See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303663073

Modeling the Traits of Joyful Learning Observed

from Curriculum, Governance, Facility and
Educator Arrangements
Working Paper May 2016
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3822.2965

READS

14

2 authors, including:
Udan Kusmawan
Universitas Terbuka
14 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Udan Kusmawan

Retrieved on: 22 August 2016

Modeling the Traits of Joyful Learning

Observed from Curriculum, Governance,
Facility and Educator Arrangements
Udan Kusmawan
Dean, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training
Universitas Terbuka (Open University), INDONESIA
(62) 818 08254375
udan@ut.ac.id

Maximus Gorky Sembiring

Director, Regional Office for Overseas Students
Universitas Terbuka (Open University), INDONESIA
(62) 816 878444
gorky@ut.ac.id
Abstract
Essential indications underpinning joyful learning practice in the classrooms
level were investigated. It was of interest to exposing plausible factors
involved in executing joyful learning, how they were intercorrelated and in
what behaviors. The study was conducted utilizing explanatory-design. Data
were collected by survey using quetionnaires under simple random sampling
technique to select eligible respondents; and then followed by in-depth
interviews/focus-group discussions. Population was 1,120 teachers from 32
provinces all over Indonesia. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed
for quantitative purpose and 294 of them were finally completed. In unity,
related source of information was tracked in addition to six selected experts
formerly determined for qualitative purposes. It was broadly apprehended
that determinants of joyful learning (dependent variable) were related to
educator (moderating variable), curriculum, school governance, and learning
facilities (independent variables). Statistically, under structural-equation
model (SEM), seven hypotheses examined were all substantiated by the
analysis. Joyful learning was consecutively affected by curriculum,
educator, school governance, and learning facilities. Besides, educator was
affected by curriculum, school governance and learning facilities. These
results were comparatively well-balanced viewed from qualitative approach.
Joyful learning however was qualitatively more affected by educator with
good personality and social competencies rather than that of curriculum.
Keywords: joyful learning, explanatory-design, SEM

Background
Envisaging 21st century skills appeals for 21st century schooling provisions
(Saveedra & Opfer, 2012). In order to be flourished in the digital economy
era, students need digital age aptitudes either. It is then eminent for
educational stakeholders to make parallel differences such that fit to the
mission of society, primarily in preparing students by all teachers for the
world beyond classroom (Metiri Group, 2011). This implies educational
system must recognize and integrate 21st century skills within the context of
rigorous academic benchmarking in conjunction with acquiring intellectual
capital of citizens as the driving force of 21st century.
Having realized that marvels: What are then the 21st century skills look
alike? The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2013) enumerates three main
types of them, namely learning skills, literacy skills and life skills. The 21st
century dawned as an instigation of digital age, a time of exceptional
progress in technology and its successive information outbreak (Beers,
2012). Never before have the tools for information access and management
made such an impact on the way of how we live, work and interact.
Inevitably, exemplary science education might put forward a rich context to
develop some 21st century skills, for instance in critical thinking, problem
solving, and information literacy aspects. In a more identifiable stance, The
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (AT21CS, 2014) simplified
the 21st century skills into four broad categories, they are: (i) Ways of
thinking - covering creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, decision
making and learning; (ii) Ways of working - involving communication and
collaboration; (iii) Tools for working - encompassing information and
communication technology and information literacy; and (iv) Skills for
living in this universe - consisting of citizenships, life and career and
personal and social responsibility.
Having reflected 21st century skills perpectives elaborated above, we come
to the crucial question. What would be the situation in the classroom led by
teachers so that we are indisputably on the right track to get ready students
for their turbulence future adequately? Joyful learning is obviously one of
the answers for those chalenges. In a more specific turn of phrase, this study
would elaborate and confirm on what factors influencing joyful learning
behold specially by Indonesian teachers in this framework.
Conceptual and Operational Framework
Several factors evidently contribute to student learning and one significant
factor that impacting learning is a correlation between teacher and student
in the classroom (Gill, 2010). Get reflection to when we were in school,
asked Meador (2010): who was your favorite teacher and who was teacher
you dreaded having? We all have had great teacher and remarkably most of
us have had teachers that were not effective too. Then, what quality does as
an effective teacher have that an ineffective teacher do not? It takes a

