Welcome to my blog :)



Kamis, 10 Maret 2011


Unduh Dokumen
1. Kata Pengantar (application/pdf - 31 kB)
2. Daftar Isi (application/pdf - 34 kB)
3. BAB I Pendahuluan (application/pdf - 60 kB)
4. BAB II Posisi Renstra (application/pdf - 260 kB)
5. BAB III Penyusunan Renstra (application/pdf - 746 kB)
6. BAB IV Renstra KL (application/pdf - 48 kB)
7. Lampiran Renstra KL (application/pdf - 341 kB)
8. Salinan (application/pdf - 21 kB)
9. Salinan Anak Lampiran (application/pdf - 21 kB)
10. Permen RENSTRA 10 Agustus 2009 (application/pdf - 46 kB)

Senin, 01 November 2010

Pendidikan dan pelatihan TKT nasional : Pola : 8 Jam


Prof. Dr. Harun Sitompul, M.Pd.

acara dilaksanakan:
sabtu 27 November 2010
pukul 13.00 WIB s/d selesai
dana partisipasi Rp. 30.000,-

Jl. Bunga Raya No.96 Asam Kumbang. Sunggal-Medan

Pendaftaran: Nur Basuki (081375040857), Hisar siburian (081265564843), Martha manullang (085296300068), Chiristina Situmeang (081376713567)

IPTPI-SUMUT Ketua Panitia
ketua DIKLAT
dto dto

Pasca Sarjana UNIMED Prof. Dr. Abdul hamid. K.M.Pd Dr. James Silalahi
Teknologi Pendidikan

segera hubungi kami jika anda berminat

Senin, 19 Juli 2010



1925 - present

Dr. C. George Boeree


Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925, in the small town of Mundare in northern Alberta, Canada. He was educated in a small elementary school and high school in one, with minimal resources, yet a remarkable success rate. After high school, he worked for one summer filling holes on the Alaska Highway in the Yukon.

He received his bachelors degree in Psychology from the University of British Columbia in 1949. He went on to the University of Iowa, where he received his Ph.D. in 1952. It was there that he came under the influence of the behaviorist tradition and learning theory.

While at Iowa, he met Virginia Varns, an instructor in the nursing school. They married and later had two daughters. After graduating, he took a postdoctoral position at the Wichita Guidance Center in Wichita, Kansas.

In 1953, he started teaching at Stanford University. While there, he collaborated with his first graduate student, Richard Walters, resulting in their first book, Adolescent Aggression, in 1959.

Bandura was president of the APA in 1973, and received the APA’s Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions in 1980. He continues to work at Stanford to this day.


Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables we can observe, measure, and manipulate, and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and unavailable -- i.e. mental. In the experimental method, the standard procedure is to manipulate one variable, and then measure its effects on another. All this boils down to a theory of personality that says that one’s environment causes one’s behavior.

Bandura found this a bit too simplistic for the phenomena he was observing -- aggression in adolescents -- and so decided to add a little something to the formula: He suggested that environment causes behavior, true; but behavior causes environment as well. He labeled this concept reciprocal determinism: The world and a person’s behavior cause each other.

Later, he went a step further. He began to look at personality as an interaction among three “things:” the environment, behavior, and the person’s psychological processes. These psychological processes consist of our ability to entertain images in our minds, and language. At the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be a strict behaviorist, and begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists. In fact, he is often considered a “father” of the cognitivist movement!

Adding imagery and language to the mix allows Bandura to theorize much more effectively than someone like, say, B. F. Skinner, about two things that many people would consider the “strong suit” of the human species: observational learning (modeling) and self-regulation.

Observational learning, or modeling

Of the hundreds of studies Bandura was responsible for, one group stands out above the others -- the bobo doll studies. He made of film of one of his students, a young woman, essentially beating up a bobo doll. In case you don’t know, a bobo doll is an inflatable, egg-shape balloon creature with a weight in the bottom that makes it bob back up when you knock him down. Nowadays, it might have Darth Vader painted on it, but back then it was simply “Bobo” the clown.

The woman punched the clown, shouting “sockeroo!” She kicked it, sat on it, hit with a little hammer, and so on, shouting various aggressive phrases. Bandura showed his film to groups of kindergartners who, as you might predict, liked it a lot. They then were let out to play. In the play room, of course, were several observers with pens and clipboards in hand, a brand new bobo doll, and a few little hammers.

And you might predict as well what the observers recorded: A lot of little kids beating the daylights out of the bobo doll. They punched it and shouted “sockeroo,” kicked it, sat on it, hit it with the little hammers, and so on. In other words, they imitated the young lady in the film, and quite precisely at that.

