Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 10, 2023
Accepted
July 12, 2023
Published
June 30, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 157 Download : 96

Main Article Content

Abstract

ABSTRAK


 


Tujuan penelitian untuk membekalkan keterampilan menulis bahan ajar IPA berbasis STREM-R menggunakan Triple Step Writing Strategy (TS-WS) secara daring beserta kendala-kendala selama pembelajaran. Strategi TS-WS meliputi perencanaan, translasi, dan revisi. Sample mahasiswa calon guru berjumlah 26 orang menggunakan satu kelas. The One Group Pre-Test & Post-Test Design. Penugasan menulis bahan ajar awal (O1) selanjutnya dilakukan perlakuan TS-WS dan merevisi tulisan bahan ajar/bahan ajar akhir (O2). Pengukuran keterampilan menulis menggunakan instrumen skoring dan  rubric asesmen kinerja. Analisis data menggunakan normalized gain (n-gain,) perhitungan persentase pada kriteria tertentu dan uji statistik wilcoxon. Instrumen kendala pembelajaran menggunakan angket pertanyaan terstruktur dan catatan lapangan yang dianalisis secara deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil n-gain bahan ajar secara umum menunjukkan 32% berkriteria sedang dan 44% berkriteria rendah. Uji wilcoxon menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan signifikan antara tulisan bahan ajar awal dan tulisan bahan ajar akhir. Kendala-kendala, antara lain: kesulitan membuat indikator pencapaian kompetensi, menganalisis dimensi pengetahuan, menerapkan STEM-R pada konten materi IPA, dan kondisi pembelajaran daring. Strategi TS-WS dapat membekalkan keterampilan menulis bahan Ajar IPA STEM-R pada sebagian besar mahasiswa calon guru


 


Kata  kunci— Bahan Ajar IPA, STEM-R, Triple Step Writing Strategy


 


ABSTRACT


 


The purpose of this research is to improve the skill in writing science-based STREM-R teaching materials using the Triple Step Writing Strategy (TS-WS) online, along with finding out the challenges encountered during the learning process. The TS-WS strategy includes planning, translation, & revision. The sample consists of 26 pre-service teachers in one class. The research uses the One Group Pre-Test & Post-Test Design. Assignments given were writing initial teaching materials (O1) followed by TS-WS treatment and revising the teaching materials/final teaching materials (O2). Writing skill assessment was done using a scoring instrument & performance assessment rubric. Data were analyzed using normalized gain (n-Gain), percentage calculations for certain criteria, & Wilcoxon statistical test. The learning challenges instrument used was a structured questionnaire & field notes were analyzed descriptive-qualitatively. The overall n-Gain of the teaching materials showed 32% to be "moderate" & 44% to be "low". The Wilcoxon test showed a significant difference between the writings of initial and final teaching materials. Some of the challenges encountered are difficulties in creating performance indicators, analyzing knowledge dimensions, applying STEM-R to science content and online learning conditions. The TS-WS strategy can provide improve the pre-service teacher's skills in writing science-based STEM-R teaching materials.


Keywords— Science Teaching Materials, STEM-R, Triple Step Writing Strategy

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Tri Wahyu Agustina Agustina, Wahyuni Handayani, Muhammad Ghilman Firdaus

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal

Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)