perfect blend of several qualities to create a truly effective teacher who can
have a listing impact on each student especially in terms of joyful learning
perceptions and practices.
Kindsvatter, Wilen and Ishler (1992) addressed seven assumptions and
beliefs prime to effective teaching and four of them were relevant to this
inquest, they were: (i) teaching is a complex behavior, (ii) teaching is a
learned behavior, (iii) student must be motivated and (iv) teaching in the
final analysis is personal invention. Correspondingly, Gurney (2007)
believes that teacher knowledge and responsibility for learning, classroom
activities that encourage learning, assessment activities that encourage
learning through experience, effective feedback that establishes the learning
process in the classroom and effective interaction between the teacher and
the students as well as stimulate learning through experience were five
fundamental factors for effective learning. In this study they all refer to
teacher with capacities to performing joyful learning in the classroom level.
Learning is considered as the acquisition of knowledge, habits, skills,
abilities and attitudes through interaction of the total individual and his/her
entire milieu. Learning is meaningful if it was structured in such a way as to
underline and call for understanding, insight, initiative and cooperation.
Learning is assisted by motives, regulation, readiness, and laws of exercise,
effect and belongingness. Learning is made feasible when teacher delivers
learner with proper stimuli and guide. Additionally, learning difficulties are
due to many factors within learners itself. Learning is effective when more
senses are utilized by the students and made functional and aided by
understanding derived from real experience (Mondal, 2014).
Furthermore, Meador (2010) examined ten qualities that virtually every
effective teacher will grasp. An effective teacher loves to teach,
demonstrates a caring attitude and can relate to students. An effective
teacher is willing to think out of the box, an excellent communicator,
proactive rather than reactive, and striving to be better. An effective teacher
also uses a variety of media in their lessons and challenges their students.
More importantly, an effective teacher comprehends the content that they
teach and understand how to explicate that content in a way that their
students easily to embrace it.
At this stage, it can generally be expressed that learning outcome through
teaching and learning process depending on learning course of actions
conducted by teacher in the classroom level. Learning process is actually
determined by learning approach applied by teacher. Learning approach
should at least be related to teacher and student traits as well as the learning
ambiance in their surrounding.
In a more precise gist, this inquest come to the general view that there are
several factors determine joyful learning. To certain extent, it can be
identified some of them, including stakeholders, regulation, facilities,
parents, students, curriculum, teachers, funding and employers perspectives.

Purposely for Indonesian context, we come to the proposition that joyful

learning was determined by school governance, curriculum and support
facilities for learning and educator competencies. This work is an extention
of Ichwan, Puryati and Sembiring (2014). In summary, aspects engaged in
here can be better understood by recapitulating those possible variables,
dimensions and attributes involved as described in the following table.
Table 1. Variables and Dimensions
No

Variables

Dimensions

Joyful
learning
Y

Y1:Active
Y2:Creative
Y3:Effective
Y4:Enjoyable
Y5:Meaningful

School
governance
X2

Educator
X4

X21:Organization
X22:Guidance
X23:Supervision
X24:Staffing
X25:Admins
X41:Qualification
X42:Pedagogic
X43:Personality
X44:Social
X45:Professionalism

No

Variables

Dimensions

Notes

Curriculum
X1

X11:Content
X12:Outcome
X13:Support
X14:Implementation
X15 : Evaluation

Each
dimension
in each
variable is
measured
by asking
2-item to
respondents

Support
facilities
X3

X31 : Buildings
X32 : Equipment
X33 : IT tools
X34 : Finance
X35 : Personnel

Ten
questions
available
for each
variable
The
questions
are 50 in
total

Referring to Table 1, it is now appropriate to establish the model that will be

used and investigated with the help of quantitative procedure (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Research Model

