Students’ Perception of Pedagogical Course Learning Process
Developing Pedagogical Competence in Teacher Education
Gema Rullyana, Nadia Hanoum and Laksmi Dewi
Department of Curriculum and Educational Technology, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi 229,
Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Students’ perception, learning process, teachers education, pedagogical competence, pedagogical course.
Abstract: Teachers college is a place where students learn and develop their pedagogical competence and pedagogical
course is one the main ways to achieve this. However, the quality of pedagogical course is still questioned
because there have been some criticisms on the quality of the graduates. Therefore, it is crucial to gain insight
on the strength and weaknesses of the current practice of pedagogical course held by teachers college. This
study aims to obtain information about the current practice of pedagogical course organized by teachers
college and identify problems that need to be addressed in order to improve the quality of the course. This
study is also resulted in some recommendations to improve the effectiveness of pedagogical course learning
process which will allow students to develop their pedagogical competence as future teachers. This study used
quantitative descriptive method and employed questionnaire to collect the data. The questionnaires were given
to 21 students taking pedagogical course, who then assessed elements of the learning process that could help
develop pedagogical competence. Based on the results of data analysis, it was found that the course delivery
lacked the ability to engage students, the course materials hardly facilitated students to understand difficult
materials and the course evaluation lacked feedback needed by students. In other words, the quality of the
course materials, delivery, and evaluation was still on the average level, which means the course learning
process did not optimally facilitated students to acquire pedagogical competence they need as future teachers.
1 INTRODUCTION
Teacher is an important element in education.
Nowadays, teacher’s role in education has evolved
from simply as instructor to facilitator, researcher and
even counsellor. These involve advanced pedagogical
competence that need years of development. In the
context of teacher education, student teachers are
expected to acquire the necessary competence
required to teach and to deliver effective learning
process once they graduate. In other words, teacher
education is aimed to prepared students to be able to
teach in schools. If this aim is not fulfilled, learning
process in schools will not go as expected and thus
will affect the quality of school graduates.
It goes without saying that quality teachers
produce quality education and quality teachers are
resulted from quality teacher education program held
by higher education institution, particularly teachers
college. However, it is not easy for teachers college,
especially those in developing countries to meet this
responsibility. There are a number of external and
internal factors affecting the learning process in
teachers college in developing countries (Westbrook
et al., 2013). The external factors include lecturers,
course materials, interaction patterns, media and
technology, learning situation, and system. There are
still many lecturers who lack understanding of
learning materials and expect students to give exact
answer as explained when evaluating their students’
learning and thus discourage creative thinking.
Lecturers also often have limitations in accessing new
information which allows them to know about the
latest development in their field (state of the art) and
the possibilities of further development from what has
been achieved today (frontier of knowledge).
Meanwhile, course materials are considered too
theoretical and lacking contextual examples. In
addition, delivery method is monotonous and does
not optimally use relevant media. Media use is often
determined by availability and not by its relevance
with the instructional objectives of the course.
Rullyana, G., Hanoum, N. and Dewi, L.
Students’ Perception of Pedagogical Course Learning Process - Developing Pedagogical Competence in Teacher Education.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 1, pages 277-282
ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
277

Moreover, in some universities the academic culture
is not conducive to implement a system which is
oriented towards quality learning.
On the other hand, internal factors impending
learning process in higher education include students
themselves, motivation, early ability, ability to learn
independently, English mastery, and learning gap.
Low motivation makes students get bored easily,
expect quick yielding, hard to concentrate, cannot
manage time, and lazy to do assignment. Weak early
ability leads to difficulties in understanding course
materials, completing assignments, and
implementing learning strategies. Lastly, learning
gap often occurs between: a) knowledge and
understanding, b) comprehension and competence, c)
competence and willingness to implement, d)
willingness to implement and action, and e) action
and progressive changes (Westbrook et al., 2013).
The external and internal factors above give
negative impacts on the course quality, including the
quality of pedagogy related courses. In teachers
college, developing students’ pedagogical
competence is performed through pedagogy related
courses. It is through pedagogical courses that
students develop their understanding and mastery of
pedagogical competence needed as teachers. Thus, if
pedagogical course is not well organized, the
pedagogical competence that students expect to
develop will not be achieved. Although both internal
and external factors identified by Westbrook et al.
(2013) include teacher education practices in South
Asia, further research need to be done in order to
clearly identify the problems in organizing quality
pedagogical course in Indonesia.
A study on students’ satisfaction on “Pedagogy”
course training conducted by Scoda (2014) found that
the level of satisfaction on the course content and
course design was only around 50%. The study also
found that the students thought the course was too
theorized, lacked practical applications, and needed
better organization and support. Scoda (2014) argued
that further research about needs, limits, and
strategies of organizing pedagogical course is needed
considering its importance and impact for prospective
teachers.