This might seem like a real nothing of an experiment at first, but consider: These children changed their behavior without first being rewarded for approximations to that behavior! And while that may not seem extraordinary to the average parent, teacher, or casual observer of children, it didn’t fit so well with standard behavioristic learning theory. He called the phenomenon observational learning or modeling, and his theory is usually called social learning theory.

Bandura did a large number of variations on the study: The model was rewarded or punished in a variety of ways, the kids were rewarded for their imitations, the model was changed to be less attractive or less prestigious, and so on. Responding to criticism that bobo dolls were supposed to be hit, he even did a film of the young woman beating up a live clown. When the children went into the other room, what should they find there but -- the live clown! They proceeded to punch him, kick him, hit him with little hammers, and so on.

All these variations allowed Bandura to establish that there were certain steps involved in the modeling process:

1. Attention. If you are going to learn anything, you have to be paying attention. Likewise, anything that puts a damper on attention is going to decrease learning, including observational learning. If, for example, you are sleepy, groggy, drugged, sick, nervous, or “hyper,” you will learn less well. Likewise, if you are being distracted by competing stimuli.

Some of the things that influence attention involve characteristics of the model. If the model is colorful and dramatic, for example, we pay more attention. If the model is attractive, or prestigious, or appears to be particularly competent, you will pay more attention. And if the model seems more like yourself, you pay more attention. These kinds of variables directed Bandura towards an examination of television and its effects on kids!

2. Retention. Second, you must be able to retain -- remember -- what you have paid attention to. This is where imagery and language come in: we store what we have seen the model doing in the form of mental images or verbal descriptions. When so stored, you can later “bring up” the image or description, so that you can reproduce it with your own behavior.

3. Reproduction. At this point, you’re just sitting there daydreaming. You have to translate the images or descriptions into actual behavior. So you have to have the ability to reproduce the behavior in the first place. I can watch Olympic ice skaters all day long, yet not be able to reproduce their jumps, because I can’t ice skate at all! On the other hand, if I could skate, my performance would in fact improve if I watch skaters who are better than I am.

Another important tidbit about reproduction is that our ability to imitate improves with practice at the behaviors involved. And one more tidbit: Our abilities improve even when we just imagine ourselves performing! Many athletes, for example, imagine their performance in their mind’s eye prior to actually performing.

4. Motivation. And yet, with all this, you’re still not going to do anything unless you are motivated to imitate, i.e. until you have some reason for doing it. Bandura mentions a number of motives:

a. past reinforcement, ala traditional behaviorism.
b. promised reinforcements (incentives) that we can imagine.
c. vicarious reinforcement -- seeing and recalling the model being reinforced.

Notice that these are, traditionally, considered to be the things that “cause” learning. Bandura is saying that they don’t so much cause learning as cause us to demonstrate what we have learned. That is, he sees them as motives.

Of course, the negative motivations are there as well, giving you reasons not to imitate someone:

d. past punishment.
e. promised punishment (threats).
d. vicarious punishment.

Like most traditional behaviorists, Bandura says that punishment in whatever form does not work as well as reinforcement and, in fact, has a tendency to “backfire” on us.


Self-regulation -- controlling our own behavior -- is the other “workhorse” of human personality. Here Bandura suggests three steps:

1. Self-observation. We look at ourselves, our behavior, and keep tabs on it.

2. Judgment. We compare what we see with a standard. For example, we can compare our performance with traditional standards, such as “rules of etiquette.” Or we can create arbitrary ones, like “I’ll read a book a week.” Or we can compete with others, or with ourselves.

3. Self-response. If you did well in comparison with your standard, you give yourself rewarding self-responses. If you did poorly, you give yourself punishing self-responses. These self-responses can range from the obvious (treating yourself to a sundae or working late) to the more covert (feelings of pride or shame).

A very important concept in psychology that can be understood well with self-regulation is self-concept (better known as self-esteem). If, over the years, you find yourself meeting your standards and life loaded with self-praise and self-reward, you will have a pleasant self-concept (high self-esteem). If, on the other hand, you find yourself forever failing to meet your standards and punishing yourself, you will have a poor self-concept (low self-esteem).

Recall that behaviorists generally view reinforcement as effective, and punishment as fraught with problems. The same goes for self-punishment. Bandura sees three likely results of excessive self-punishment:

a. compensation -- a superiority complex, for example, and delusions of grandeur.
b. inactivity -- apathy, boredom, depression.
c. escape -- drugs and alcohol, television fantasies, or even the ultimate escape, suicide.

These have some resemblance to the unhealthy personalities Adler and Horney talk about: an aggressive type, a compliant type, and an avoidant type respectively.

Bandura’s recommendations to those who suffer from poor self-concepts come straight from the three steps of self-regulation:

1. Regarding self-observation -- know thyself! Make sure you have an accurate picture of your behavior.

2. Regarding standards -- make sure your standards aren’t set too high. Don’t set yourself up for failure! Standards that are too low, on the other hand, are meaningless.