Creative Commons License

DIKSAINS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Agustina, T. W. A., Wahyuni Handayani, & Firdaus, M. G. (2023). PEMBEKALAN KETERAMPILAN MENULIS BAHAN AJAR IPA BERBASIS STEM-R (SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-ENGINEERING-MATHEMATIC PLUS RELIGION) PADA MAHASISWA CALON GURU. DIKSAINS : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Sains, 3(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.33369/diksains.3.2.134-148
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Afnibar, F. D., & Putra, A. (2020). Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Mahasiswa dalam Kuliah Online (Studi pada Mahasiswa Bimbingan Konseling Islam UIN Imam Bonjol Padang). Al Irsyad Jurnal Bimbingan Konseling Islam, 11(2), 187-196.
  2. Agustina, T.W., Muttaqin, M., Yusup, I.R., & Hartati, S. (2020a). Analisis Pemetaan Ayat-ayat Al-Qur’an pada Silabus Biologi SMA sebagai Tantangan Pendidik Abad 21, 1-17. http://digilib.uinsgd.ac.id/30581/.
  3. Agustina, T.W., Rustaman N.Y., Riandi, & Purwianingsih, W. (2020b). Pendekatan STREAM (Science-Technology-Religion-Engineering-Arts-Mathematics) Membekalkan Kebiasaan Berpikir Mahasiswa. Edusains, 12 (2), 283-296.
  4. Agustina, T.W., Rustaman, N.Y., Riandi, & Purwianingsih W. (2018). Plant Physiology with Mathematic & Art Religion Engineering Science & Technology Approach. Advances in Social Science, Education & Humanities Research, 261, 43-47.
  5. Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (eds) (2010). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, & Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objektive- A Bridged Edition. New York: Longman.
  6. Anggreni, A. (2018). Peningkatan Kemampuan Mahasiswa PGSD Universitas Bung Hatta dalam Mengembangkan Bahan Ajar IPA Sekolah Dasar. Al Ibtida: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru MI, 5(2), 221-230.
  7. Argaheni, N.B. (2020). A Systematic Review: The Impact of Online Lectures during the COVID-19 Pandemic Against Indonesian Students. PLACENTUM Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan dan Aplikasinya, 8(2), 99-108.
  8. Aries, A. I., Sinaga P., & Imansyah, H. (2020). Strategi Writing to Learn dalam Pembelajaran Fisika untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Kognitif dan Representasi pada Siswa SMP. Jurnal Phi: Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Fisika Terapan, 1(2), 12-15.
  9. Barrass, R. (2000). Scientist Must be Write, A Guide for Better Writing for Scientists, Engineers & Students. E & FN Spon, 11 New Fetter Lane, London.
  10. Basham, J.D., & Marino, M.T. (2013). Underst&ing STEM Education & Supporting Students Through Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 8-15. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Marino2/publication/275353986.
  11. Bilbokaite, R. (2009). Visualization in Science Education: The Results of Pilot Research in Grade 10. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 16, 23–29.
  12. Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Rereading & Generating & Their Relation to Text Quality. An Application of Multilevel Analysis on Writing Process Data. In Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H. & Couzijn, M. (Eds.). Theories, Models, & Methodology in Writing Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  13. Bybee, R.W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35. https://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=EJ898909.
  14. Cetin, S.P. & Eymur, G. (2017). Developing Students’ Scientific Writing & Presentation Skills through Argument Driven Inquiry: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Chemical Education, A-G.
  15. Dahar, R.W. (1989). Teori-teori Belajar. B&ung: Erlangga.
  16. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional (2013). Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 20 tahun 2003 mengenai Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
  17. Eilam, B., Poyas, Y., Hashimshoni, R. (2014). Representing Visually: What Teachers Know & What They Prefer. In Eilam, B. & Gilbert, J.K (Eds). Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations. Springer.
  18. Erwin, E., Rustmana, N.Y., Firman, H., & Ramalis, T.R. (2019). Profile of The Prospective Teacher Response to the Development of Science Communication Skills Through Physic Learning. Journal of Physic Conference Series, 1157, 032040, 1-6.
  19. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real World Contexts in PISA Science: Implications for Context‐based Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46 (8), 884-896.
  20. Firman (2020). Dampak Covid-19 terhadap Pembelajaran di Perguruan Tinggi. Bioma, 2 (1), 14-20.
  21. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design & Evaluate Research in Education. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc..
  22. Giridharan, B., & Robson, A. (2011). Identifying Gaps in Academic writing of ESL Students. Enhancing Learning: Teaching & Learning International Conference, 1-15. http://hdl.h&le.net/20.500.11937/11979.
  23. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction & the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). H&book of Writing Research. New York: Guilford Press.
