Empowering Student's Learning Involvement Through STEM Approach in Citizenship Education Learning in the New Normal Era
Abstract
This study identified the empowerment of student’s learning involvement through STEM approach in learning Citizenship Education during the New Normal era at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia and STKIP Pasundan, Cimahi. This study used quantitative and qualitative research procedures which undertook three steps: 1) preparing the use of the STEM approach in citizenship education learning; 2) implementing the STEM approach in citizenship education learning; and 3) reflecting the implementation of the STEM approach. The results showed that students had an awareness to learn, experience, and directly experience themselves. Learning was carried out concretely as well as by developing cooperative attitudes in students. In addition, 30% of the empowerment of students’ learning involvement in visual activities was conducted in the form of reading, viewing images, observing experiments, and demonstrations, while 50% of oral activities (i.e., expressing opinions, connecting an event, asking questions, and giving suggestions), and 20% of writing activities (i.e., writing reports, making outlines or summaries, and doing tests). This article concludes that student learning involvement through a stem approach in civic education learning is in an effort to produce quality cognitive, psychomotor, and affective human resources. The STEM approach used in civic education learning can ultimately increase the activeness and attitude of student involvement.
Keywords: empowering student’s, learning involvement, STEM approach, in citizenship education learning, new normal era
References
[1] Hoffman KS, Barragan Torres M, Wotipka CM. “Cross-national variation in school reopening measures during the covid-19 pandemic.,” AERA Open. vol. 7, no. 1, p. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211010180.
[2] Madhok A. Globalization, de-globalization, and re-globalization: some historical context and the impact of the covid pandemic. Bus Res Q. 2021;24(3):199–203.
[3] Williams ML, Morse BL, DeGraffenried W, McAuliffe DL. Addressing stress in high school students during the covid-19 pandemic. NASN Sch Nurse. 2021 Jul;36(4):226– 32.
[4] Sullivan E, Brey L, Soleimanpour S. School-based health center operations during the covid-19 pandemic: a preliminary study. Health Promot Pract. 2021 Sep;22(5):616–21.
[5] Tremmel P, Myers R, Brunow DA, Hott BL. Educating students with disabilities during the covid-19 pandemic: lessons learned from commerce independent school district. Rural Spec Educ Q. 2020;39(4):201–10.
[6] Shamir-Inbal T, Blau I. Facilitating emergency remote K-12 teaching in computingenhanced virtual learning environments during covid-19 Pandemic - blessing or curse? J Educ Comput Res. 2021;59(7):1243–71.
[7] Collins KH. Confronting color-blind STEM talent development: toward a contextual model for black student STEM identity. J Adv Academics. 2018;29(2):143–68.
[8] Kim C, Yuan J, Kim D, Doshi P, Thai CN, Hill RB, et al. Studying the usability of an intervention to promote teachers’ use of robotics in STEM education. J Educ Comput Res. 2017;56(8):1179–212.
[9] Daniel KL, Mishra C. Student outcomes from participating in an international STEM service-learning course. SAGE Open. 2017;7(1):2158244017697155.
[10] Plasman JS, Gottfried MA. Applied STEM coursework, high school dropout rates, and students with learning disabilities. Educ Policy. 2016;32(5):664–96.
[11] Stoeger H, Greindl T, Kuhlmann J, Balestrini DP. The learning and educational capital of male and female students in STEM magnet schools and in extracurricular STEM programs: a study in high-achiever-track secondary schools in Germany. J Educ Gift. 2017;40(4):394–416.
[12] Collins MA, Totino J, Hartry A, Romero VF, Pedroso R, Nava R. Service-learning as a lever to support STEM engagement for underrepresented youth. J Experiential Educ. 2019;43(1):55–70.
[13] Lajoie S, Poitras E. Crossing disciplinary boundaries to improve technology-rich learning environments. Teach Coll Rec. 2017;119(3):1–30.
[14] Berglas-Shapiro T, Eylon BS, Scherz Z. A technology-enhanced intervention for selfregulated learning in science. Teach Coll Rec. 2017;119(13):1–26.
[15] Wang Q, Peng Y, Wang H. A curation activity-based self-regulated learning promotion approach as scaffolding to improving learners’ performance in STEM courses. J Educ Comput Res. 2021;60(4):843–76.
[16] Puslednik L, Brennan PC. An Australian-based authentic science research programme transforms the 21st century learning of rural high school students. Aust J Educ. 2020;64(2):98–112.
[17] Donovan L, Green TD, Mason C. Examining the 21st century classroom: developing an innovation configuration map. J Educ Comput Res. 2014;50(2):161–78.
[18] Calamlam JM. The development of 21st-century e-learning module assessment tool. J Educ Technol Syst. 2020;49(3):289–309.
[19] Hidayah Y, Sapriy C. Darmawan, E. Malihah, and E. Karliani, “Promoting civic intelligence in applied science to promote interaction between science: an overview in the perspective of citizenship education.,”. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020;8(8):3782–91.
[20] Trihastuti M. “Model konseptual civic enterpreneurship melalui koperasi mahasiswa dalam membina kemandirian ekonomi di era digital,” (2021).
