Peningkatan Pemahaman Sains, Coding, dan Robotik Berbasis STEM untuk Guru Matematika dan IPA SMP Kota Semarang
Abstract
Abstrak. Kegiatan ini dilatarbelakangi oleh guru Matematika dan IPA Kota Semarang yang belum pernah mengimplementasikan sains, coding, dan robotik berbasis STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic) pada pembelajaran. Padahal sains, coding dan robotik berbasis STEM merupakan pengetahuan dan keterampilan yang dapat mendukung keterampilan abad ke-21 dan era revolusi industri 4.0. Tujuan pengabdian ini adalah meningkatkan pemahaman sains, coding, dan robotik berbasis STEM untuk guru Matematika dan IPA Kota Semarang. Metode yang digunakan dalam kegiatan pengabdian ini adalah pemaparan materi oleh narasumber, praktik merancang robot sederhana dan pengkodingan melalui aplikasi, yakni Scratch for Arduino (S4A), serta sesi tanya jawab dan diskusi. Rata-rata pemahaman peserta pelatihan terhadap sains, coding, dan robotik berbasis STEM pada pretest adalah 49,71%, sedangkan pada postest adalah 83,94%. Sehingga, diperoleh N-gain sebesar 0,52 dengan kriteria sedang. Hasil tersebut mengandung arti bahwa terjadi peningkatan pemahaman peserta terhadap sains, coding, dan robotik berbasis STEM setelah diadakannya pelatihan. Peserta memiliki respon positif terhadap penyampaian materi pada pelatihan dengan skor rata-rata persentase sebesar 92,08%. Persentase tersebut mengandung arti bahwa pelatihan sains, coding, dan robotik berbasis STEM telah berlangsung dengan sangat baik.
Abstract. This activity was motivated by Mathematics and Science teachers in Semarang City who had never implemented STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic)-based science, coding, and robotics in learning. Whereas STEM-based science, coding and robotics are knowledge and skills that can support 21st century skills and the industrial revolution 4.0 era. The purpose of this training is to increase STEM-based understanding of science, coding, and robotics for Mathematics and Science teachers. The method used in this training is presentation of material by speakers, practice of designing simple robots and coding through applications, namely Scratch for Arduino (S4A), as well as question and answer sessions and discussions. The average understanding of the trainees on STEM-based science, coding, and robotics at the pretest was 49.71%, while at the posttest it was 83.94%. Thus, an N-gain of 0.52 is obtained with moderate criteria. These results imply that there was an increase in participants' understanding of STEM-based science, coding, and robotics after the training was held. Participants had a positive response to the delivery of material at the training with an average percentage score of 92.08%. This percentage means that the STEM-based science, coding and robotics training has been going very well.
References
Afriansyah, A., Sabar, S., & Harianto, D. (2023). Implementasi Pelatihan Perakitan Robotik Sederhana Terhadap Tingkat Kapasitas Tenaga Pengajar Sekolah Global Madani Bandar Lampung. Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Sakai Sambayan, 7(2), 86-91.
Arifudin, R., Setiawan, A., Abidin, Z., Efrilianda, D. A., & Jumanto, J. (2022). Pembelajaran STEM Berbasis Robotika Sederhana Bagi Guru Sekolah Dasar di Karimunjawa. ABDIMASKU: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 5(3), 570-578.
Asri, Y. N. (2018). Pembelajaran berbasis stem melalui pelatihan robotika. WaPFi (Wahana Pendidikan Fisika), 3(2), 74-78.
Atabey N, Topcu MS. (2021). The relationship between Turkish middle school students’ 21st century skills and STEM career interest: Gender effect. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(2):86-103.
Bedir H. (2019). Pre-service ELT teachers’ beliefs and perceptions on 21st century learning and innovation skills (4Cs). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 231-46.
Dishon G, Gilead T. (2021). Adaptability and its discontents: 21st-century skills and the preparation for an unpredictable future. British Journal of Educational Studies, 69(4):393-413.
El Nagdi M, Leammukda F, Roehrig G. (2018). Developing identities of STEM teachers at emerging STEM schools. International journal of STEM education, 5:1-3.
Erdoğan V. (2019). Integrating 4C skills of 21st century into 4 language skills in EFL classes.
Falloon G, Forbes A, Stevenson M, Bower M, Hatzigianni M. (2020). STEM in the making? Investigating STEM learning in junior school makerspaces. Research in Science Education, 1-27.
Faridawati, F., Minarto, E., Indarto, B., Bustomi, M. A., Puspitasari, N., Prayitno, G., & Wati, E. (2023). Pengembangan Kualitas Pendidikan SMP di Kalimantan Utara Melalui Pembelajaran Robotik Menggunakan Metode Action Learning STEM. Sewagati, 7(1), 91-97.
Jackson C, Mohr-Schroeder MJ, Bush SB, Maiorca C, Roberts T, Yost C, Fowler A. (2021). Equity-oriented conceptual framework for K-12 STEM literacy. International Journal of STEM Education, 8:1-6.
Jin Q. (2021). Supporting indigenous students in science and STEM education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 11(9):555.
Khoiri A, Komariah N, Utami RT, Paramarta V, Sunarsi D. (2021). 4Cs analysis of 21st century skills-based school areas. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, 1764 (1), 012142. IOP Publishing.
King NS, Pringle RM. (2019). Black girls speak STEM: Counterstories of informal and formal learning experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5):539-69.
Lavi R, Tal M, Dori YJ. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation.
Navy SL, Kaya F, Boone B, Brewster C, Calvelage K, Ferdous T, Hood E, Sass L, Zimmerman M. (2021). “Beyond an acronym, STEM is…”: Perceptions of STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 121(1):36-45.
Rahman M. (2019). 21st century skill'problem solving': Defining the concept. Rahman, MM (2019). 21st Century Skill “Problem Solving”: Defining the Concept. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(1), 64-74.
Rifandi R, Rahmi YL. (2019). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: a literature review. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, (Vol. 1317, No. 1, p. 012208). IOP Publishing.
Rusilowati A, Cahyono E. (2012). Pengembangan Model Pelatihan Berpendekatan Action Learning Berbasis Fasilitasi untuk Meningkatkan Profesionalisme Guru dalam Melaksanakan Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Laporan Penelitian. Semarang: LP2M UNNES.
Silber‐Varod V, Eshet‐Alkalai Y, Geri N. (2019). Tracing research trends of 21st‐century learning skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3099-118.
Suhendar, A. M., Ali, S., & Suratman, A. (2021). Membangun Berpikir Kreatif, Sistematis Dan Logis Matematis Melalui Pembelajaran Koding. Jurnal Perspektif, 5(2), 176-190.
Sulam K, Syakur A, Musyarofah L. (2019). The Implementation Of 21 St Century Skills As The New Learning Paradigm To The Result Of Student’s Career And Life Skills. Magister Scientiae, 2(46):228-37.
Tang KS, Williams PJ. (2019). STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education, 7(3):675-97.
Triana D, Anggraito YU, Ridlo S. (2020). Effectiveness of environmental change learning tools based on STEM-PjBL towards 4C skills of students. Journal of Innovative Science Education, 9(2):181-7.
Zhan X, Sun D, Wan ZH, Hua Y, Xu R. (2021). Investigating teacher perceptions of integrating engineering into science education in mainland China. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1397-420.
