Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Evaluation of STEM Integration in Science Teaching Materials: An Independent Curriculum Perspective

Dody Hermanto
Universitas Pakuan Bogor
Indonesia
diditardianto@unpak.ac.id
Didit Ardianto ORCID
Universitas Pakuan Bogor
Indonesia
Anna Permanasari ORCID
Universitas Pakuan Bogor
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to evaluate the level of integration of STEM components in the science teaching materials of the Independent Curriculum. The focus of the evaluation includes the dimension of integration between STEM disciplines as well as the relevance of the learning context to real-world problem solving.

    Methodology: The research uses a qualitative descriptive method, analyzing 31 science learning modules using the Bybee STEM evaluation model. Data were collected through document analysis with a focus on the variables of coordination, combination, and linkage of STEM disciplines.

    Main Findings: The results show that science is dominant as the main context (100%) with the integration rate of technology and mathematics at 77% and 61%. However, the engineering aspect is only integrated by 23%, indicating a lack of attention to engineering design.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This research provides new insights into the challenges of STEM implementation in Indonesia, especially in the context of developing balanced and comprehensive science teaching materials.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Evaluation of STEM Integration in Science Teaching Materials: An Independent Curriculum Perspective”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 122–126, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i1.1290.

    More Citation Formats

  • 643
    Abstract views
    393
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. A. Permanasari, B. Rubini, and O. F. Nugroho, “STEM education in Indonesia: Science Teachersâ€TM and Studentsâ€TM Perspectives,” J. Innov. Educ. Cult. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7–16, 2021, doi: 10.46843/jiecr.v2i1.24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v2i1.24
    2. E. A. Ring, E. A. Dare, E. A. Crotty, and G. H. Roehrig, “The evolution of teacher conceptions of STEM education throughout an intensive professional development experience,” J. Sci. Teacher Educ., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 444–467, 2017, doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
    3. D. Ardianto, T. Windiyani, I. R. Suwarma, K. Karmilasari, and N. Nurul, “Analysis of physics learning in elementary schools and the need for professional development: Is STEM education training necessary for elementary school teachers?,” Momentum Phys. Educ. J., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 84–94, 2024, doi: 10.21067/mpej.v8i1.9105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v8i1.9105
    4. B. Rubini, D. Ardianto, I. D. Pursitasari, and I. Permana, “Professional development model for science teachers based on scientific literacy,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 166, p. 012037, 2017, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/166/1/012037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/166/1/012037
    5. E. White and A. Shakibnia, “State of STEM: Defining the landscape to determine high-impact pathways for the future workforce,” Proc. Interdiscip. STEM Teach. Learn. Conf., vol. 3, no. 1, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.20429/stem.2019.030104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20429/stem.2019.030104
    6. D. Yabaş and T. Abanoz, “Integrated STEM Teaching: Innovative STEM training for preschool and primary school teachers,” J. Educ. Futur., no. 26, pp. 27–40, 2024, doi: 10.30786/jef.1404946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.1404946
    7. M. Ummah and N. Shofiyah, “Uncovering integrated STEM attitudes and dimensional correlations in education,” Indones. J. Educ. Methods Dev., vol. 19, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.21070/ijemd.v19i2.819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/ijemd.v19i2.819
    8. OECD, “Pisa 2025 Science Framework,” 2023, pp. 1–93, 2023.
    9. T. R. Kelley and J. G. Knowles, “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 11, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
    10. J. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications, 2014.
    11. R. W. Bybee, “The case for education: STEM challenges and opportunities,” NSTA (National Sci. Teach. Assocation), pp. 33–40, 2013.
    12. S. KHUT and K. Shimizu, “Integrating STEM Approach in K-12 science education teaching practice: A systematic literature review,” Int. J. Res. STEM Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.33830/ijrse.v5i2.1598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v5i2.1598
    13. V. R. Jones and T. Roberts, “STEM literacy in technology education,” 2024, pp. 73–84. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-1995-2_6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1995-2_6
    14. D. Sarıtaş, H. Özcan, and A. Adúriz-Bravo, “On the practice of integrated STEM education as ‘poiesis’,” STEM Educ. Rev., vol. 1, 2023, doi: 10.54844/stemer.2023.0408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54844/stemer.2023.0408