3. Regarding self-response -- use self-rewards, not self-punishments. Celebrate your victories, don’t dwell on your failures.


Self-control therapy

The ideas behind self-regulation have been incorporated into a therapy technique called self-control therapy. It has been quite successful with relatively simple problems of habit, such as smoking, overeating, and study habits.

1. Behavioral charts. Self-observation requires that you keep close tabs on your behavior, both before you begin changes and after. This can involve something as simple as counting how many cigarettes you smoke in a day to complex behavioral diaries. With the diary approach, you keep track of the details, the when and where of your habit. This lets you get a grip on what kinds of cues are associated with the habit: Do you smoke more after meals, with coffee, with certain friends, in certain locations...?

2. Environmental planning. Taking your lead from your behavioral charts and diaries, you can begin to alter your environment. For example, you can remove or avoid some of those cues that lead to your bad behaviors: Put away the ashtrays, drink tea instead of coffee, divorce that smoking partner.... You can find the time and place best suited for the good alternative behaviors: When and where do you find you study best? And so on.

3. Self-contracts. Finally, you arrange to reward yourself when you adhere to your plan, and possibly punish yourself when you do not. These contracts should be written down and witnessed (by your therapist, for example), and the details should be spelled out very explicitly: “I will go out to dinner on Saturday night if I smoke fewer cigarettes this week than last week. I will do paperwork instead if I do not.”

You may involve other people and have them control your rewards and punishments, if you aren’t strict enough with yourself. Beware, however: This can be murder on your relationships, as you bite their heads off for trying to do what you told them to do!

Modeling therapy

The therapy Bandura is most famous for, however, is modeling therapy. The theory is that, if you can get someone with a psychological disorder to observe someone dealing with the same issues in a more productive fashion, the first person will learn by modeling the second.

Bandura’s original research on this involved herpephobics -- people with a neurotic fear of snakes. The client would be lead to a window looking in on a lab room. In that room is nothing but a chair, a table, a cage on the table with a locked latch, and a snake clearly visible in the cage. The client then watches another person -- an actor -- go through a slow and painful approach to the snake. He acts terrified at first, but shakes himself out of it, tells himself to relax and breathe normally and take one step at a time towards the snake. He may stop in the middle, retreat in panic, and start all over. Ultimately, he gets to the point where he opens the cage, removes the snake, sits down on the chair, and drapes it over his neck, all the while giving himself calming instructions.

After the client has seen all this (no doubt with his mouth hanging open the whole time), he is invited to try it himself. Mind you, he knows that the other person is an actor -- there is no deception involved here, only modeling! And yet, many clients -- lifelong phobics -- can go through the entire routine first time around, even after only one viewing of the actor! This is a powerful therapy.

One drawback to the therapy is that it isn’t easy to get the rooms, the snakes, the actors, etc., together. So Bandura and his students have tested versions of the therapy using recordings of actors and even just imagining the process under the therapist’s direction. These methods work nearly as well.


Albert Bandura has had an enormous impact on personality theory and therapy. His straightforward, behaviorist-like style makes good sense to most people. His action-oriented, problem-solving approach likewise appeals to those who want to get things done, rather than philosophize about ids, archetypes, actualization, freedom, and all the many other mentalistic constructs personologists tend to dwell on.

Among academic psychologists, research is crucial, and behaviorism has been the preferred approach. Since the late 1960’s, behaviorism has given way to the “cognitive revolution,” of which Bandura is considered a part. Cognitive psychology retains the experimentally-oriented flavor of behaviorism, without artificially restraining the researcher to external behaviors, when the mental life of clients and subjects is so obviously important.

This is a powerful movement, and the contributors include some of the most important people in psychology today: Julian Rotter, Walter Mischel, Michael Mahoney, and David Meichenbaum spring to my mind. Also involved are such theorists of therapy as Aaron Beck (cognitive therapy) and Albert Ellis (rational emotive therapy). The followers of George Kelly also find themselves in this camp. And the many people working on personality trait research -- such as Buss and Plomin (temperament theory) and McCrae and Costa (five factor theory) -- are essentially “cognitive behaviorists” like Bandura.

My gut feeling is that the field of competitors in personality theory will eventually boil down to the cognitivists on the one side and existentialists on the other. Stay tuned!


The place to go for Bandura’s theory is Social Foundations of Thought and Action (1986). If it’s a little too dense for you, you might want to try his earlier Social Learning Theory(1977), or even Social Learning and Personality Development (1963), which he wrote with Walters. If aggression is what you’re interested in, try Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (1973).