Methodology and Research Design

As an effort to ensure teaching and learning process in the classroom runs
as it was expected, joyful learning is then one of the critical answers. The
objective of this approach is to equip teachers so that they are able to
prepare students entering the digital age, referred to as the so-called the 21st
Century era, through effective teaching and learning processes in the
classroom level (Sembiring, 2008). Joyful learning, as the dependent
variable in this inquest, is operationally observed through five dimensions,
such as how active, creative, effective, enjoyable and meaningful situation
are in the classroom managed by teachers. These dimensions are
specifically measured by observing indicators consisting of student
initiative and teacher facilitation, various source and initiatives, student
performance and achievement as well as student enthusiasm and classroom
encouraging environment.
School governance, as the first independent variable, is largely measured by
observing on the five dimensions, such as how the organization, guidance,
supervision, staffing and administration aspects are available and adequate
to support the teaching and learning processes. These dimensions are
exclusively measured by observing indicators consisting of the structure and
personnel qualification, teachers and school personnel, buildings and
equipments, funding for operational and innovation as well as career
advancement and further education of human resources in the schools.
Curriculum, as the second independent variable, is broadly measured by
observing five dimensions, such as how the content, learning outcome,
supports, implementation and evaluation are administered by teacher and
school management on the regular bases. These dimensions are specifically
measured by observing indicators consisting of core and supplement
materials, general and specific objectives, standardized book and guidance,
socialization and training as well as implementation and the results of
operated curriculum in the field.
Support facilities, as the third independent variable, is largely measured by
observing five dimensions, namely how are the provision of buildings,
equipments, IT infrastructures, financial and personnel aspects are
adequately provided to support teaching and learning processes. These
dimensions are exclusively measured by observing indicators consisting of
rooms for classes, equipments for better learning and teaching processes, IT
tools for effective teaching objectives, finance and competent personnel.
Teacher competencies, as a moderating variable, is in general measured by
observing five dimensions, they are minimum qualification for teacher as a
profession, pedagogical expertise, competencies on personality, social and
professionalism. These dimensions are purposely measured by observing
indicators on how far teacher understands about student profiling and

educational theory, value appreciation and professional dignity, capability

and creativity as well as academic and profession qualification.
Having described the context in the view of variables involved elaborated
previously, seven hypotheses are constructed and then later analyzed with
the help of quantitative approach using SEM. The established hypotheses
are: (H1) joyful learning is influenced by school governance, (H2) joyful
learning is influenced by curriculum, (H3) joyful learning is influenced by
support facilities, (H4) joyful learning is influenced by educator, (H5)
educator is influenced by school governance, (H6) educator is influenced by
curriculum and (H7) educator is influenced by support facilities.
The research was conducted at Universitas Terbuka milieu, Indonesia Open
University. The population is those teachers who were studying to complete
their degree and graduated from the Faculty of Education and Teacher
Training in 2015. The respondents, as the sample of the population, are
teachers who were attending graduation ceremony in the second semester of
2015. The number of graduates attending the graduation day is 1,100.
Moreover, this research utilized a quantitative approach from surveys that
collected data from students (Singarimbun & Effendi, 1989). Instruments in
the form of questionnaires were developed by incorporating five variables
involved. Each variable was subdivided into dimensions; there are 25 of
them. Suggested minimum respondent ranges from 5-15 with respect to
each dimension involved (Firdaus & Affendi, 2008). This implies that the
number of respondents based on this assumption is 125375 respondents.
Here, the minimum number is settled 200 respondents.
As earlier mentioned, there was a set of questionnaire developed as
encapsulated in Table 1. The questionnaires were developed and inspired by
Tjiptono and Chandra (2011). To fulfill the requirement, all questions
should be completely answered by respondents selected randomly (Cochran,
1977). Finally, SEM was used to statistically draw conclusions and illustrate
the results descriptively and inferentially (Hair, Balack, Babin & Anderson,
2009; Wijayanto, 2008).
Findings and Arguments
Before presenting the end results, it is appreciated to show the qualities of
respondents (Table 2). This will amplify our insights related to quantitative
and qualitative procedures utilized sequentially. The results of analyses are
detailed in the following interpretation in accordance with relevant figure
and table.
Having considered respondents qualities, as presented in Table 2, we are
now in position of showing results of hypothesis assessment and the loading
factors consequences, as shown in the following figure (Figure 2) with
inclusive and elaborative explanation.