  24. Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thous&-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1). 64-74.
  25. Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing Embedded Multimodal Representations in a Writing to Learn Approach to the Teaching of Electricity . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 225–247.
  26. Handayani, N.A. & Jumadi (2021). Analisis Pembelajaran IPA secara Daring pada Masa P&emi COVID-19. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 9 (2), 217-233.
  27. Handayani, W., Setiawan, W., Sinaga, P., & Suhandi, A. (2020). Pengembangan Multi-Strategi Pembelajaran Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Komunikasi Sains Pada Mahasiswa Calon Guru Fisika, Disertasi Tidak Diterbitkan, Program Studi Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam. Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
  28. Handayani, W., Setiawan, W., Sinaga, P., & Suhandi, A. (2021). Triple Step Writing Strategy: Meningkatkan Keterampilan Menulis Materi Ajar Multimodus Representasi pada Mahasiswa Calon Guru Fisika. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA., 7(1), 47-60.
  29. Handayani, W., Agustina, T.W., & Firdaus, M.G. (2022). The Skill Profile of Pre-Service Science Teachers In Writing STREM-Based (Science-Technology-Religion-Engineerin-Mathematics) Science Teaching Materials. Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA, 12(2). 253-268.
  30. Hanover Research (2011). K-12 STEM Education Overwiew. http//www.hanoverresearch.com
  31. Hasegawa, H. (2013). Students’ Perceptions & Performances in Academic Essay Writing in Higher Education. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, 1 (4), 1–14.
  32. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing Research & The Writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.
  33. Jariyah, I.A. & Tyastirin, E. (2020). Proses dan Kendala Pembelajaran Biologi di Masa P&emi Covid-19: Analisis Respon Mahasiswa. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan:e-Saintika, 4(2), 183-196.
  34. Jho, H., Hong O., & Song, J. (2016). An Analysis of STEM/STEAM Teacher Education in Korea with A Case Study of Two Schools from A Community of Practice Perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12 (7), 1843-1862.
  35. Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training Writing Skills: A Cognitive Developmental Perspective. Journal of writing research, 1(1), 1-26.
  36. Kementrian Pendidikan & Kebudayaan (2017). Model Silabus Mata Pelajaran Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) Mata Pelajaran IPA. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan & Kebudayaan
  37. Kementrian Pendidikan & Kebudayaan (2013). Kurikulum 2013 Kompetensi Dasar Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP)/ Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTS). Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  38. Lawson, A.E. (1994). Science Teaching & Development Thinking. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  39. Lestari, R.D.S. (2019). Pengembangan Workbook Berbasis STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) Menggunakan Multimodus Representasi Berorientasi pada Pembekalan Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif serta Kemampuan Literasi Teknologi dan Rekayasa Siswa SMK. Tesis. B&ung, Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
  40. Limpo, T. & Alves, R.A. (2018). Effects of Planning Strategies on Writing Dynamics & Final Texts. Acta Psychologica, 188, 97-109.
  41. Locatelli, S., Ferreira., & Arroio, A. (2010). Metavisualization: An Important Skill in The Learning Chemistry. Problems of Education in the 21st Century. 24, 75-83.
  42. Maru, M.G., Nur, S. & Fergina, L. (2020). Applying Video for Writing Descriptive Text in Senior High School in The Covid-19 Pandemic Transition. International Journal of Language Education, 4(3), 408-419.
  43. McDermott, M. A. & H&, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry underst&ing. Instructional Science, 41, 217–246
  44. Meltzer, D.E. (2002). The Relationship between Mathematics Preparation & Conceptual Learning Gains in Physics : A Possible “Hidden Variable” in Diagnostic Pretest Scores. American Journal Physics, 70(12), 1259-1286.
  45. Mulyatiningsih, I., Suw&i, S., Setiawan, B., & Rohmadi, M. (2018). PARMI (Production, Attention, Retention, Motivation, & Innovation): An Alternative to Improving Scientific Writing Skills. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 317-321.
  46. Mulyono, Y., Sardimi., Ayatusa‟adah, & Lestariningsih, N. (2017). Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Mata Pelajaran Biologi Terintegrasi Keislaman Di Madrasah Aliyah (MA): Model Evaluasi CIPPO. Jurnal Transformatif (Islamic Studies), 1(2), 247-258.
  47. Nair, S.M. (2018). Effects of Utilizing The STAD Method (Cooperative Learning Approach) in Enhacing Students’ Deskriptive Writing Skills. International Journal of Education & Practice, 6(4), 239-252
  48. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academy.
  49. Nurdiyanti, D., Permanasari, A, Mulyani, S. & Hernani, N. (2019). Perceptions of prospective chemistry teachers about the skills of writing argument-based teaching material on voltaic cell subject. Journal Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(4), 1-6.