Copyright 1998, 2006 C. George Boeree

Dari Behaviorisme untuk Kognisi Sosial

Dalam buku teks dan seluruh Internet, Profesor Bandura sering keliru diidentifikasi sebagai "neo-behavioris" semacam, atau bahkan sebagai teori yang entah bagaimana metamorphised dari behaviorisme ke cognitivism sosial atau konstruktivisme. Alas, this is simply a fiction. Alas, ini adalah sebuah fiksi.

When the Professor was asked to comment on this typical misconception, he addressed it this way: Ketika Profesor diminta untuk mengomentari kesalahpahaman ini khas, dia berbicara seperti ini:
"At the time of my graduate training, the entire field of psychology was behaviorally oriented with an almost exclusive focus on the phenomenon of learning. But I never really fit the behavioral orthodoxy. At the time virtually all of the theorizing and research centered on learning through the effects of reinforcing outcomes. In my first major program of research, I argued against the primacy of conditioning in favor of observational learning, in which people neither emit responses nor receive reinforcements during the process of learning. Indeed, my first major publication was a lengthy chapter on 'Social Learning Through Imitation' in the 1962 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation , in which I conceptualize observational learning as mediated through perceptual and cognitive processes. On pages 260-261 of this chapter, I present a parody on how trying to shape auto driving skills through operant conditioning would unshape the driver and the surrounding environment! I rejected Miller and Dollard's view of imitation as merely a special case of instrumental conditioning. While behaviorists were plotting learning curves as a function of number of reinforced trials, I published a chapter on 'No trial learning' in a volume edited by Berkowitz." "Pada saat pelatihan saya lulus, seluruh bidang psikologi adalah perilaku berorientasi dengan fokus hampir eksklusif pada fenomena pembelajaran Tapi aku tidak pernah benar-benar cocok dengan ortodoksi perilaku.. Pada saat hampir semua teori dan penelitian yang berpusat di belajar melalui efek memperkuat hasil. Dalam program pertama utama penelitian saya, saya berpendapat terhadap keunggulan pengkondisian mendukung pembelajaran observasional, di mana orang tidak memancarkan atau menerima tanggapan bala bantuan selama proses pembelajaran. Memang, publikasi besar pertama saya adalah sebuah bab panjang tentang 'Belajar Sosial Melalui imitasi' di Nebraska 1962 Simposium Motivasi, di mana saya konsep belajar observasional sebagai dimediasi melalui persepsi dan proses kognitif. Pada halaman 260-261 bab ini, saya mempresentasikan parodi tentang cara mencoba untuk membentuk auto mengemudi ketrampilan melalui operant conditioning akan unshape driver dan lingkungan sekitar saya tolak Miller dan melihat Dollard tentang imitasi hanya sebagai kasus khusus dari pengkondisian instrumental.! Sementara behavioris adalah merencanakan belajar kurva sebagai fungsi dari jumlah percobaan diperkuat, saya menerbitkan bab tentang "Tidak persidangan belajar 'dalam volume yang diedit oleh Berkowitz."

"During this period, behaviorists were championing the shaping and control of human behavior by rewarding and punishing consequences. I began a second major program of research on the capacity for self-directedness to regulate one's own behavior through personal standards and self-reactive influences. The initial studies on the acquisition of self-evaluative standards for self-directedness were reported in the 1963 book with Richard Walters on Social Learning and Personality Development ." "Selama periode ini, behavioris adalah memperjuangkan pembentukan dan kontrol perilaku manusia dengan bermanfaat dan menghukum konsekuensi. Saya mulai program utama kedua penelitian pada kapasitas untuk diri-directedness untuk mengatur perilaku sendiri melalui standar pribadi dan pengaruh self-reaktif. Studi-studi awal pada akuisisi-evaluatif standar untuk diri-diri directedness dilaporkan dalam buku 1963 dengan Richard Walters pada Belajar Sosial dan Pengembangan Kepribadian. "

"In the early writings I acknowledged the phenomena encompassed under the labels of conditioning and reinforcement. But what text writers and those relying on secondary sources were missing is that I conceptualized these phenomena as operating through cognitive processes. 'Reinforcement' affected behavior by instilling outcome expectations rather than by stamping in responses. See pages 16-22 in Social Learning Theory (1977). I also conceptualized instrumental and classical conditioning in terms of acquisition of expectancies rather than coupling responses to stimuli. See chapter 10 in Principles of Behavior Modification entitled, 'Symbolic Control of Behavioral Changes.'" "Dalam tulisan-tulisan awal saya mengakui fenomena yang dicakup di bawah label kondisi dan penguatan Tapi apa penulis teks. Dan mereka bergantung pada sumber-sumber sekunder yang hilang adalah bahwa saya dikonseptualisasikan fenomena ini sebagai proses kognitif beroperasi melalui perilaku dipengaruhi Tulangan 'dengan menanamkan hasil. harapan bukan dengan dicap dalam tanggapan. Lihat halaman 16-22 di Teori Belajar Sosial (1977) yang berjudul. Saya juga dikonsep pengkondisian instrumental dan klasik dalam hal perolehan harapan bukan kopling dari tanggapan terhadap rangsangan. Lihat bab 10 dalam Prinsip-prinsip Perilaku Modifikasi , Control 'simbolik Perubahan Perilaku. ""