Table 2. Respondents Qualities

Provinces: 33
Popultaion: 1,120

Regional
Offices: 38

Respondents:
294 (26.25%)

Female:
84.01%

Male:
15.99%

Teaching at

Early
Childhood

32.31

Primary
School

62.58

High
School

5.10

School Status

School

21.42

Private

20.06

Others

58.50

Experience
(Year)

15
16 20
2.00 2.49

27.89
2.04
7.82

6 10
21 25
2.50 2.99

45.57
2.04
25.17

11 15
26++
3.00 3.49

17.34
5.40
54.76

3.50 3.99

11.90

4.00

0.34

GPA
Age
(Year)
Study Length
(Year)

< 25

14.62

26 30

29.93

31 35

23.80

36 40

8.84

41 45

11.90

46++

10.88

<4

11.22

75.51

8.50

++

3.06

0.60

1.02

There were three prime properties should be particularized further with

respect to the results obtained under the quantitative procedure. The first
upshot is related to the hypothesis assessment. Figure 2 exposed objectively
that all hypotheses were validated by the analysis. All hypotheses (H1H7)
exceed the required minimum value, i.e., 1.96, for =5%. This means that
joyful learning was positively and directly influenced by school governance,
curriculum used, learning support facilities and educator (teacher in this
scase). Moreover, educator or teacher is influenced by school governance,
curriculum used and learning support facilities.
Figure 2. Results of Hypothesis and Loading Factors

The second effect is related to the result of the loading factors of the model.
It was quantitatively obvious that the most influential prime factor affecting
joyful learning is curriculum (H3=12.77; 0.32); and then orderly followed by
educator (H2=4.29; 0.30), school governance (H1=10.53; 0.28) and support
facilities (H4=13.22; 0.23). Besides, educator is orderly influenced by

curriculum (H6=21.24; 0.45), school governance (H5=33.12; 0.43) and

support facilities (H7=26.75; 0.30).
The third consequence is related to the goodnes of fit of the model (Table 3).
Table 3 evidently exhibits that the tested model were categorically reliable.
The results of SEM firmly indicates that the model fulfilled all the cut-off
values as a requirement that the model is said to be good. It can be therefore
used as a point of reference to instigate further analysis and explanation in
quantitative purpose.
Table 3. Goodnes of Fit of the Model
Goodnes of Fit
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approx)
RMSR (Root Mean Square Residual)
GFI (Goodness of Fit)
AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index)
CFI (Comparative Fit Index)
NFI (Normal Fit Index)
RFI (Relatif Fit Index)

Cut-off Value
0.08
< 0.05 or < 0.10
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.95
0.90

Results
0.031
0.051
0.990
0.980
1.000
0.990
1.000

Notes
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit
Good Fit

Back to the second effect, i.e., the loading factor results; it has been stated
previously the most influential factor affecting joyful learning is curriculum
(0.32). In addition, the most crucial attribute in this dimension is the content
of curriculum itself (0.81); and then orderly followed by administration
(0.49), staffing (0.30), guidance (0.29) and supervision (0.22). The second
influential factor affecting joyful learning is educator (0.30). Moreover, the
most important attribute in this dimension is pedagogic competencies of the
teachers (0.72); and then orderly followed by professioanlism (0.69),
personality (0.67), qualification (0.65) and social competencies (0.62). The
third influential factor affecting joyful learning is school governance (0.28).
Furthermore, the most vital attribute in this dimension is on organizational
structur in school level (0.71); and then orderly followed by administration
(0.49), staffing (0.30), guidance (0.29) and supervision (0.22).
This study using explanatory-design as one of approach in mixed-methods
procedure. This means that the study is implemented under quantitative
method first prior to qualitative series (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Having
finalized the quantitative analysis, we then follow through with qualitative
series. It basically aims at finding further explanation on the results formerly
obtained under quantitative approach.
From qualitative series, it was found that in general no significant difference
in terms of the final upshots in variable level. All variables and dimensions
examined quantitatively are in the same universe of discourse as it was
found in the qualitative routines. The difference, marginally, if any, only in
terms of the rank of variables involved. In quantitative procedure, the most
influential factor of joyful learning was curriculum; followed by educator.
In qualitative inquiry, it was found that the most influential factor to joyful
learning was actually educator. The most critical attribute in this dimension

is professionalism and followed by personality and social competencies;