  50. Padmadewi, N. Y. & Artini, L.P. (2018). Using Scaffolding Strategis in Teaching Writing for Improving Student Literacy in Primary School. Advances in Social Science, Education & Humanities Research, 178, 156-160.
  51. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Motivation, & Achievement in Writing: A Review of The Literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
  52. Pangondian, R.A., Santosa, P.I., & Nugroho, E. (2019). Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kesuksesan Pembelajaran Daring dalam Revolusi Industri 4.0. Seminar Nasional Teknologi Komputer dan Sains, 56-60. https://seminar-id.com/semnas-sainteks2019.html
  53. Pendidikan Biologi (2016). Kurikulum Program Studi Pendidikan Biologi. Bandung: Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati.
  54. Peraturan Mentri Pendidikan Nasional No. 16 tahun 2007 mengenai Standar Kualifikasi Akademik dan Kompetensi Guru.
  55. Peraturan Pemerintah nomor 19 tahun 2017 mengenai Guru.
  56. Peraturan Pemerintah nomor 57 tahun 2021 Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
  57. Ridwan, A., Rahmawati, Y. & Hadinugrahaningsih, T. (2017). STEAM Integration in Chemistry Learning for Developing 21st Century Skills. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices, 7(2), 184-194.
  58. Sinaga, P. & Feranie, S. (2016). Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills & Writing Skills through the Variation in Non-Traditional Writing Task. International Journal of Instruction. 10(2), 69-84.
  59. Sinaga, P., Suhandi, A., & Liliasari (2015). The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Design in Training Writing Skills Physics Teaching Materials. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 19-34.
  60. Siregar, N. (1998). Penelitian Kelas: Teori, Metodologi, dan Analisis. Bandung: IKIP Bandung Press.
  61. Subandi, H.M. (2010). Mikrobiologi, Perkembangan, Kajian, dan Pengamatan dalam Perspektif Islam. B&ung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
  62. Subekti, H., Herawati, S., Ibrahim, Suwono, H., Martadi, Purnomo, A.R. (2019). Challenges & Expectations towards Information Literacy Skills: Voices from Teachers’ Training of Scientific Writing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching & Educational Research, 18(7), 99-114.
  63. Suprihatin D., Winarni, R., Saddhono, K., & Wardani, N.E. (2021). Scientific Approach to Promote Scientific Writing Skills Using Blended Learning System. Turkish Journal of Computer & Mathematics Education, 12(13), 762-769
  64. Tawil, M. & Liliasari (2018). Teori dan Implementasi Pembelajaran IPA. Makassar: Badan Penerbit Universitas Negeri Makassar.
  65. Timmerman, B. E.C., Strickland, D.C., Johnson, R.L., & Payne, J.R. (2011). Development of ‘Universal’ Rubrick for Assessing Undergraduates’ Scientific Reasoning Skills Using Scientific Writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 509-547.
  66. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The Processing Demands Of Writing. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerlad, J. (Eds.). (2006). H&book of Writing Research. New York: Guilford
  67. UNESCO (2017). Reading The Past, Writing The Future: Fifty Years of Promoting Literacy. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization.
  68. Vazquez, A. V., McLoughlin, K., Sabbagh, M., Runkle, A. C., Simon, J., Coppola, B. P. & Pazicni, S. (2012). Writing-to-Teach: A New Pedagogical Approach to Elicit Explanative Writing from Undergraduate Chemistry Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 1025-1031
  69. Widiyatmoko, A., & Pamelasari, S. D. (2012). Pembelajaran Berbasis Proyek Untuk Mengembangkan Alat Peraga IPA dengan Memanfaatkan Bahan Bekas Pakai. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 1(1), 51-56.
  70. Widodo, A. (2021). Pembelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Dasar-dasar Untuk Praktik. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indoensia Press.
  71. Widyaningrum & Diyah, A. (2016). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Proyek Untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas Belajar Mahasiswa pada Matakuliah Pengembangan Bahan Ajar. Jurnal Saintifika, 18(1), 1-7
  72. Winarni, J., Zubaidah, S. & Koes H. S. (2016). STEM: Apa, Mengapa, dan Bagaimana. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan IPA Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Malang, 1, 976-984. http://pasca.um.ac.id/
  73. WMI Consortium. (2019). Irawan et al (Eds.). Pengantar Wahyu Mem&u Ilmu. Jakarta: PT Rajagrafindo Persada.
  74. Yudianto, S.A. (2005). Manajemen Alam (Sains) Sumber Pendidikan Nilai. Bandung: Mughni Sejahtera.
  75. Zainul, A. (2001). Alternative Assesment. Universitas Terbuka: Jakarta.
  76. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM Literacy: STEM Literacy for Learning. School Science & Mathematics, 112 (1), 12-19.
  77. Zubaidah, S. (2019). STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, & Mathematics): Pembelajaran untuk Memberdayakan Keterampilan Abad ke-21. Conference Paper: Seminar Nasional Matematika dan Sains, Universitas Wiralodra Indramayu. 1-19. https://www.researchgate.net.