Result & Discussion

4. Result & Discussion

4.1 Demographic data The number of male and female respondents for this study was slightly the same with 1.4% difference. Respondents were age between 26 to 58 years with majority of them (43.6%) were in the group of 31 to 40 years. 81.4% of the respondents were bachelor holders while the rest were diploma (9.3%), masters (5.7%) and certificate (4.3%) holders. Respondents have been teaching for one to 36 years and had highest experience in teaching agriculture for 35 years.

Table 2 Demographic data

Variable Frequency Percentage Gender

Age (n=280) (M= 39, SD= 8.45)

Min: 26 Max: 58 21-30

Highest Academic Qualification

Years of Teaching (n=280) (M= 14, SD= 8.75)

Min: 1 Max: 36 01-10

Years of Teaching Agriculture (n=280) (M= 9, SD= 6.33)

Min: 1 Max: 35 >10

11-20

4.2 Motivation

From the output shown in Table 3 , the highest mean score of the teachers‘ motivation towards contextual teaching was M = 4.17 (SD = 0.64) for item ‗I teach contextually because I am happy to help my student overcome problems‘. The lowest mean score of the teachers‘ motivation towards contextual teaching was M = 2.73 (SD = 0.89) for item ‗I teach contextually because I will feel embarrassed to other teacher‘. The overall mean rating for motivation was M = 3.63 (SD = 0.36). More than half of the respondents (53.9%) were at the moderate level of motivation towards contextual teaching while 46.1% were at high level of motivation. Teachers‘ high level of motivation toward contextual teaching confirmed that there are ready and willing to practice this teaching method in the future. Lam, Cheng and Choy (2010) suggest that respondents with high level of motivation are fonder to use contextual teaching. The high level of motivation among secondary schools agriculture teachers could be due to their interest, personal fulfilment and believe toward effective teaching approaches. This motivation is most likely to induce teachers‘ use of contextual teaching.

Table 3 Motivation towards Contextual Teaching

Statements Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean SD Agree

Disagree f f f f f

53 11 1 3.83 0.68 very important to me

Contextual teaching is 31 184

I always increase my 35 187

knowledge and skills 12.5 66.8 17.1 3.6 0

about contextual teaching

I will continue using 44 196

contextual teaching 15.7 70.0 9.6 4.6 0

strategy

86 19 5 3.60 0.82 contextual teaching 9.6 51.1 30.7 6.8 1.8 outside the usual time table

I always conduct 27 143

49 12 3.12 0.89 because it is the duty 3.2 32.1 42.9 17.5 4.3 assigned

I teach contextually 9 90 120

by my by my

55 12 3.04 0.87 because it is a 3.6 24.6 47.9 19.6 4.3 requirement from my school

I teach contextually 10 69 134

49 13 3.07 0.87 because it is my 3.2 27.5 47.1 17.5 4.6 school current policy

I teach contextually 9 77 132

58 14 3.00 0.88 because

I teach contextually 8 69 131

my 2.9 24.6 46.8 20.7 5.0 supervisor will assess my work performance

79 21 2.78 0.89 because

I teach contextually 6 48 126

my 2.1 17.1 45.0 28.2 7.5 supervisor gets upset if I didn't

72 28 2.73 0.89 because I will feel 0.4 18.2 45.7 25.7 10.0 embarrassed to other teacher

I teach contextually 1 51 128

I teach contextually 84 162

because I am happy to 30.0 57.9 11.4 0.7 0

help my student overcome problems Total

3.63 0.36 Note: Strongly agree = 5, Agree = 4, Undecided = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly

Disagree = 1

4.3 Use of Contextual Teaching

From the output shown in Table 4 , the highest mean score of the teachers‘ use of contextual teaching was M = 3.99 (SD = 0.64) for item ‗I am open and empathetic towards students‘ and M = 3.99 (SD = 0.67) for item ‗I am ready to improve my teaching . The lowest mean score of the teachers‘ use of contextual teaching was M =

3.27 (SD = 0.93) for item ‗I develop subject component that suits with students‘ characteristics‘. The overall mean rating for use was M = 3.73 (SD = 0.39). More than

half of the respondents (53.9%) were at high level of use of contextual teaching while 46.1% were at moderate level of use.

In using contextual teaching, teachers need to be open and empathetic towards students (Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000; Meyer & Land, 2005) besides developing In using contextual teaching, teachers need to be open and empathetic towards students (Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000; Meyer & Land, 2005) besides developing

such as problem based learning because of the time constrain, lack of teaching materials and the demand on teaching staff for a big class size. The researchers also added that by using problem based learning, less time is used to taught knowledge and that students tend to take more time compared with traditional teaching methods and students found it difficult to work together in order to successfully complete the task assigned.

Table 4 Use of Contextual Teaching Statements

Always Often Seldom Rarely Never Mean SD f f f f f

8 1 3.72 0.76 real life situation and experience

I teach new concepts using student's 41 129

72 13 0 3.74 0.68 context in their learning examples 8.6 61.1 25.7 4.6 0 and exercises

I use concept related to student's 24 171

87 9 0 3.71 0.67 familiar context

I teach new concept using student's 25 159

53 5 0 3.97 0.67 situation that is important or their 19.3 60.0 18.9 1.8 0 future use in examples and exercise

I include a lot of problems with real 54 168

82 3 1 3.80 0.67 student's attitude that they have to 12.1 57.1 29.3 1.1 0.4 learnt

I use examples which encourage 34 160

25 6 3.37 0.80 guided in discovering important 5.0 40.0 43.9 8.9 2.1 concept

Student gather and analyze data 14 112

94 21 1 3.59 0.76 gather and analyze data for learning 8.2 50.4 33.6 7.5 0.4 extension and enrichment

I give students opportunities to 23 141

25 4 3.39 0.79 situation in contextual teaching

I develop challenging activity in real 16 111

5.7 39.6 44.3 8.9 1.4 I actively listen to my student

I am open and empathetic toward 50 183

43 7 0 3.99 0.67 teaching

I am always ready to improve my 55 175

19.6 62.5 15.4 2.5 0 Total

3.73 0.39 Note: Always = 5, Often = 4, Seldom = 3, Rarely = 2, Never = 1

4.4 Relationship between Motivation and Use of Contextual Teaching

Table 5 shows the relationship between teachers‘ motivation and use of contextual teaching. There is a significant relationship between secondary schools agriculture

teachers‘ motivation and use of contextual teaching, r = 0.35, p = 0.00.

This study shows that there was a low positive association between motivation and use of contextual teaching. This finding brings an implication that this result can be added to literature by showing that motivation can also envisage interpersonal behaviour. The finding supported teachers‘ motivation research by Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque and Legault (2002) who also found a positive relationship between teachers‘ self- determined motivation toward their job and teachers‘ actions. It shows that the more self determined teachers are toward their work, the more autonomy supportive they are toward their students learning.

Efficient organization helps to differentiate educational experience from non-education experience. If the experience is selected, organized, and arranged suitable to the

students‘ needs and directed towards the end intention, then it can be classified as successful instruction. Teaching and learning theories must bring connection to actual experience along with adequate time for student to reveal and assess their learning

(Arnold, Warner, & Osborne, 2006).

Table 5 Relationship between Teachers‘ Motivation and Use of Contextual Teaching

Variables