"The theorizing that is currently in vogue attributes behavior to multilevel subpersonal neural networks devoid of any consciousness, subjectivity, or self-identity. While this line of theorizing views humans as high-level automatons, I have been emphasizing the exercise of human agency." "The berteori bahwa saat ini sedang dalam mode atribut perilaku untuk multilevel jaringan saraf subpersonal tanpa ada kesadaran, subyektivitas, atau identitas diri. Sementara ini garis berteori manusia dilihat sebagai robot tingkat tinggi, saya telah menekankan pelaksanaan badan manusia. "

"The explanatory issue of interest is not my transformation from behaviorism to sociocognitivism, but rather why authors of psychological texts continue to mischaracterize my approach as rooted in behaviorism. You ask how I would describe my early position? Social cognitivism. It emphasized that learning is embedded in social networks and that environmental influences are largely mediated through cognitive processes. To correct another error in many textbooks, I was not a student of Kenneth Spence. He was the dominant force in the Iowa Department, but Arthur Benton was my academic advisor." "Masalah jelas dari bunga tidak transformasi saya dari behaviorisme ke sociocognitivism, melainkan mengapa penulis teks-teks psikologis terus mischaracterize pendekatan saya sebagai berakar pada behaviorisme Anda bertanya bagaimana aku akan menjelaskan posisi awal cognitivism Sosial saya?.. Hal ini menekankan bahwa belajar adalah tertanam dalam jaringan sosial dan pengaruh lingkungan yang sebagian besar dimediasi melalui proses kognitif Untuk memperbaiki kesalahan lain dalam banyak buku teks, aku bukan mahasiswa Kenneth Spence.. Ia adalah kekuatan yang dominan di Departemen Iowa, tapi Arthur Benton adalah penasehat akademis saya. "

Albert Bandura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Albert Bandura
Born December 4, 1925(1925-12-04)
Mundare, Alberta
Nationality Canadian
Fields Psychology, Philosophy of Action
Institutions Stanford University
Alma mater University of British Columbia
University of Iowa
Known for social cognitive theory
social learning theory
Bobo doll experiment
human agency
Influences Robert Sears, Clark Hull, Kenneth Spence, Arthur Benton

Albert Bandura (born December 4, 1925, in Mundare, Alberta, Canada) is a psychologist and the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University. Over a career spanning almost six decades, Bandura has been responsible for groundbreaking contributions to many fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, therapy and personality psychology, and was also influential in the transition between behaviorism and cognitive psychology. He is known as the originator of social learning theory and the theory of self-efficacy, and is also responsible for the influential 1961 Bobo Doll experiment.

A 2002 survey ranked Bandura as the fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time, behind B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget, and as the most cited living one.[1] Bandura is widely described as the greatest living psychologist,[2][3][4][5] and as one of the most influential psychologists of all time.[6][7]

In 2008 Bandura won the Grawemeyer Award in Psychology.

* 1 Personal life
* 2 Education and academic career
o 2.1 Post-doctoral work
* 3 Research
o 3.1 Analysis of Aggression
+ 3.1.1 The Bobo Doll Experiment
o 3.2 Self-efficacy
o 3.3 Other research
* 4 Awards
* 5 Notes
* 6 References
* 7 External links

[edit] Personal life

Bandura was born in Mundare, in Alberta, a small town of roughly four hundred inhabitants, as the youngest child, and only son, in a family of eight. Bandura is of Ukrainian and Polish descent.

The summer after finishing high school, Bandura worked in the Yukon to protect the Alaska Highway against sinking. Bandura later credited his work in the northern tundra as the origin of his interest in human psychopathology.
[edit] Education and academic career

Bandura's introduction to academic psychology came about by chance; as a student with little to do in the early mornings, he took a psychology course to pass the time, and became enamored of the subject. Bandura graduated in three years, in 1949, with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia, winning the Bolocan Award in psychology, and then moved to the then-epicenter of theoretical psychology, the University of Iowa, from where he obtained his M.A. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1952. Arthur Benton was his academic adviser at Iowa [8], giving Bandura a direct academic descent from William James [9], while Clark Hull and Kenneth Spence were influential collaborators. During his Iowa years, Bandura came to support a style of psychology which sought to investigate psychological phenomena through repeatable, experimental testing. His inclusion of such mental phenomena as imagery and representation, and his concept of reciprocal determinism, which postulated a relationship of mutual influence between an agent and its environment, marked a radical departure from the dominant behaviorism of the time. Bandura's expanded array of conceptual tools allowed for more potent modeling of such phenomena as observational learning and self-regulation, and provided psychologists with a practical way in which to theorize about mental processes, in opposition to the mentalistic constructs of psychoanalysis and personology.[10]
[edit] Post-doctoral work

