The emotional intelligence as a subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor their own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and use this information to guide one's thinking and actions (Patton, 1977). The emotional intelligence consists of the ability to recognize emotions, emotional self-management skills, ability to motivate themselves, the ability to recognize emotions in others, and the ability to build relationships with others (Goleman, 2006).  The research problems are construct of teacher aptitude instrument, and the content validity of the teacher aptitude instrument. The aim of the reseacrh is to determine of construct content validity of the teacher aptitutde instrument. The result of this research can contribute in educational as a selection ofstudent teachers.   Research Method This research include development research that has be done by  Gable (1986). The phase research development were  predevelopment, development, and application model. The pre development research phase has be done explore thetheory concept, literature, and theresults of relevant research. The construct of teacher aptitude instrument has 3 dimensions, that were pedagogy creativity, pedadogy commitment, and emotional intelligency. The pedagogy creativity consists of 4 indicators, that each indicator consists of 8 items. The pedagogy commitment consists of 4 indicators, that each indicator consists of 8 items. The  emotional intelligency consists of 5 indicators, that each indicator consists of 8 items. Thus each instrument consists of 32 items, 32 items, and 40 items respectively.  I have get  a mature concept of the teacher aptitude instrument. The instrument model has exposed to focus group discussion.  The teacher aptitude instrument has  be validated by seven experts. There are two measurement experts, two educators, two psychologist, and linguistics.  The experts judgement has evaluated  by form that containt of 5 options. There are excellent, good, adequate, less,much less. The excellent be scored 5, good be scored 4, adequate be score 3, less be scored 2, and much less be score 1. The result of scoring by experts judgement be analysed by Aiken‘s formula (Aiken, 1980).   Result and Discusssion The results of this study are presented below. Each result will be explained directly.   194  Table 1. The validity index of the construct teacher aptitude instrument   In Table 1, there are two indicators of the construct validity of the probability of validity index of more than 5 %, iethe elaboration and Recognize emotion. The probability of each indicator is 5.4%. Overall probability of teacher talent construct instruments 2.4%, including bothasp<5%. The probability of two indicators showed more than 5%, can be caused because there is a score of 3 is given by the validator third, while the six validator provide scoring 4 and 5. Table 2. The content validity index of the pedagogy creativity Item S iv z p 1 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 2 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 3 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 4 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 5 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 6 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 7 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 8 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 9 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 10 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 11 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 12 26 0.929 3.074 0.004 13 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 Dimension Indikacor S iv z p Pedagogy creatvity Fluency 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 flexibilty 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 Originality 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 Elaboration  22 0.786 2.004 0.054 commitment Motivation  25 0.893 2.806 0.008 responsibilty 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 Decipline  23 0.821 2.272 0.030 Tenacity  24 0.857 2.539 0.016 Emotional intelligency to recognizeemotions 22 0.786 2.004 0.054 emotionalself-management skills 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 abilityto motivate themselves 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 Emphaty 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 Social relationship 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 Average  23.385 0.835 2.375 0.024 195  14 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 15 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 16 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 17 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 18 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 19 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 20 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 21 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 22 22 0.786 2.004 0.054 23 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 24 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 25 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 26 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 27 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 28 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 29 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 30 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 31 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 32 23 0.821 2.272 0.030  23.719 0.847 2.464 0.019  In Table 2, the validity of pedagogical creativity instrument consisting of 32 items of questions, there is one that has a probability of p>5%. Item number 22 has a probability of 5.4%. The probability of item number 22 is because the validator third scoring 2. Overall, pedagogical creativity has content validity content validity of 0.847 with aprobability of p=0.019. thus including both pedagogical creativity. Table  3. The content validity index of the pedagogy commitment Item no. S iv z p 1 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 2 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 3 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 4 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 5 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 6 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 7 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 8 22 0.786 2.004 0.054 9 21 0.750 1.737 0.088 10 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 11 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 12 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 13 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 14 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 196  15 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 16 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 17 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 18 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 19 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 20 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 21 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 22 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 23 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 24 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 25 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 26 22 0.786 2.004 0.054 27 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 28 