Analisis Pengetahuan Pedagogis dan Teknologis Calon Guru Teknologi Informasi melalui Artefak Desain Kursus Berbasis MooDIY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31980/petik.v12i1.3617Keywords:
calon guru, learning management system, pengetahuan pedagogis, pengetahuan teknologis, MooDIYAbstract
Abstrak
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pengetahuan pedagogik dan teknologis calon guru Teknologi Informasi yang tercermin dalam artefak perancangan kursus berbasis MooDIY. Penelitian ini menggunakan desain deskriptif kualitatif. Subjek penelitian terdiri atas dua kelompok mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Teknologi Informasi yang mengikuti mata kuliah Learning Management System pada tahun akademik 2025/2026. Kedua kelompok menerapkan model Project-based Learning (PjBL) dan mengembangkan proyek perancangan kursus MooDIY dengan topik pembelajaran yang berbeda. Data dikumpulkan melalui analisis dokumen terhadap artefak perancangan kursus yang mencakup tujuan pembelajaran, organisasi pembelajaran, aktivitas, asesmen, serta pemanfaatan fitur LMS. Analisis dilakukan menggunakan rubrik berbasis kerangka TPACK. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa calon guru mampu merancang kursus yang terstruktur dengan tujuan pembelajaran yang jelas, organisasi pembelajaran yang sistematis, serta pemanfaatan fitur Moodle secara fungsional. Namun, pemanfaatan fitur lanjutan LMS untuk mendukung alur pembelajaran dan umpan balik masih terbatas. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa MooDIY berpotensi mendukung pengembangan kompetensi pedagogik dan teknologis dasar calon guru.
Kata Kunci: calon guru; learning management system; pengetahuan pedagogis; pengetahuan teknologis; MooDIY
Abstract
This study analyzes the pedagogical and technological knowledge of pre-service Information Technology teachers as reflected in MooDIY-based course design artifacts. A descriptive qualitative research design was employed. The research subjects consisted of two groups of students enrolled in a Learning Management System course in the Information Technology Education program during the 2025/2026 academic year. Both groups implemented Project-based Learning (PjBL) and developed MooDIY-based course projects with different instructional topics. Data were collected through document analysis of the course design artifacts, including learning outcomes, instructional organization, learning activities, assessments, and LMS feature utilization. The artifacts were analyzed using a rubric adapted from TPACK-based LMS evaluation frameworks. The results indicate that the pre-service teachers were able to design structured online courses with clear learning objectives, coherent instructional organization, and functional use of core Moodle features. However, the use of advanced LMS features to support learning progression and feedback was limited. Overall, the findings suggest that MooDIY is an accessible and pedagogically meaningful platform for developing foundational pedagogical and technological competencies in pre-service teacher education.
Keyword: pre-service teachers; learning management system; pedagogical knowledge; technological knowledge; MooDIY
References
S. F. Sindy and A. F. Lutfi, “Implementasi EDAPP Sebagai LMS Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Dalam Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia Di SMK Muhammadiyah 1 Kuningan,” J. PETIK, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 128–138, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.31980/petik.v10i2.1473.
Y. Zakaria and Badroeni, “Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran E-Learning Berbasis Schoology Selama Masa Pandemi Covid-19,” J. PETIK., vol. 8, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 42–47, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.31980/petik.v8i1.1249.
N. Durahman and I. H. Nugraha, “Perancangan Sistem Seminar Hybrid Menggunakan Framework Learning Content Management System ,” J. PETIK., vol. 9, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 27–34, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.31980/petik.v9i1.1267.
L. Čeponienė et al., “the Collaborative Designing of a Personalized Hybrid Lms Using a Virtual Machine in a Cloud Environment,” Inf. Technol. Learn. Tools, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 142–163, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.33407/itlt.v98i6.5242.
M. Marfuah, D. Suryadi, T. Turmudi, and M. G. Isnawan, “Providing Online Learning Situations for In-Service Mathematics Teachers’ External Transposition Knowledge During COVID-19 Pandemic: Case of Indonesia,” Electron. J. e-Learning, vol. 20, no. 1 Special Issue, pp. 69–84, 2022, doi: 10.34190/ejel.20.1.2388.
W. Chen, Z. Pi, J. S. H. Tan, and Q. Lyu, “Preparing pre-service teachers for instructional innovation with ICT via co-design practice,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 133–145, 2022, doi: 10.14742/ajet.7743.
R. Saubern, M. Henderson, E. Heinrich, and P. Redmond, “TPACK-time to reboot?,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2020, doi: 10.14742/AJET.6378.
P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge,” Teach. Coll. Rec., vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017–1054, 2006, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
M. Koehler and P. Mishra, “What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?,” Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 60–70, 2009.
D. J. Mourlam, S. R. Chesnut, and H. Bleecker, “Exploring preservice teacher self-reported and enacted TPACK after participating in a learning activity types short course,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 152–168, 2021, doi: 10.14742/ajet.6310.
J.-J. Tseng, C. S. Chai, L. Tan, and M. Park, “A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching,” Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 948–971, May 2022, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868531.
L. Zheng, T. Liu, Y. Feng, X. Gu, and M. H. Yu, “Dynamic Teacher’s Technology Adoption During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” SAGE Open, vol. 14, no. 2, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241237858.
J. W. Creswell, Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Fifth edition. Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE Publications, Inc.©2018, 2018.
A. Bryman, Social research methods, Fifth edition. OxfordNew York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2016.
J. H. L. Koh, “A rubric for assessing teachers’ lesson activities with respect to TPACK for meaningful learning with ICT,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 29, no. 6, Dec. 2013, doi: 10.14742/ajet.228.
T. Valtonen, U. Leppänen, M. Hyypiä, E. Sointu, A. Smits, and J. Tondeur, “Fresh perspectives on TPACK: pre-service teachers’ own appraisal of their challenging and confident TPACK areas,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2823–2842, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-10092-4.
R. W. da Silva Bueno, M. L. Niess, R. A. Engin, C. C. Ballejo, and D. Lieban, “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring new perspectives,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 88–105, 2023, doi: 10.14742/ajet.7970.
D. Umutlu, “TPACK leveraged: A redesigned online educational technology course for STEM preservice teachers,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 104–121, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.14742/ajet.4773.
N. R. Dewi, A. Rusilowati, S. Saptono, and S. Haryani, “Project-Based Scaffolding Tpack Model To Improve Learning Design Ability and Tpack of Pre-Service Science Teacher,” J. Pendidik. IPA Indones., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 420–432, 2022, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v11i3.38566.
A. Kirkova-Bogdanova, “Course in E-learning and Moodle for Academic Staff – Development, Provision, Evaluation, Satisfaction,” TEM J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1708–1714, 2021, doi: 10.18421/TEM104-29.
S. Akayoğlu, H. M. Satar, K. Dikilitaş, N. C. Cirit, and S. Korkmazgil, “Digital literacy practices of Turkish pre-service EFL teachers,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 85–97, 2020, doi: 10.14742/ajet.4711.