Upon graduation, he participated in a clinical internship with the Wichita Kansas Guidance Center. The following year, he accepted a teaching position at Stanford University in 1953, which he held until his retirement on March 15, 2010. [11] In 1974 the American Psychological Association elected him as its president.
[edit] Research

Bandura was initially influenced by Robert Sears' work on familial antecedents of social behavior and identificatory learning, Bandura directed his initial research to the role of social modeling in human motivation, thought, and action. In collaboration with Richard Walters, his first doctoral student, Bandura engaged in studies of social learning and aggression. Their joint efforts illustrated the critical role of modeling in human behavior and led to a program of research into the determinants and mechanisms of observational learning.
[edit] Analysis of Aggression

Bandura's research with Walters led to his first book, Adolescent Aggression in 1959, and to a subsequent book, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis in 1973. During a period dominated by behaviorism in the mold of B.F. Skinner, Bandura believed the sole behavioral modifiers of reward and punishment in classical operant conditioning were inadequate as a framework, and that many human behaviors were learnt from other humans. Bandura began to analyze means of treating unduly aggressive children by identifying sources of violence in their lives. Initial research in the area had begun in the 1940s under Neal Miller and John Dollard; Bandura's continued work in this line eventually culminated in the Bobo doll experiment, and in 1977's enormously influential treatise, Social Learning Theory.[12] Many of Bandura's innovations came from his focus on empirical investigation and reproducible investigation, which were alien to a field of psychology dominated by the theories of Freud.
[edit] The Bobo Doll Experiment

In 1961 Bandura conducted a controversial experiment known as the Bobo doll experiment, to study patterns of behaviour associated with aggression. Bandura hoped that the experiment would prove that aggression can be explained, at least in part, by social learning theory, and that similar behaviors were learned by individuals modeling their own behavior after the actions of others. The experiment was criticized by some on ethical grounds [13], for training children towards aggression. Bandura's results from the Bobo Doll Experiment changed the course of modern psychology, and were widely credited for helping shift the focus in academic psychology from pure behaviorism to cognitive psychology. The Bobo Doll Experiment is among the most lauded and celebrated of psychological experiments.
[edit] Self-efficacy

In 1963 Bandura published Social Learning and Personality Development. In 1974 Stanford University awarded him an endowed chair and he became David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology. In 1977, Bandura published the ambitious Social Learning Theory, a book that altered the direction psychology took in the 1980s.[citation needed]

In the course of investigating the processes by which modeling alleviates phobic disorders in snake-phobics, Bandura found that self-efficacy beliefs (which the phobic individuals had in their own capabilities to alleviate their phobia) mediated changes in behavior and in fear-arousal. He then launched a major program of research examining the influential role of self-referent thought in psychological functioning. Although he continued to explore and write on theoretical problems relating to myriad topics, from the late 1970s he devoted much attention to exploring the role that self-efficacy beliefs play in human functioning.

In 1986 Bandura published Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, a book in which he offered a social cognitive theory of human functioning that accords a central role to cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory and self-reflective processes in human adaptation and change. This social cognitive theory has its roots in an agentic perspective that views people as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating, not just as reactive organisms shaped by environmental forces or driven by inner impulses. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control was published in 1997.
[edit] Other research

Bandura has lectured and written on topics such as escaping homelessness, deceleration of population growth, transgressive behavior, mass communication, substance abuse, and terrorism. He has explored the manner in which people morally disengage when they perpetrate inhumanities, and he has traced the psychosocial tactics by which individuals and societies selectively disengage moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct. He desires and works for a civilized life with humane standards buttressed "by safeguards built into social systems that uphold compassionate behavior and renounce cruelty".
[edit] Awards

Bandura has received more than sixteen honorary degrees, including those from the University of British Columbia, Alfred University, the University of Rome, the University of Lethbridge, the University of Salamanca in Spain, Indiana University, the University of New Brunswick, Penn State University, Leiden University, and Freie Universitat Berlin, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Universitat Jaume I in Spain, the University of Athens and the University of Catania. In 1999 he received the Thorndike Award for Distinguished Contributions of Psychology to Education from the American Psychological Association, and in 2001, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy. He is also the recipient of the Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award from the American Psychological Association and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Western Psychological Association, the James McKeen Cattell Award from the American Psychological Society, and the Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychological Science from the American Psychological Foundation. In 2008, he received the Grawemeyer Award for contributions to psychology.
[edit] Notes