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 29 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 30 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 31 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 32 25 0.893 2.806 0.008  23.563 0.842 2.422 0.021  In Table 3, the content validity pedagogical commitment, item numbers 8, 9, and 26 have more than 5%  probability. Overall index of the validity of pedagogical commitment  is 0.842 with a probability of 0.021 Table  4. The content validity index of  the  emotional intelligency Item no. S iv z p 1 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 2 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 3 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 4 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 5 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 6 22 0.786 2.004 0.054 7 22 0.786 2.004 0.054 8 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 9 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 10 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 11 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 12 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 13 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 14 26 0.929 3.074 0.004 15 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 16 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 17 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 18 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 197  19 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 20 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 21 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 22 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 23 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 24 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 25 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 26 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 27 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 28 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 29 25 0.893 2.806 0.008 30 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 31 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 32 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 33 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 34 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 35 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 36 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 37 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 38 24 0.857 2.539 0.016 39 23 0.821 2.272 0.030 40 24 0.857 2.539 0.016  23.850 0.852 2.499 0.018 . In Table 4, the content validity of emotional intelligence instrument as a whole is 0.852 with aprobability of p=0.018. But there are two items that have content validity index value is less good because p>5%. These items are numbers 6 and 7. Conclusion and Suggestion The Teacher aptitude isntrumen, overall  that has good content validity index. Thus the teacher aptitude instruments can be done to test for testing the model. It is recommended for expert justification should be no shared understanding of the instrument of accession of teacher aptitude, and that the score be obtain balanced scoring.  References  Anomin.(2003). Undang-undang no 20 tahun 2003.  Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.  Anonim.(2005). Undang-undang No 14 tahun 2005.  Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.  198  Anonim.(2005). Peraturan pemerintah nomor 19 tahun 2005. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.  Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires. Educational and psychological measurement., 40(4), 955-959.   Alkharusi, H., Ali Mahdi Kazem, & Ali Al-Musawai. (2011). Knowledge, skills, and attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers in educational measurement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educational 39(2), 113–123.   Block, A. A. (2008). Why should I be a teacher? . Journal of teacher education, 59, 416-427.   Chan, D. W. (2008). Emotional intelligence, self efficacy, and copying among Chinese prospective and in service teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28( 4), 397–408.   Crosswell, R. L., &  Elliott (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment : a multilevel analysis. Washington: Departement of Educational Office  of Educational Research and Improvement.  DeBono, E. (1998). Practical thinking (Budi, Trans.). Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara.   Dicky, N. (2011). Indonesian primary teachers‘ mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry: implications for educational policy and teacher preparation programs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educational, 39(2), 151–164.   Elliot, S., et  al. (2000). Educational psychology. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.  Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., and Esther T. Canrinus. (2012). The factors Influencing teaching (FIT)- choice scale in a Dutch teacher education program. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educational, 40(3), 249–269.   Gable, R. K. (1986). Instrument develompment in affective domain. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.  Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. New York Basics Book.  Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Book.  Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Dell. Greenberg, J., & Baron, Robert. (1993). Behavior in organizations. (4th ed.). Singapore: Allyn and Bacon.  Kaufman, J. C., Jonathan A. Plucker,  & John Baer. (2008). Essentials assessment of creativity. New Jersey: John Willey & Sons Inc.  Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests?   A review of the Torrance tests of creative thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.   199  Macklem, G. L. (1990). Measuring aptitude. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 2(5).   MLPTS. (1992). Peraturan besar dan piagam Persatuan Taman Siswa. Yogyakarta: MLPTS.  Munandar, S. C. U. (1999). Pengembangan kreativitas anak  berbakat. . Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.  Patton, P. (1977). Emotional Intelligence. Singapore: SNP Publishing Pte Ltd.  Purwanto. (2008). Kreativitas berpikir menurut Guilford. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 74(14), 856- 867.   Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Renzulli, J. S. (no year). The three ring conception of giftedness, retrive from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/pdf/the_three ring_conception_of_giftedness.pdf  Salovey, P., Mare A. Brackett,  & John D. Mayer. (2004). Emotional intelligence. New York: DUDE.  Sigmar, L., Geraldine Hynes, & Tab Cooper,. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Pedagogical considerations for skills-based learning in business communication courses. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3(June), 1-13.   Sudarnoto, L. F. N. (2009). Memberdayakan profesi pendidik untuk mencapai peningkatan kualitas kehidupan kerja. Universitas Atma Jaya. Yogyakarta.  Suryadi, A. (2009). Ajaran Ki Hajar Dewantara: Butiran mutiara yang hilang. Medik, 1(Januari - April).  Torrance, E. P. (1969). Issues and advances in educational psychology. Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publisher Inc.          

THE CONTENT VALIDITY OF THE TEACHER APTITUDE INSTRUMENT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lumbung Pustaka UNY (UNY Repository)