Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

­The Scientific Approach of The Indonesian 2013 Curriculum: A Comparison with OtherActive Learning Strategies in Mathematics

Rosida Rakhmawati Muhammad 1 * ,
Duncan Lawson 1,
Farzana Aslam 1,
Megan Crawford 1
1 Coventry University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2022, pp. 155-171
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 855 DOWNLOADS: 637 Publication date: 15 May 2022
ABSTRACT
The Indonesian 2013 curriculum is an improvement on the previous curriculum, namely the Education Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP). The implementation of the 2013 curriculum strongly emphasizes a Scientific Approach with student-centred learning to prepare Indonesian citizens to have the ability to live as individuals and citizens who are productive, creative, and innovative. The Scientific Approach is a learning process designed so that students actively construct concepts and principles through the stages of observing, asking, exploring, associating, and communicating. The purpose of this study is to compare the principles of the Scientific Approach of the 2013 curriculum with four different active learning strategies, namely Discovery Learning (DL); Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL); Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Realistic Mathematics Education (RME). The result of this study is the recommendation of a dynamic modification of the Scientific Approach in the 2013 curriculum.
KEYWORDS
Scientific Approach, Discovery Learning, Inquiry-Based Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Realistic Mathematics Education
CITATION (APA)
Muhammad, R. R., Lawson, D., Aslam, F., & Crawford, M. (2022). ­The Scientific Approach of The Indonesian 2013 Curriculum: A Comparison with OtherActive Learning Strategies in Mathematics. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.523
REFERENCES
  1. Abdalla, M., & Gaffar, A. M. (2011). The seven steps of PBL implementation: Tutor’s manual. Abdelrahim Mutwakel Gaffar.
  2. Aulia, E. V., Poedjiastoeti, S., & Agustini, R. (2018). The Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry-based Learning Material on Students’ Science Literacy Skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012049
  3. Barnes, H. (2005). The theory of Realistic Mathematics Education as a theoretical framework for teaching low attainers in mathematics. Pythagoras, 2005(61), 42–57.
  4. Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2007). Deal with modelling problems. Mathematical Modelling: Education, Engineering and Economics-ICTMA, 12, 222.
  5. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. The MIT Press.
  6. DeVito, A. (1989). Creative wellsprings for science teaching. Creative Ventures. https://archive.org/details/creativewellspri0000devi
  7. Dimas Anjar Sasmita, Evie Awuy, & Muh. Rizal. (2018). Penerapan Pendekatan Scientific Dalam Model Pembelajaran Inquiry Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Luas Permukaan Dan Volume Limas Di Kelas Viii B Smp Negeri 1 PALU. Aksioma, 7(1 SE-), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.22487/aksioma.v7i1.179
  8. Edmund, N. W. (1994). The General Pattern of the Scientific Method (SM-14). Second Student Edition [microform] / Norman W. Edmund. Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED393871
  9. Fayombo, G. A. (2012). Active learning strategies and student learning outcomes among some university students in Barbados. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(9), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2012.v2n9p79
  10. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1–5.
  11. Gorghiu, G., Drăghicescu, L. M., Cristea, S., Petrescu, A.-M., & Gorghiu, L. M. (2015). Problem-based learning-an efficient learning strategy in the science lessons context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1865–1870.
  12. Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24.
  13. Haryani, E., Cobern, W. W., & Pleasants, B. A. (2019). Indonesia vocational high school science teachers’ priorities regarding 21st Century Learning Skills in their science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.
  14. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
  15. In’am, A., & Hajar, S. (2017). Learning Geometry through Discovery Learning Using a Scientific Approach. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 55–70.
  16. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.
  17. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
  18. Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-Based Learning in Middle and High School Classrooms: A Teacher′ s Guide to Implementation. Corwin Press.
  19. Ministry of Education and Culture: Permendikbud. (2016). Permendikbud RI Nomor 22 tahun 2016 tentang Standar Proses Kurikulum Dasar dan Menengah. JDIH Kemendikbud.
  20. Ministry of Education and Culture: Kemendikbud. (2018). Modul Manajemen Implementasi kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
  21. Ministry of Education and Culture: Kemendikbud. (2013). Dokumen kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
  22. Muhammad, M., & Nurdyansyah, N. (2015). Pendekatan pembelajaran saintifik. Sidoarjo. Nizamia Learning Center. ISBN: 978-602-72376-0-5
  23. Mulyasa, E. (2014). Guru dalam implementasi kurikulum 2013. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya Offset. ISBN: 978-979-692-447-9
  24. Nugraha, I. S., & Suherdi, D. (2017). Scientific approach: an english learning-teaching (ELT) approach in the 2013 curriculum. Journal of English and Education, 5(2), 112–119.
  25. OECD. (2019). Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018. Oecd, 1–10. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-iii_bd69f805-en%0Ahttps://www.oecd-ilibrary.org//sites/bd69f805-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/bd69f805-en#fig86
  26. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
  27. Permendikbud. (2018). Permendikbud RI Nomor 37 tahun 2018 tentang Perubahan atas Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 24 tahun 2016 tentang Kompetensi Inti dan Kompetensi Dasar Pelajaran pada Kurikulum 2013 pada Pendidikan Dasar dan Pendidikan Menengah. JDIH Kemendikbud, 2025, 1–527.
  28. Rahayu, E., Palobo, M., Nurhayati, N., Riyana, M., & Johanis, D. (2018). Penerapan Pendekatan Scientific Dengan Model Problem Based Learning Untuk Meningkatkan Sikap Dan Prestasi Belajar Matematika Siswa Smp Negeri 9 Merauke. Magistra: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 5(1 SE-Articles). https://doi.org/10.35724/magistra.v5i1.719
  29. Sabina, F. (2019). Penerapan Discovery Learning Dengan Pendekatan Scientific Dalam Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemahaman Konsep dan Kemampuan Penalaran Matematis serta Dampaknya Terhadap Self Regulated Learning Siswa SMP. Jurnal Madani: Ilmu Pengetahuan, Teknologi, Dan Humaniora, 2(2 SE-Articles). https://doi.org/10.33753/madani.v2i2.52
  30. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77(1), 20–26.
  31. Sumirattana, S., Makanong, A., & Thipkong, S. (2017). Using realistic mathematics education and the DAPIC problem-solving process to enhance secondary school students’ mathematical literacy. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(3), 307–315.
  32. Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94(1), 29–47.
  33. Tong, D. H., Nguyen, T.-T., Phuong, B., Kim, L., Khanh, L. T., & Tinh, P. T. (2022). Realistic Mathematics Education’s Effect on Students’ Performance and Attitudes: A Case of Ellipse Topics Learning . European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.403
  34. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, xiii–xxiii.
  35. Wibowo, A. (2017). Pengaruh pendekatan pembelajaran matematika realistik dan saintifik terhadap prestasi belajar, kemampuan penalaran matematis dan minat belajar. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v4i1.10066
  36. Widiyatmoko, A., & Shimizu, K. (2018). An overview of conceptual understanding in science education curriculum in Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012044
  37. Wu, S.-C., & Lin, F.-L. (2016). Inquiry-based mathematics curriculum design for young children-teaching experiment and reflection. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(4), 843–860.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.