1. ^ Haggbloom S.J. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, Review of General Psychology, 6 (2). 139-152.
2. ^ http://www.all-about-psychology.com/psychology-videos.html
3. ^ http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2006/sepoct/features/bandura.html
4. ^ http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=48cdc46f-fa8a-4f03-8be2-5463567e17cf
5. ^ http://www.livestrong.com/health-article/transmission-aggression-through-imitation-aggressive-models-by-albert-bandura-the-psychology-ebook-collection_9760e5df-f9db-377b-ce6f-26eef8df5b72/
6. ^ http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/tp/ten-influential-psychologists.htm
7. ^ http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/bandura.html
8. ^ http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/banconversion.html, See end of page for Bandura's own statement.
9. ^ http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/bangenealogy.html
10. ^ http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/bandura.html
11. ^ https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/system/files/BanduraCV.pdf
12. ^ http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm
13. ^ http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Social_learning

[edit] References

* Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
* Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
* Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 013815614X
* Bandura, A. (2006). "Toward a Psychology of Human Agency" Perspectives on Psychological Science, Volume 1 Issue 2.
* Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
* Bandura, Albert (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: Freeman, pp. 604, ISBN 9780716726265, http://books.google.com/books?id=eJ-PN9g_o-EC
* Bandura, Albert (1999), "Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities", Personality & Social Psychology Review 3 (3): 193–209, doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3, PMID 15661671, http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1999PSPR.pdf
* Bandura, A., & Walters. Richard H. (1959). Adolescent aggression; a study of the influence of child-training practices and family interrelationships. New York: Ronald Press.
* Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
* Evans, R. I. (1989). Albert Bandura: The man and his ideas: A dialogue. New York: Praeger.
* Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., et al. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139-152.
* Zimmerman, Barry J., & Schunk, Dale H. (Eds.)(2003). Educational psychology: A century of contributions. Mahwah, NJ, US: Erlbaum. ISBN 0805836810

Selasa, 23 Februari 2010

Team Sedang Belajar

Desain Penelitian Tindakan Kelas

Penerapan desain atau model – model PTK seperti yang telah banyak dikemukakan dapat dilakukan untuk semua mata pelajaran, terutama mata pelajaran yang di dalamnya terdapat praktek. Untuk itu mata pelajaran bahasa dan sastra Indonesia, bahasa Inggris, Biologi, dan sebagainya juga dapat menerapkan salah satu desain.

Apakah akan diterapkan tersebut model John Elliot, model Kemmis & McTaggart, model Hopkins ataupun model yang lainnya? Hal ini bergantung kepada permasalahan yang dihadapi praktisi di lapangan ataupun bergantung pada pemahaman dan kemampuan para praktisi di lapangan terhadap suatu model PTK atau dalam menerapkan salah satu model PTK.

Yang perlu mendapatkan perhatian dalam kaitannya dengan diterapkan suatu model PTK ialah bahwa terdapat langkah – langkah yang seharusnya diikuti oleh peneliti/guru, yaitu: 1) ide awal, 2) prasurvei/temuan awal, 3) diagnose, 4) perencanaan, 5) Implementasi tindakan, 6) Observasi, 7) Refleksi, 8) Laporan, 9) Kepada Siapa Hasil PTK dilaporkan.

1.Ide Awal

Seseorang yang berkehendak melaksanakan suatu penelitian baik yang berupa penelitian positivisme, naturalistic, analisis isi maupun PTK pasti diawali dengan gagasan – gagasan atau ide – ide, dan gagasan itu dimungkinkan yang dapat dikerjakan atau dilaksanakannya. Pada umumnya ide awal yang menggayut di PTK ialah terdapatnya suatu permasalahan yang berlangsung di dalam suatu kelas. Ide awal tersebut di antaranya berupa suatu upaya yang dapat ditempuh untuk mengatasi permasalahan tersebut dengan penerapan PTK itu peneliti mau berbuat apa demi suatu perubahan dan perbaikan.


Prasurvei dimaksudkan untuk mengetahui secara detail kondisi yang terdapat di suatu kelas yang akan diteliti. Bagi pengajar yang bermaksud melakukan penelitian di kelas yang menjadi tanggung jawabnya tidak perlu melakukan prasurvei karena berdasarkan pengalamannya selama dia di depan kelas sudah secara cermat dan pasti mengetahui berbagai permasalahan yang dihadapinya, baik yang berkaitan dengan kemajuan siswa, sarana pengajaran maupun sikap siswanya. Dengan demikian para guru yang sekaligus sebagai peneliti di kelasnya sudah akan mengetahui kondisi kelas yang sebenarnya.