This study would like to describe the current
practice of pedagogical course organized by teachers
college in Indonesia and identify problems that need
to be addressed in order to improve the quality of the
course which include course planning, delivery,
materials and evaluation. This study is also resulted
in some recommended strategies to effectively
develop students’ pedagogical competence as the
ultimate goal of pedagogical course.
2 PEDAGOGICAL
COMPETENCE AND
TEACHERS EDUCATION
Competence is mainly obtained through education
and formed by knowledge, understanding, skill,
value, attitude and interest (Gordon in Mulyasa,
2007). For teachers, competence refers to rational
performance and behaviors to meet certain
specification in conducting educational duties.
Teacher competence includes pedagogical
competence, personal competence, social
competence, and professional competence. Teacher
competence therefore is not only related to ability to
transfer knowledge or information but also to
facilitate students to learn effectively and create
conducive atmosphere to interact with peers and
teacher.
Teacher pedagogical competence plays a pivotal
role in students’ learning process since it deals with
teacher’s ability in organizing the learning process
which is based on understanding on learners,
curriculum, and learning design as well as the use of
educational technology and learners’ ability to
actualize their potentials (Sagala, 2009). Giertz (in
Ryegard, Apelgren, and Olsson, 2010) describes
pedagogical competence as “…the ability and the will
to regularly apply the attitude, knowledge and skills
that promote the learning of the teacher’s students”.
On the context of pedagogical contribution, they
further argues that pedagogical competence equipped
with definite goals and frameworks supports and
facilitates students’ learning.
Pedagogical competence consists of several
indicators below (Sagala, 2009).
 Ability to understand learners. Teacher should
understand the characteristics of learners’
development, the principles of learners’
personality development as well as identify
learners’ early ability and potentials.
 Ability to design the learning process. Teacher
should be able to do planning starting from
formulating learning objectives, selecting
suitable strategy and method, determining
learning steps and motivating learners. Also,
teacher should be able to organize learning
materials, use learning resources, manage class
and perform evaluation.
 Ability to conduct learning that is educative and
dialogic. Teacher should be able to open
learning session by first motivating and
conveying learning objectives, to organize
learning by applying relevant method, to
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
278

communicate well with learners, and close
learning session by giving conclusion and
reflecting.
 Ability to evaluate learning outcome. For this
purpose, teacher should be able to design and
conduct evaluation, analyze test results, utilize
assessment results to improve the quality of
learning.
 Ability to develop learners’ potentials by
facilitating learners to channel their academic
and non academic interests.
According to Korthagen and Kessels (1999), there
are three major causes of transfer problem in teacher
education: (1) Students’ preconception about learning
and teaching do not agree with theories taught in
teacher education programs which lead to resistance
in learning the theories presented; (2) Students’ low
motivation which is due to underdeveloped personal
concerns about teaching or failure to encounter
concrete problems prohibit learning to take place; (3)
Students are presented with abstract, general expert
knowledge that is unlikely to be useful in real life
situations which need quick and concrete solutions.
Korthagen and Kessels (1999) further argue that the
transfer problem can be overcome by conducting a
more realistic teacher education that is based in the
reality of surrounding environment and that allow
student teachers to make meaning out of a problem
situation. This way, student teachers are able to build
cognitive structures which enable them to deal with
similar problem situations in the future. Furthermore,
the realistic approach to teacher education entails the
following (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999): (1)
Suitable learning experiences that lead student
teachers to develop adequate needs, feelings, values,
meanings and behavioral tendencies to respond to
immediate situation; (2) Promotion of further
awareness and reflection on learning experiences
which lead to situation-specific knowledge instead of
general conceptions; (3) Presentation of theoretical
notions from empirical research which allow student
teachers to perceive more in the specific and in
similar situations and to act according their
heightened awareness; and (4) Training of student
teachers in acting productively.
It is obvious that pedagogical competence is an
essential part of becoming a teacher and thus
determines the success of teaching delivery and the
effectiveness of learning process. Pedagogical
competence not only deals with how teacher make
students learn something but also how teacher
manage students and the surrounding environment in
order to meet certain learning objectives. Teaching
pedagogical competence to student teacher thus
should be directed towards mastery of knowledge and
skills that are reflected by attitudes and behaviors.
Unfortunately, teacher education provided by higher
education institution in Indonesia has been
unsuccessful in following this direction since the
learning process tends to employ traditional approach
in which theory is presented without much connection
to practice and as the result the knowledge acquired
by students are not transferable to classroom practice.