instead of pedagogic and then followed by personality.
Conclusions
Results of this inquiry encountered comparatively slight contrast between
what has been achieved from quantitative routines compared to qualitative
approach. Fortunately, all hypotheses assessed were validated by the
analysis and they also were conclusively tolerated under qualitative
procedure. This implies that established quantitative model is almost
perfectly approved by qualitative analysis. Yet, they only differ in
determining the most influential factors of joyful learning. In quantitative
approach the most influencing factor was curriculum; while in qualitative
approach was educator instead. However, they did not necessarily contradict
in high influence. The end result is therefore enormously useful for
educational stakeholders. It can be used in re-prioritising critical dimesions
that should be carefully taken to provide effective joyful learning with
associated components in accordance with students needs for acclimating
the 21st cetury skills requirement.
It is worth to note that most respondents classified curriculum in the first
(quantitative) and/or second (qualitative) spot as a tip-off in this inquiry.
This entails that the policy makers should take this upshot by spotting
imaginable constraints that might be real. This is pertinent especially on
how to provide and implement curriculum practically that motivate teachers
and students being much more active via appropriate school governance and
sufficient support facilities. Educational stakeholders are also wellrecommended to get ahead on the five dimensions in this variable (educator,
as the moderating variable) so all administrators and academic have the
same perceptions in this regard.
Imagining this savvy is unanimously typical in a wide-ranging of any school
in Indonesia context, school management in all levels would therefore be
well-advocated to musing variables along with their associated dimensions
explained earlier. It aims at offering beliefs that competent teachers grow to
endeavor great joyful learning as expected by students in relation to the 21st
century skills compulsion.
References
AT21CS (The Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills). (2014). What are
21st-century skills? Available at http://1tc21s.org.index.php/about/what-are21st-century-skills.
Beers, S. Z. (2012). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. (STEM).
Available at www.mheonline.com/mhmymath/pdf/21st_century_skills.pdf.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. 3rd Ed. New York, USA: John Wiley
& Sons.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixedmethods Research. 2nd Ed. Los Angles, USA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Firdaus, M., & F.M. Afendi. (2008). Applied selected quantitative methods for
Business and Management (Aplikasi metode kuantitatif terpilih untuk
manajemen dan bisnis) Bisnis. Bogor, Indonesia: IPB PRESS.
Gill,

D. (2010). Factors that contribute to learning. Available

http://www.shotuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Effective-TeachingDeborah-Gill.pdf.

at

Gurney, P. (2007). Five factors for effective teaching. New Zealand Journal of
Teachers Work, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 89-98.
Ichwan., Puryati., & Sembiring, M. G. (2014). Determinants of active, creative,
effective and joyful learning behold by teachers. Paper, available at
http://repository.widyatama.ac.id/xmlui/handle/123456789/3339.
Kindsvatter, R., Wilen, W., & Ishler, M. (1992) Dynamics of effective teaching. 2nd
Ed. New York, USA: Longman.
Meador, D. (2010). Quality of an effective teacher ten qualities of an effective
teacher. Available at http://teaching.about.com/od/pd/a/Qualities-Of-AnEffective-Teacher.htm.
Metiri Group. (2011). Twenty-first century skills. Available at www.metiri.com.
Mondal, P. (2014). 16 most important principles of learning. Available at
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/learning/16-most-important-principles-oflearning/6056/
Saavedra, A. R., & V. D. Opver. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21stcentury teaching. Kappan October 2012. New Style of Instruction, RAND
Corp. (Santa Monica Ca).
Sembiring, M. G. (2008). The art of great teaching series: becoming a great
teacher (Menjadi guru sejati). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Galang Press.
Singarimbun, M., & S. Effendi. (1989). Survey research methods (Metode
penelitian survai). Editor. Jakarta, Indonesia: LP3ES.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). What are 21st century skills?
Available at http://www.thoughtfullearning.com/resources/what-are-the21st-century-skills.
Tjiptono, F., & Chandra, G. (2011). Service, quality & satisfaction. Yogyakarta,
Indonesia: Penerbit Andi.
Wijayanto, S. H. (2008). Structural equation modeling Lisrel 8.80. Yogyakarta,
Indonesia: Graha Ilmu Publishing House.