[21] DEWI DA. “Pengembangan model pembelajaran project citizen berbasis digital untuk peningkatan civic literacy siswa SMP era kewarganegaraan digital,” (2021).
[22] Yuen TW. Civic education stuck in a quagmire: A critical review of civic education in Hong Kong? Citizenship, Social and Economics Education. 2016;15(2):69–82.
[23] Hahn CL. Comparative civic education: an introduction. Res Comp Int Educ. 2015;10(1):3–6.
[24] Young VM, House A, Sherer D, Singleton C, Wang H, Klopfenstein K. Scaling up STEM academies statewide: implementation, network supports, and early outcomes. Teach Coll Rec. 2016;118(13):1–26.
[25] Tseng TH, Tai Y, Tsai SP, Ting YL. Students’ self-authoring mobile app for integrative learning of STEM. Int J Electr Eng Educ. 2018;:0020720918800438.
[26] Creswell JW. Research design : pendekatan metode kualitatif, kuantitatif dan campuran. Edisi Keempat (Cetakan Kesatu). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar; 2016.
[27] Sugiyono, Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta, Bandung, 2011.
[28] Bahtiar W. Metodologi penelitian dakwah. Jakarta: Logos; 2001.
[29] Yu H, Abdullah A, Saat RM. Overcoming time and ethical constraints in the qualitative data collection process: A case of information literacy research. J Librarian Inform Sci. 2014;46(3):243–57.
[30] Hicks A, Lloyd A. Reaching into the basket of doom: learning outcomes, discourse and information literacy. J Librarian Inform Sci. 2022;55(2):282–98.
[31] Wajid HA, Chattha HT, Khawaja BA, Al Ahmadi S. An automated continuous quality improvement framework for failing student outcomes based on mathematics weaknesses. Int J Electr Eng Educ. 2020;60(3):273–88.
[32] Landon AC, Tarrant MA, Rubin DL, Stoner L. Beyond ‘just do it’: fostering higher-order learning outcomes in short-term study abroad. AERA Open. 2017;3(1):1–7.
[33] Bowe SN, Laury AM, Kepchar JJ, Lospinoso J. Programmatic assessment of a comprehensive quality improvement curriculum in an otolaryngology residency. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Nov;155(5):729–32.
[34] Woodland RH. Evaluating PK–12 professional learning communities: an improvement science perspective. Am J Eval. 2016;37(4):505–21.
[35] Koh JH, Chai CS, Lim WY. Teacher professional development for TPACK-21CL: effects on teacher ict integration and student outcomes. J Educ Comput Res. 2016;55(2):172–96.
[36] Bredow CA, Roehling PV, Knorp AJ, Sweet AM. To flip or not to flip? a meta-analysis of the efficacy of flipped learning in higher education. Rev Educ Res. 2021;91(6):878– 918.
[37] Pawlowsky S, Ryan TG. The 21st-century school library: perpetual change or evolution? Int J Educ Reform. 2016;25(1):38–55.
[38] Robberts AS, Van Ryneveld L. Design principles for introducing 21st century skills by means of game-based learning. Ind High Educ. 2022;36(6):824–34.
[39] Rodriguez F, Kataoka S, Janet Rivas M, Kadandale P, Nili A, Warschauer M. Do spacing and self-testing predict learning outcomes? Active Learn High Educ. 2018;22(1):77–91.
[40] Gedeon SA, Valliere D. Closing the loop: measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to assess student learning outcomes. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy. 2018;1(4):272–303.
[41] Nkhoma M, Sriratanaviriyakul N, Le Quang H. Using case method to enrich students’ learning outcomes. Active Learn High Educ. 2017;18(1):37–50.
[42] Elde Mølstad C, Karseth B. National curricula in Norway and Finland: the role of learning outcomes. Eur Educ Res J. 2016;15(3):329–44.
[43] Pfund RA, Norcross JC, Hailstorks R, Stamm KE, Christidis P. Introduction to psychology. Teach Psychol. 2018;45(3):213–9.
[44] Komba AA. Educational accountability relationships and students’ learning outcomes in Tanzania’s public schools. SAGE Open. 2017;7(3):2158244017725795.
[45] Kushwaha P, Rao MK. Integrating the linkages between learning systems and knowledge process: an exploration of learning outcomes. Bus Perspect Res. 2016;5(1):11–23.
[46] Kyndt E, Gijbels D, Grosemans I, Donche V. Teachers’ everyday professional development: mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Rev Educ Res. 2016;86(4):1111–50.
[47] Ding H, Chen A. Instructional and learning outcomes in China and the USA as policy implications. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2017;25(1):21–34.
[48] Mayer B, Blume A, Black C, Stevens S. Improving student learning outcomes through community-based research: the poverty workshop. Teach Sociol. 2018;47(2):135–47.
[49] Chow JC. Collaboration to support language and learning outcomes for students with disabilities. Interv Sch Clin. 2022;58(3):143–5.
[50] Van der Kleij FM, Feskens RC, Eggen TJ. Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2015;85(4):475–511.
[51] Lombardi D, Shipley TF, Bailey JM, et al. The curious construct of active learning. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2021;22(1):8–43.