3 RESEARCH METHOD
This descriptive quantitative study used survey
method to examine students’ perception about quality
pedagogical course in teachers college. The sample
consisted of 22 student teachers who had finished
taking pedagogical course. The data was collected
using questionnaire, which are divided into two
sections. First section is about the course learning
process and the second section is about the course
materials. The data gathered was then analyzed
quantitatively and presented in percentage.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In teacher education program, students’ pedagogical
competence is developed through pedagogical
courses. Therefore, the quality of the courses
determines the quality of pedagogical competence
acquired by the students. There are several indicators
that can be employed to assess the quality of a course
which include course planning, course delivery
process, course materials, and course evaluation.
Students’ perceptions of these indicators were used to
assess the quality of pedagogical course taken by
sample students.
Students’ perceptions on course planning,
delivery and evaluation are used to evaluate the
quality of the course learning process. The students’
responses are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Pedagogical course learning process.
No
.
Course Learning Process
Total
Score
Course Planning
1.
Readiness in delivering the course.
64
2.
Completeness of course attributes
(course syllabus, learning media, etc.)
69
3.
Diversity of learning methods.
66
4.
Diversity of learning resources.
60
Students’ Perception of Pedagogical Course Learning Process - Developing Pedagogical Competence in Teacher Education
279

5.
Utilization of media and instructional
technologies.
70
Course Delivery
6.
Punctuality in starting the class.
63
7.
Class duration matches credit hours ( 1
credit hour equals 50 minutes)
71
8.
Attempts to arouse students’ interest at
the beginning of the class
58
9.
Ability to engage students.
53
10.
Sistematic organization of course
materials.
67
11.
Suitability between materials delivered
and target competences.
70
12.
Clarity in delivering learning objectives,
materials, and answers to students’
questions.
66
13.
Special time provided for discussion of
course materials.
56
14.
Ability to direct discussion so as to
achieve the goal.
60
15.
Assigning structured assignment (paper,
summaries, problem solving exercises,
etc.)
64
Course Evaluation
16.
Feedback for assignments given.
51
17.
Diversity of measuring learning
outcomes or evaluation
57
18.
Suitability between test materials and
learning objectives.
68
Average
63
As shown in Table 1 above, the score for course
planning ranges from 60 to 70. Diversity of learning
resources scores the lowest (60) while utilization of
media and instructional technologies score the
highest (70). The data indicates that the quality of
course planning is average, with special attention
needs to be given to increase the variety of learning
resources used for learning. In addition, it is equally
important to increase the diversity of learning
methods because in a study of preferred instructional
styles, Slotnik, Pelton, Fuller and Tabor (1993) found
that students gave high rate to instructional methods
which are practical (it enables to get an idea of how
they will use what they are learning) and which
worked with them in the past. Those highly rated
instructional methods include practical projects,
lecturers with discussion, use of simulation, student
participation in course design, and individual
projects. On the contrary, seminars where student’s
present papers and discuss them are the least
favorable.
As for course delivery, the score ranges from 53
to 71. Ability to engage students score the lowest
(53), followed by special time provided for discussion
(56). On the other hand, the class duration that
matches credit hours scores the highest (71), followed
by suitability between materials and target
competences (70). It can be concluded that although
materials given are suitable with target competences
and delivered in good clarity, students still lacked
motivation at the beginning of the class and showed
low participation during the learning process.
Students indeed had discussion but the discussion
only focused on the questions asked by students and
rarely covered all the materials that should be
covered. According to Slotnik, Pelton, Fuller and
Tabor (1993), learning process in higher education
should employ a variety of ways that allow students
to use or apply what they are learning. Teaching new
concept or skill to college students means helping
them understand its applicability to them or show
them how they will use the concept and skill in their
careers. Students are more likely to value what they
are learning when they can see its immediate
applicability. Furthermore, it should also involve
students and make them active in their own learning.
In a course where lecturing is commonly used,
students’ participation should be encouraged in ways
that are practical and interesting. Moreover, since
adults see themselves as individuals instead of group
members), it is better to make sure students
understand their responsibility and evaluate them
according to whether they do their responsibility or
not.
Lastly, for course evaluation, the highest score
was given to suitability between test materials and
learning objectives (68), followed by diversity of
measurements of learning outcomes (57) while
feedback for assignments given scores the lowest
(51). The data indicates that the suitability between
test materials and learning objectives still need to be
improved, measurement methods needs to be varied
and that there should be feedback given after
completion of assignment.
As for the course materials, the indicators along
with the scores are given in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Pedagogical course materials.
No.
Course Materials
Total
Score
1.
Availability of relevant applicable
examples of given materials.
68
2.
Course materials are easy to
understand.
70
3.
Re-discussion of materials that
students are difficult to understand.
57
4.
Completeness of materials delivered.
61
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
280

5.
Course materials are in line with the
syllabus.
67
6.