Diagnosis dilakukan oleh peneliti yang tidak terbiasa mengajar di suatu kelas yang dijadikan sasaran penelitian. Peneliti dari luar lingkungan kelas/sekolah perlu melakukan diagnose atau dugaan – dugaan sementara mengenai timbulnya suatu permasalahan yang muncul di dalam satu kelas. Dengan diperolehnya hasil diagnosis, peneliti PTK akan dapat menentukan berbagai hal, misalnya strategi pengajaran, media pengajaran, dan materi pengajaran yang tepat dalam kaitannya dengan implementasinya PTK.


Di dalam penentuan perencanaan dapat dipisahkan menjadi dua, yaitu perencanaan umum dan perencanaan khusus. Perencanaan umum dimaksudkan untuk menyusun rancangan yang meliputi keseluruhan aspek yang terkait PTK. Sementara itu, perencanaan khusus dimaksudkan untuk menyusun rancangan dari siklus per siklus. Oleh karenanya dalam perencanaan khusus ini tiap kali terdapat perencanaan ulang (replanning). Hal – hal yang direncanakan di antaranya terkait dengan pendekatan pembelajaran, metode pembelajaran, teknik atau strategi pembelajaran, media dan materi pembelajaran, dan sebagainya. Perencanaan dalam hal ini kurang lebih hamper sama dengan apabila kita menyiapkan suatu kegiatan belajar – mengajar.

5.Implementasi Tindakan

Implementasi tindakan pad prinsipnya merupakan realisasi dari suatu tindakan yang sudah direncanakan sebelumnya. Strategi apa yang digunakan, materi apa yang di ajarkan atau dibahas dan sebagainya.


Pengamatan, observasi atau monitoring dapat dilakukan sendiri oleh peneliti atau kolaborator, yang memang diberi tugas untuk hal itu. Pada saat memonitoring pengamat haruslah mencatat semua peristiwa atau hal yang terjadi di kelas penelitian. Misalnya mengenai kinerja guru, situasi kelas, perilaku dan sikap siswa, penyajian atau pembahasan materi, penyerapan siswa terhadap materi yang diajarkan, dan sebagainya.


Pada prinsipnya yang dimaksud dengan istilah refleksi ialah upaya evaluasi yang dilakukan oleh para kolaborator atau partisipan yang terkait dengan suatu PTK yang dilaksanakan. Refleksi ini dilakukan dengan kolaboratif, yaitu adanya diskusi terhadap berbagai masalah yang terjadi di kelas penelitian. Dengan demikian refleksi dapat ditentukan sesudah adanya implementasi tindakan dan hasil observasi. Berdasarkan refleksi ini pula suatu perbaikan tindakan (replanning)selanjutnya ditentukan.

8.Penyusunan Laporan

Laporan hasil penelitian PTK seperti halnya jenis penelitian yang lain, yaitu disusun sesudah kerja penelitian di lapangan berakhir.

9.Kepada siapa hasil PTK Dilaporkan

Sebenarnya , PTK lebih bersifat individual. Artinya bahwa tujuan utama bagi PTK adalah self-improvement melalui self-evaluation dan self reflection, yang pada akhirnya bermuara pada peningkatan mutu proses dan hasil belajar siswa. Dengan demikian hasil pelaksanaan PTK yang berupa terjadinya inovasi pembelajaran akan dilaporkan kepada diri si peneliti (Guru) sendiri). Guru perlu mengarsipkan langkah – langkah dan teknik pembelajaran yang dikembangkan melalui aktivitas PTK demi perbaikan proses pembelajaran yang dia lakukan di masa yang akan dating. Namun demikian, hasil PTK yang dilaksanakan tidak tertutup kemungkinan untuk diikuti oleh guru lain atau teman sejawat. Oleh karena itu guna melengkapi predikat guru sebagai ilmuwan sejati, guru perlu juga menuliskan pengalaman melaksanakan PTK tersebut ke dalam suatu karya tulis ilmiah. Karya tulis tersebut, yang selama ini belum merupakan kebiasaan bagi para guru, sebenarnya masyarakat pengguna lain. Dengan melaporkan hasil PTK tersebut kepada masyarakat (teman sejawat, pemerhati/pengamat pendidikan, dan para pakar pendidikan lainnya) guru akan memperoleh nilai tambah yaitu suatu bentuk pertanggungjawaban dan kebanggaan akademis/ilmiah sebagai seorang ilmuwan hasil kerja guru akan merupakan amal jariah yang sangat membantu teman sejawatnya dan siswa secara khusus. Melalui laporan kepada masyarakat, ptk yang pada awalnya dilaksanakan dalam skala kecil yaitu di ruang kelas, akan memberi sumbangsih yang cukup signifikan terhadap peningkatan mutu proses dan hasil belajar siswa.