Article Sidebar

Published
Dec 4, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 199 Download : 122

Main Article Content

Abstract

In the context of the 21st century, the landscape of science education in Indonesia has undergone significant transformations, driven by technological advancements and evolving pedagogical approaches. This study aims to explore these developments, focusing on the current trends and challenges faced by educators and learners in the field of science education. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research integrates both quantitative and qualitative data, including surveys of science educators and students, interviews with educational experts, and analysis of educational policy documents. This comprehensive methodology allows for a nuanced understanding of the state of science education in Indonesia, encompassing perspectives from various stakeholders. The findings reveal a paradigm shift towards more interactive and technology-integrated teaching methods, highlighting an increased emphasis on developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills among students. However, challenges such as unequal access to technological resources, varying levels of teacher preparedness for new teaching modalities, and the need for curriculum updates to reflect contemporary scientific advancements are prominent. The study concludes that while there is a positive trend towards more dynamic and engaging science education in Indonesia, addressing these challenges is crucial for ensuring equitable and effective science education for all students in the 21st century. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers, educators, and curriculum developers in enhancing the quality and relevance of science education in Indonesia.

Keywords

Science Education the 21st Century Evolution

Article Details

References

  1. Adams, E. L. (2021). The effect of a middle grades STEM initiative on students’ cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100983. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100983
  2. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning : the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
  3. Alanazi, A. (2016). A Critical Review of Constructivist Theory and the Emergence of Constructionism. American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, March. https://doi.org/10.21694/2378-7031.16018
  4. Alghamdi, N. S., & Alghamdi, S. M. (2022). The Role of Digital Technology in Curbing COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8287. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148287
  5. Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2023). Do voters prefer educated candidates? How candidate education influences vote choice in congressional elections. Electoral Studies, 82, 102596. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102596
  6. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654.
  7. Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Hayfield, N. (2022). ‘A starting point for your journey, not a map’: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(2), 424–445.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 2, 45–68.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
  11. Drugova, E., Zhuravleva, I., Aiusheeva, M., & Grits, D. (2022). Toward a model of learning innovation integration: TPACK-SAMR based analysis of the introduction of a digital learning environment in three Russian universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4925–4942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10514-2
  12. Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2016). The Public Administration Theory Primer. Westview Press Published. https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004
  13. Galvis, Á. H., & Carvajal, D. (2022). Learning from success stories when using eLearning and bLearning modalities in higher education: a meta-analysis and lessons towards digital educational transformation. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00325-x
  14. Ifenthaler, D., & Hofhues, S. (2021). Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations.
  15. Jabbar, A., Gasser, R. B., & Lodge, J. (2016). Can New Digital Technologies Support Parasitology Teaching and Learning? Trends in Parasitology, 32(7), 522–530. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2016.04.004
  16. Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2023). Makerspace and robotics as/for STEM education (R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. B. T.-I. E. of E. (Fourth E. Ercikan (eds.); pp. 103–111). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.13034-9
  17. Kools, M., Stoll, L., George, B., Steijn, B., Bekkers, V., & Gouëdard, P. (2020). The school as a learning organisation: The concept and its measurement. European Journal of Education, 55(1), 24–42.
  18. Kwan, W. L., Dorasamy, M., Bin Ahmad, A. A., Jayabalan, J., Kumar, P., & Subermaniam, L. (2021). Digital taxation to promote frugal innovation in institutions of higher learning: a three-decade systematic literature review. F1000Research, 10, 1055. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73318.2
  19. McCabe, C., Patel, K. D., Fletcher, S., Winters, N., Sheaf, G., Varley, J., & McCann, M. (2021). Online interprofessional education related to chronic illness for health professionals: a scoping review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 35(3), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1749575
  20. Patton, G. W. (2021). Public Safety: Fighting Crime and Terrorism; Border Security (E. B. T.-E. of N. E. Greenspan (ed.); pp. 528–536). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12332-2
  21. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. In Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Wiley Online Library.
  22. So, W. W., & Guo, C. (2023). Community engagement in STEM education (R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. B. T.-I. E. of E. (Fourth E. Ercikan (eds.); pp. 234–243). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.13006-4
  23. Sun, H., Yuan, C., Qian, Q., He, S., & Luo, Q. (2022). Digital Resilience Among Individuals in School Education Settings: A Concept Analysis Based on a Scoping Review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 858515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.858515
  24. Synnott, J., Harkin, M., Horgan, B., McKeown, A., Hamilton, D., McAllister, D., Trainor, C., & Nugent, C. (2020). The Digital Skills, Experiences and Attitudes of the Northern Ireland Social Care Workforce Toward Technology for Learning and Development: Survey Study. JMIR Medical Education, 6(2), e15936. https://doi.org/10.2196/15936
  25. Tanniru, M. R., Agarwal, N., Sokan, A., & Hariri, S. (2021). An Agile Digital Platform to Support Population Health—A Case Study of a Digital Platform to Support Patients with Delirium Using IoT, NLP, and AI. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115686
  26. Vallejo-Huanga, D., Morillo, P., & Ferri, C. (2019). A dataset of attributes from papers of a machine learning conference. Data in Brief, 24, 103836. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.103836
  27. Vidal, I. M. G. (2022). Architectures of contemporary digital platforms in education: analysis of exclusion processes. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00887-7
  28. Wu, H.-L. (2010). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced science education. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, May, 145. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004