Suitability of course materials with
references given.
62
7.
Use of current issues in discussing the
materials.
68
8.
Use of scientific articles to enhance
the quality of learning.
47
Average
62.5
It can be seen from the table that the highest score
(70) was for the ease to understand the course
materials and the lowest (47) was for the use of
scientific articles in learning. The score for re-
discussion of difficult materials was also low (57).
The data indicates that although students thought that
the course materials were relatively easy to
understand, this may be limited to certain materials
and to certain level of understanding because the
completeness of course materials delivered was quite
low. This also affected the need to re-discuss difficult
materials, which was hardly facilitated. Moreover, the
use of scientific article was very low, which implies
that the course was not supported by latest research
on pedagogy. In fact, Korthagen and Kessels (1999)
suggest that presenting students with theoretical
notions from empirical research allows students to
acquire deeper and more specific and to act
productively in similar problematic situations.
Overall, the quality of the pedagogical course
learning process and course materials was averagely
good but much improvement is needed especially
regarding the course delivery and evaluation,
methods in delivering difficult materials, and use of
current issues or research results to update the
materials given. As pointed out by Sagala (2009),
pedagogical competence deals with the ability to
understand learners, design learning process, and
evaluate learning outcome. Understanding learners
can be done by addressing the issues such as brittle
study habit, learning difficulties, and values from
home or environment that may affect learning
(Harkin, Turner, and Dawn, 2001). It is also
important to highlight the impact of students’
principles, conceptions and beliefs about the goal of
teaching, which will influence their teaching practice
later in schools. Ritter (2007) argues that students
who have no idea of the potential change that they
might bring into their students’ abilities will be
unlikely to take their responsibility seriously enough
to apply new teaching ideas and method that
contradict with school’s tradition or with traditional
methods of instruction. Moreover, if students believe
that the traditional teaching methods they
experienced as students during teacher training are
effective, they will be encouraged to teach according
to traditional methods.
In designing learning process and evaluating
learning outcomes, major causes of transfer problem
such as students’ preconception about learning and
teaching and students’ low motivation (Korthagen
and Kessels, 1999) should be addressed and tackled
effectively. If not, students as prospective teachers
will be presented with abstract knowledge that is not
transferable to classroom practice. In other words,
development of students’ pedagogical competence
very much depends on the learning process of
pedagogical course that pays attention on how student
teachers will apply what they have learned on real life
situation.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Developing pedagogical competence of students
attending teacher education entails shifting from
traditional methods to new teaching methods which
encourage active participation, address immediate
applicability, and build cognitive structure useful for
future practice. These methods should be reflected
not only in course delivery, but also in course
planning, course evaluation, and course materials.
The course delivery should promote active learning
through the use of various methods and media, the
course evaluation should allow students to obtain
feedback in order to confirm what they have learnt
and the course materials should make use of scientific
articles which could assist students in understanding
difficult materials.These will enhance the quality of
pedagogical course which in turn will greatly affect
the development of students’ pedagogical
competences and their academic quality as future
teachers.
REFERENCES
Harkin, J., Turner, G., Dawn, T. 2001. Teaching Young
Adults. London: Routledge Falmer.
Korthagen, F.A.J., Kessels, J.P.A.M. 1999. Linking Theory
and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher
Education. Taken from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3511/6c529873896ff7
51c40e7abb8d1118385831.pdf
Mulyasa, E. 2007. Standar Kompetensi dan Sertifikasi
Guru. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ritter, J.K. 2007. Forging a Pedagogy of Teacher
Education: The challenges of moving from classroom
teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher
Education, Vol. 3(1), pp. 5-22.
Ryegard, A., Apelgren, K., Olsson, T. 2010. A Swedish
Perspective on Pedagogical Competence. In 8
th
International Conference on the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning.
Students’ Perception of Pedagogical Course Learning Process - Developing Pedagogical Competence in Teacher Education
281

Sagala, S. 2009. Kemampuan Profesional Guru dan Tenaga
Kependidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Scoda, AD. 2014. Student’s Level of Satisfaction
Regarding Their “Pedagogy” Course Training.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142 (2014),
pp.183-188.
Slotnik, H.B., Pelton, M.H., Fuller, M.L., Tabor, L. 1993.
Adult Learners on Campus. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Westbrook J., Durrani, N., Brown, R., Orr, D., Pryor, J.,
Boddy, J., Salvi, F. 2013. Pedagogy, Curriculum,
Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in
Developing Countries. Final Report. Education
Rigorous Literature Review. Department for
International Development.
Undang Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005
Tentang Guru dan Dosen. Retrieved from
http://sumberdaya.ristekdikti.go.id/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/uu-nomor-14-tahun-2005-ttg-
guru-dan-dosen.pdf
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
282