Peningkatan Perilaku Prososial Mahasiswa PGSD Melalui Strategi Ecopedagogy Berbasis Community Learning

Noer Intan Novitasari, Zafar Sodik Alatas

Abstract

Berdasarkan studi pendahuluan yang dilakukan kepada  mahasiswa STKIP Majenang menunjukkan bahwa perilaku prososial mahasiswa cenderung berada pada tingkatan normatif sebesar 54%. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan perilaku prososial mahasiswa STKIP Majenang melalui penerapan pembelajaran ecopedagogy berbasis learning community. Jenis penelitian menggunakan desain Penelitian Tindakan Kelas melalui empat tahapan khas Kemmis-Taggart. Subyek penelitian ini merupakan mahasiswa PGSD tahun angkatan 2019 sebanyak 20 orang. Teknik pengumpulan data terdiri dari tiga instrument yakni wawancara, observasi, dan angket untuk mengetahui keterlaksanaan pembelajaran dan perilaku prososial mahasiswa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya peningkatan dua aspek yang diteliti, antara lain: 1) keterlaksanaan pembelajaran ecopedagogy berbasis learning community pada siklus 1 sebesar 51% dan siklus 2 sebesar 79%; 2) perilaku prososial mahasiswa pada siklus 1 sebesar 61% dan siklus 2 sebesar 76%.

Keywords

Perilaku prososial; ecopedadogy; mahasiswa PGSD; calon guru SD

Full Text:

PDF

References

Alden, L., & Trew, J. (2013). If it makes you happy: Engaging in kind acts increases positive affect in socially anxious individual. Emotion, 13(1), 64.

Apple, M., & Au, W. (2009). Politics, Theory, and Reality in Critical Pedagogy. In R. Cowen, & M. Kazamias, The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education (pp. 3-20). New York: Routledge.

Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self–efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 191-217. doi:10.1521/jscp.24.2.191.62271.

Cleary, A., Fielding, K. S., Bell, S. L., Murray, Z., & Roiko, A. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic well being and nature connection. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 119-128. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.003.

Cleary, A., Fielding, K., Murray, Z., & Roiko, A. (2020). Predictors of nature connection among urban residents: Assessing the role of childhood and adult nature experiences. Environment and Behavior, 52(6), 579-610. doi.org/10.1177/0013916518811431.

Creswell, J. (2015). Riset pendidikan: perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan evaluasi riset kualitatif dan kuantitatif (Terjemahan dari Helly Prajitno Soetjipto). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

De Dreu, C. K., Dussel, D. B., & Velden, F. S. (2015). In intergroup conflict, self-sacrifice is stronger among pro-social individuals, and parochial altruism emerges especially among cognitively taxed individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 572. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00572.

Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn, P. H., & al., e. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663.

Geiser, C., Okun, & Grano, C. (2014). Who is motivated to volunteer? A latnt profile analysis linking volunteer motivation to frequency of volunteering. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56, 3-24.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hougham, R. J., Nutter, M., & Graham, C. (2018). Bridging natural and digital domains: Attitudes, confidence, and interest in using technology to learn outdoors. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(2), 154-169. doi.org/10.1177/1053825917751203.

Kemiis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action Research Planner. New York: Springer.

Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 , 1093. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093.

Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305.

Lampridis, E., & Papastylianou, D. (2014). Procosial behavioural tendencies and orientation towards individualism-collectivism of Greek young adults. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(3), 268-282.

Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Education Technology Research Development, 63(2), 229-255. doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6.

Li, D., & Sullivan, W. C. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 149-158. doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015.

Mayr, U., & Freund, A. M. (2020). Do We Become More Prosocial as we age, and if so, why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 248-254. doi.org/10.1177/0963721420910811.

Misiaszek, G. (2016). Ecopedagogy as an element of citizenship education: The dialectic of global/local spheres of citizenship and critical environmental pedagogies. Int Rev Educ, 62:587–607.

Muijs, West, M., & Aincow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 5-26.

Novitasari, N. (2017). Urgensi peran sekolah sebagai komunitas adil untuk mentransformasikan perilaku prososial siswa SD di era digital native. Seminar Nasional PGSD Unikama (pp. 1, 133-143). Malang: PGSD Unikama.

Novitasari, N., & Muhammad, A. (2020). Pengembangan bahan ajar fiksi membaca intensif cerita petualangan berbasis ekologi siswa sekolah dasar. Jurnal Bidang Pendidikan Dasar, 4(1), 47-57.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Nielson, M. G. ( 2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirectional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86(6), 20151759-1772. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12411.

Pedder, D., & Opfer, D. (2011). Are we realising the full potential of teachers’ professional learning in schools in England? Policy issues and recommendations from a national study. Professional Development in Education , 741-758.

Ramkissoon, H. (2020). COVID-19 place confinement, pro-Social, pro-environmental behaviors, and residents’ wellbeing: A new conceptual framework. Frontiers Psychology, 11, 2248. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02248.

Restall, B., & Conrad, E. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 159, 264-278. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022.

Rosa, C. D., Profice, C. C., & Collado, S. (2018). Nature experiences and adults’ self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1055. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01055.

Vecina, M., & Chacon, F. (2013). Volunteering and well-being: Is pleasure-based rather than pressure-based prosocial motivation that which is related to positive effects? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 870–878.

Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222.

Zocher, J., & Hougham, R. (2020). Implementing ecopedagogy as an experiential approach to decolonizing Science education. Journal of Experiential Education, 43(3), 232-247. doi.org/10.1177/1053825920908615

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/jdc.v4i2.44417

Refbacks